"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructiona...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ieb2ng$2u3...@digitalmars.com... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> that's *proof* of how horrid JS is > > I often feel Google is re-discovering DOS' capabilities and going on about > how > great it is. Got it in graphics and input, and files too. >
Yea, I feel like I'm one of the few people in the software world that was actually into software throughout the whole 90's, and actually used things like the Apple II (Apple's only good product line ever, IMNSHO). Things go in circles, and it's so frustrating to see things veer off into a brink wall while people like us are left screaming "WTF are you thinking?!" to a deaf audience, only to *eventually* see some of those same drunkards finally begin to get a tiny glint of clarity, at which point we're just shaking our heads going "See, I fucking *told* you so", which, again is ignored by the idiots who think they've invented exactly what we've been fruitlessly preaching all along. > HTML5 local storage is a bunch of key/item pairs. Wooo, it's like a > filesystem > with only a root directory! > I don't know how I feel about that: I'd hate to see HTML5 end up repeating Flash's SuperCookies. >> I'm sure as hell not going to be one of >> those "This site best viewed with X browser" assholes. > > I might be one of those people, though I don't come out and say it, my > sites do > tend to be best viewed with X browser. > > But the important difference is it still *works* in Y and Z browser. It > just won't > have rounded corners, etc. Well, yea, that's just cosmetic irrelevancies. But if something's built for chrome, and then runs on other browsers like a GameBoy-powered streaming-HD-video server, and breaks entirely with JS off (there's a lot of good reasons to have JS off), then that's rather a different story.
