On 03/13/2012 03:15 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
That's not even an accurate comparison anyway. Disabling CSS never does much
to improve things, and usually it'll just make things *far* worse.
I disable CSS frequently in Mozilla: View - Page Style - No Style.
This fixes a lot of annoying
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:50:38 -0400, Era Scarecrow rtcv...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Let's assume you make a site for power users, those who want to buy
computer parts and books and related stuff like that. Now if you require
JS to have it run, and all the power users refuse to use JS, you've just
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:37:24AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]
Yea, there's a lot of things that are much better done in CSS that a
lot of people don't even know about. For example, most rollovers are
easily doable in pure CSS. But there's a lot stuff out there
(paricularly things
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.601.1331619011.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:37:24AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]
Yea, there's a lot of things that are much better done in CSS that a
lot of people don't even know about.
On 03/13/2012 02:14 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:35:54PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jonathan M Davisjmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.572.1331601463.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
[...]
All I'm saying is that if it makes sense for the web developer
On 03/13/2012 01:52 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Ary Manzanaa...@esperanto.org.ar wrote in message
news:jjmhja$3a$2...@digitalmars.com...
On 03/12/2012 10:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The problem today is that JS is the next cool thing, so everyone is
jumping on the bandwagon, and everything from
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 12:22:00 UTC, Ary Manzana wrote:
But if people didn't have an option to disable JS, we wouldn't
have this discussion. I think it as having an option to disable
CSS.
You can disable css :P
Keeping your site working without css is a lot harder IMO
than doing the
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 05:38:44 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
OTOH, I don't like CSS drop-down menus. Maybe it's different in
CSS3, but in CSS2 the only way to make CSS menus work is for
them
to open upon rollover, not click.
Yeah, the way I do it is with a hybrid approach:
Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote in message
news:jjne58$1ouf$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 03/13/2012 02:14 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:35:54PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jonathan M Davisjmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote in message
news:jjne58$1ouf$1...@digitalmars.com...
But if people didn't have an option to disable JS, we wouldn't have this
discussion. I think it as having an option to disable CSS.
That's not even an accurate comparison anyway. Disabling CSS never
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jjo65v$305$1...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote in message
news:jjne58$1ouf$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 03/13/2012 02:14 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:35:54PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jonathan M
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jjmmh3$9jb$1...@digitalmars.com...
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:oxkxtvkuybdommyer...@forum.dlang.org...
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 04:24:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
2. On the web, animation means JS.
css3
On 3/13/12 12:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Another thing is Flash. Almost *everyone* uses JS to embed flash. But *it's
not needed*! I embed Flash with pure HTML and it works perfectly fine. Don't
even need any server-side code!
I thought that using JS to load Flash was to avoid Eolas
David Gileadi gilea...@nspmgmail.com wrote in message
news:jjo7vn$648$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 3/13/12 12:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Another thing is Flash. Almost *everyone* uses JS to embed flash. But
*it's
not needed*! I embed Flash with pure HTML and it works perfectly fine.
Don't
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:42:47PM -0700, David Gileadi wrote:
On 3/13/12 12:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Another thing is Flash. Almost *everyone* uses JS to embed flash. But
*it's not needed*! I embed Flash with pure HTML and it works
perfectly fine. Don't even need any server-side code!
On 2012-03-11 20:55, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Mobile sites have traditionally required less-fancy implementations, so it's
not unreasonable to think that some sites would use their mobile version
*as* their low-tech fallback version. That's becoming less and less true
these days, of course. But
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:41:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
think
they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly implemented
hack
(which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing with *cough* old
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:06:40 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Insert obligatory link: http://drdobbs.com/184401197
Very insightful article.
Interesting point to make about D, however. It's really *difficult* to
make related non-member non-friend functions,
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 00:18:31 -0500, Daniel Murphy
yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote:
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jjh9uh$1vto$1...@digitalmars.com...
My understanding is that the *only* thing preventing vitrual template
functions is the possibility of pre-compiled closed-source
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wa1432xjeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:41:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
think
they tried to do some highly misguided and
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wa1432xjeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
You may want to consider -- if you on principle don't view pages with
information because the pages contain JS, you are the one missing out on
the information.
And it's not on
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wa16bibneav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 00:06:40 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
Insert obligatory link: http://drdobbs.com/184401197
Very insightful article.
Interesting
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:27:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wa1432xjeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:41:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
You know what I think it is (without actually looking at
It could be that they don't care to cater to people who hate
JS. There
aren't that many of you.
There are enough.
Apparently not.
http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:19:49 -0400, Era Scarecrow rtcv...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Apparently not.
http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who have JS
disabled.
I use NoScript, so
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wa2pimkxeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:27:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wa1432xjeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Sat, 10 Mar
On 3/12/12 6:02 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Does nobody understand basic statistics?
I don't see evidence they don't.
First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be fooled by the
seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a *very* large
population. So 1-2% is
On Monday, 12 March 2012 at 23:04:17 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Does nobody understand basic statistics?
First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be
fooled by the
seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a
*very* large
population. So 1-2% is still *huge*.
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jjlvdh$1to3$1...@digitalmars.com...
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wa2pimkxeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:27:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:jjm057$1val$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 3/12/12 6:02 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Does nobody understand basic statistics?
I don't see evidence they don't.
First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be
David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at wrote in message
news:zlzlrudlbyiwwmgqq...@forum.dlang.org...
Besides, I am totally in favor of not needlessly required JS, but it does
have its legitimate uses.
*Using* it is fine as long as you don't go overboard. The issue is
*requiring* it when it
David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at wrote in message
news:zlzlrudlbyiwwmgqq...@forum.dlang.org...
Stats are pretty much the same (98.5% among ~1 »unique« visitors over
the last months) for my programming-centric blog, where I added a non-JS
tracking pixel precisely because I was
On Monday, 12 March 2012 at 23:23:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
at the end of the day, you're still saying fuck you to
millions of people.
...for little to no reason. It's not like making 99% of
sites work without javascript takes *any* effort.
Indeed, going without javascript is often
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:npkazdoslxiuqxiin...@forum.dlang.org...
On Monday, 12 March 2012 at 23:23:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
at the end of the day, you're still saying fuck you to millions of
people.
...for little to no reason. It's not like making
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 00:27:26 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2012 at 23:23:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
at the end of the day, you're still saying fuck you to
millions of people.
...for little to no reason. It's not like making 99% of
sites work without javascript takes
In the case of my web apps, they do *not* pull JS from other
sites. I understand and sympathize with your rationale. It's
just not enough, however, to make web developers who want their
site to appear a certain way care about the market share that
your opinion represents. I'm perfectly
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But that's a decision based on your needs as a website
developer. If JS best suits whatever the needs of a particular
website developer are, then they are completely justified in
using it,
because 99% of the people out there
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 01:50:29 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But that's a decision based on your needs as a website
developer. If JS best suits whatever the needs of a particular
website developer are, then they are completely
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:17:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 01:50:29 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But that's a decision based on your needs as a website developer.
If JS best suits whatever the
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jjm0c8$1vk8$1...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jjlvdh$1to3$1...@digitalmars.com...
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wa2pimkxeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
No, it *is* the point.
On 13 March 2012 14:58, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:17:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 01:50:29 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But that's a decision based on your
Era Scarecrow rtcv...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:kbvwixcrdcgakjigj...@forum.dlang.org...
This situation (where payphones were obsolete) existed long before the
smartphone craze.
Perhaps... I may be giving up my cell phone and having no phone
connection. I'd buy a phone card soon,
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.572.1331601463.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 01:50:29 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But that's a decision based on your needs as a
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:pfaikhejyfjpbpwwq...@forum.dlang.org...
Then, he asked for a partial ajax load thing. Turns out that's
trivially easy too. On the client:
That reminds me: Trendy web people seem to be a bit schizophrenic (I can't
believe I
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.575.1331603803.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
(And for the record, I don't own [a TV], and do not plan to. I know I'm in
the minority.
I can somewhat relate: I have a TV, but I rarely watch broadcast programming
anymore,
James Miller ja...@aatch.net wrote in message
news:mailman.576.1331604546.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
The phrase in web development is Progressive enhancement that used
to be all the rage at one point. I miss those days...
Heh. :) So true...
I miss the days when having animations on a
On 13 March 2012 15:48, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
James Miller ja...@aatch.net wrote in message
news:mailman.576.1331604546.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
The phrase in web development is Progressive enhancement that used
to be all the rage at one point. I miss those days...
Heh. :)
On 03/12/2012 08:32 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Adam D. Ruppedestructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:npkazdoslxiuqxiin...@forum.dlang.org...
On Monday, 12 March 2012 at 23:23:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
at the end of the day, you're still saying fuck you to millions of
people.
On 03/12/2012 10:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:17:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 01:50:29 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But that's a decision based on your needs as a website
James Miller ja...@aatch.net wrote in message
news:mailman.581.1331607750.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 13 March 2012 15:48, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
James Miller ja...@aatch.net wrote in message
news:mailman.576.1331604546.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
The phrase in web
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 04:24:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
2. On the web, animation means JS.
css3 does animations that are pretty easy to use,
degrade well, and tend to be fast. Moreover css
is where it belongs anyway - it is pure presentation.
Far, far superior to the JS crap.
On 13 March 2012 17:23, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
1. Such animations need to be *FAST*. We're talking roughly 250ms max
(probably even less, but I'd have to play around with it to refresh my
memory). Most UI animations are slower than this (particularly on the web -
although many DVDs are
On 03/13/2012 01:29 AM, James Miller wrote:
On 13 March 2012 17:07, Ary Manzanaa...@esperanto.org.ar wrote:
On 03/12/2012 08:32 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Adam D. Ruppedestructiona...@gmail.comwrote in message
news:npkazdoslxiuqxiin...@forum.dlang.org...
On Monday, 12 March 2012 at
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 04:07:08 UTC, Ary Manzana wrote:
The implementation is straightforward (much more if I use
something like knockoutjs): I post the comment to the server
via javascript and on the callback, turn that editing comment
into a definitive comment.
It is *equally*
Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote in message
news:jjmhja$3a$2...@digitalmars.com...
On 03/12/2012 10:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The problem today is that JS is the next cool thing, so everyone is
jumping on the bandwagon, and everything from a single-page personal
website to a list of
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:27:27AM +0100, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 04:24:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
2. On the web, animation means JS.
css3 does animations that are pretty easy to use,
degrade well, and tend to be fast. Moreover css
is where it belongs anyway -
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:35:54PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.572.1331601463.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
[...]
All I'm saying is that if it makes sense for the web developer to
use javascript given what they're
On 13 March 2012 17:31, Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote:
Ideally, you don't have to detect for javascript, you just have to
*shock horror* code to web standards.
--
James Miller
But the non-javascript version is a worse user experience, and it's less
efficient. Why not make it
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:13:53PM +1300, James Miller wrote:
[...]
This isn't some JS vs NoJS debate, this is JS-only vs Progressive
Enhancement. And for the record, GMail has a HTML-only version, and
most of the other products work, if with reduced functionality,
without javascript. I just
Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote in message
news:jjmiip$2c2$1...@digitalmars.com...
But the non-javascript version is a worse user experience, and it's less
efficient. Why not make it well from scratch?
Because it's trivially easy to do, and it *is* a better experience than: a
user
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:oxkxtvkuybdommyer...@forum.dlang.org...
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 04:24:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
2. On the web, animation means JS.
css3 does animations that are pretty easy to use,
degrade well, and tend to be fast.
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.454.1331448329.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:14:26PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.447.1331426602.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Daniel Murphy yebbl...@nospamgmail.com wrote in message
news:jjhcj8$25sv$1...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jjh9uh$1vto$1...@digitalmars.com...
My understanding is that the *only* thing preventing vitrual template
functions is the possibility of
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.453.1331446837.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:31:47PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.436.1331412193.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 11/03/2012 09:15, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Written on someone's tombstone: I *told* you I was sick!
Spike Milligan's epitaph reads Duirt mé leat go raibh mé breoite,
Irish for I told you I was ill.
A...
On 2012-03-10 20:41, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I think
they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly implemented hack
(which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing with *cough* old
*cough* browsers by
On 2012-03-10 21:27, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:41:53PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]
You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
think they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly
implemented hack (which they no-doubt thought was
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 01:45:19PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-03-10 21:27, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
I've always believed that Javascript is the hellspawn of evil
incarnate.
I usually agree, but there are useful and cool things you can do
with JavaScript. Two of the tools I'm using
On 03/11/2012 05:47 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
H. S. Teohhst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.454.1331448329.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:14:26PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
H. S. Teohhst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
Ary Manzana a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote in message
news:jjis50$23se$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 03/11/2012 05:47 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
H. S. Teohhst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.454.1331448329.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:14:26PM
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote in message
news:jji5fa$qma$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 2012-03-10 20:41, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
think
they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly implemented
hack
(which
On 11/03/2012 19:44, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
snip
I wouldn't make it an online editor. Just let a normal editor
access remote files. Done. As for specifically html documents on
the web, doesn't http already have provisions for updating anyway?
HTTP has a PUT method, but I'm not sure it's
Stewart Gordon smjg_1...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:jjj6lo$2ojb$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 11/03/2012 19:44, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
snip
I wouldn't make it an online editor. Just let a normal editor
access remote files. Done. As for specifically html documents on
the web, doesn't
On 11/03/2012 22:36, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
snip
Hell, the *original* web browser was *both* an editor and a viewer.
What kind of editor - raw HTML, WYSIWYM, WYSINWYG or something else
entirely?
I'm not sure. Probably raw HTML I would guess, but obviously it could have
been implemented to do
On 3/10/12, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
It sounds like a great article, judging by the first paragraph, but I have
to read it a couple sentences at a time.
Yikes. Here's a print version:
http://drdobbs.com/article/print?articleId=184401197siteSectionName=
On 3/9/12 11:18 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescuseewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:jjengv$agm$1...@digitalmars.com...
Insert obligatory link: http://drdobbs.com/184401197
Very insightful article.
Jesus christ what the FUCK is wrong with Dr Dobbs? The article
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 05:06:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Insert obligatory link: http://drdobbs.com/184401197
Very insightful article.
While i tend to code that way it is not as pretty in C++ as it
looks on paper when you use namespaces.
namespace ns {
struct S {
void
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 09:25:28 UTC, so wrote:
While i tend to code that way it is not as pretty in C++ as it
looks on paper when you use namespaces.
namespace ns {
struct S {
void b();
}
void b(S s);
}
auto s = ns::S;
s.b() // fine
ns::b(s) // uh..
It gets much worse when
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.399.1331365602.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 02:21:56 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
I'd say that there's a higher chance of the aliases being
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 05:31:31 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Well, I gotta say, I'm with Adam on this one: I think duration is much
more clear, much easier to learn, and much easier to remember than dur.
Granted, I'm all for abbreviations when they're common enough, such as
curr or ident, but
On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 04:56:13 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Yah, I'm a bit ehm about the sudden recommendation to use
named import, too. However, I've been ehm about similar
things in the past and came to figure that some things are just
useful idioms in the forming (e.g.
On 2012-03-09 22:16, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Note how much *nicer* it makes all the sample and unittest code.
So much better.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:06:40PM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[...]
Insert obligatory link: http://drdobbs.com/184401197
Very insightful article.
[...]
Wow. That's quite an interesting read, especially since it goes against
conventional wisdom that non-member non-friend functions are
On 2012-03-10 08:18, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescuseewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:jjengv$agm$1...@digitalmars.com...
Insert obligatory link: http://drdobbs.com/184401197
Very insightful article.
Jesus christ what the FUCK is wrong with Dr Dobbs? The
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote in message
news:jjg2ts$2roo$2...@digitalmars.com...
On 2012-03-10 08:18, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescuseewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in message
news:jjengv$agm$1...@digitalmars.com...
Insert obligatory link: http://drdobbs.com/184401197
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.412.1331398464.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Breaking changes tend to
happen inside a class, so if something doesn't *need* access to private
members, then it doesn't, and shouldn't, need to be a class member.
Unless they
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 14:41:53 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I think
they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly implemented hack
(which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing with *cough* old
*cough*
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:41:53PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]
You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
think they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly
implemented hack (which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing
with *cough* old
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:56:00PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.412.1331398464.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Breaking changes tend to happen inside a class, so if something
doesn't *need* access to private members,
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.433.1331409882.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 14:41:53 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
think
they tried to do some highly
On 3/10/12, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
I've always believed that Javascript is the hellspawn of evil incarnate.
You and Nick just became best friends! :P
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 17:45:33 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
Well, much as _you_ hate JS, many people don't turn it off, because
regardless
of how good or bad it is, enough relies on it that many would consider
it
too
unpleasant to
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 05:45:33PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.433.1331409882.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
[...]
Well, much as _you_ hate JS, many people don't turn it off, because
regardless of how good or bad it
On Sunday, 11 March 2012 at 00:43:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The problem is not what JS solves, per se, but the fact that
many web developers use it for no good reason at all besides
the fact that it's the cool new thing.
hey did you guys hear that you can convert a lot of
D code to
On 03/10/2012 02:06 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/9/12 5:05 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 23:50:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
At first I didn't like it a lot because it's cheap syntax sugar that
adds no new power and gives programmers more freedom to write
On 03/10/2012 10:03 PM, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 03/10/2012 02:06 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/9/12 5:05 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 9 March 2012 at 23:50:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
At first I didn't like it a lot because it's cheap syntax sugar that
adds no new power and gives
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.447.1331426602.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 05:45:33PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Everyone *isn't* using it (even for a non-literal usage of
everyone). And I have it turned off because the web is
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:uzpluzrtlvsspppww...@forum.dlang.org...
On Sunday, 11 March 2012 at 00:43:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The problem is not what JS solves, per se, but the fact that many web
developers use it for no good reason at all besides
the fact
Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.441.1331421065.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 3/10/12, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
I've always believed that Javascript is the hellspawn of evil incarnate.
You and Nick just became best friends! :P
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.436.1331412193.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:56:00PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote in message
news:mailman.412.1331398464.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
1 - 100 of 345 matches
Mail list logo
