"BCS" wrote in message
news:78ccfa2d417fc8cbae8318d2e...@news.digitalmars.com...
> Reply to Nick,
>
> [sniped rant about why the web sucks]
>
> I'll grant you most of that and I don't care about the rest.
>
"Cool" and "Fair enough" ;)
> It's ironic that this should come up in the D community be
Reply to Nick,
[sniped rant about why the web sucks]
I'll grant you most of that and I don't care about the rest.
It's ironic that this should come up in the D community because it sounds
a lot like C++ template are to the web like D template are to what the web
should be. That is; the Web ha
"Alexander Pánek" wrote in message
news:gvoa8d$o5...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Alexander P?nek" wrote in message
>> news:gvlrua$16p...@digitalmars.com...
>>> grauzone wrote:
> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>> Look mah, JS and Flash combi
"Alexander Pánek" wrote in message
news:gvob5q$pg...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Alexander P?nek" wrote in message
>> news:gvm3qh$1ld...@digitalmars.com...
>>> grauzone wrote:
Alexander P?nek wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>> Alexander P?nek wrote:
>>> Look mah, J
Reply to Alexander,
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Alexander P?nek" wrote in message
news:gvlrua$16p...@digitalmars.com...
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Alexander P�nek" wrote in message
news:gvm3qh$1ld...@digitalmars.com...
grauzone wrote:
Alexander P�nek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Alexander P�nek wrote:
Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Alexander P�nek" wrote in message
news:gvlrua$16p...@digitalmars.com...
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-mod
"Alexander Pánek" wrote in message
news:gvm3qh$1ld...@digitalmars.com...
> grauzone wrote:
>> Alexander Pánek wrote:
>>> grauzone wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
>
> Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
>
> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-win
"Alexander Pánek" wrote in message
news:gvlrua$16p...@digitalmars.com...
> grauzone wrote:
>>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>
>
> Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
>
> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-des
grauzone wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
defaul
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
default. Sometimes, som
grauzone wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
default. Sometimes, some minor things don't wor
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable
JS. Now it's rea
Hello Nick,
I wish you were a higher-up at Epic ;) They seem to have pretty much
the opposite attitude, and I get so worked-up every time I see a quote
from "CliffyB" or any of the others...
I'm sorry to disappoint, but gaming is the only case where building to the
latest hardware has any ra
"BCS" wrote in message
news:a6268ff64568cbaad2fa3b9...@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times
>> I've seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing
>> for just because the stores don't sell them. What matter
"Ary Borenszweig" wrote in message
news:gvcehp$2rd...@digitalmars.com...
> grauzone escribió:
>>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>
>> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
>
> Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like
Hello Nick,
Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times
I've seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing
for just because the stores don't sell them. What matters is what is
people are *using*, not what the stores are selling.
Should they stop offerin
"Saaa" wrote in message
news:gvcdpg$2q8...@digitalmars.com...
>
>> Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I
>> don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell,
> lol
Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times I've
seen people try to argue that something
"Jarrett Billingsley" wrote in message
news:mailman.166.1243199156.13405.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com...
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> I use Firefox too. My computer isn't even a fire-breathing monster by
> today's standards: Athlon X2 64 4600+, but it's ru
> Now now, needing additional software just for disabling features is
> really... stupid, but at least I'm not using virus scanners or "personal
> firewalls".
Selectively disabling, not so stupid I would think.
I like them firewalls, making me select who can send info about me and who
can not.
grauzone wrote:
Needing brand new PC hardware for using "heavy" websites is not really
an exaggeration, though. As soon as you have several instances of that
website loaded (in different browser windows, tabs, etc.), things are
_definitely_ starting to get no fun, even with an overclocked, 64 b
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
grauzone escribió:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your
web browser. So that's not a reason.
Also, Javascrip
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:12 PM, grauzone wrote:
to get a new machine? They're like $12 now.
Where can I buy 12$ computers?
lern2hyperbole.
Needing brand new PC hardware for using "heavy" websites is not really
an exaggeration, though. As soon as you have seve
Saaa wrote:
My only concern with NoScript is, enabling a site reloads all tabs
containing a script from that site. Oh, and by default, it shows some sort
of GUI animation when loading a site with blocked scripts. But you can
disable it.
As you can disable the reloading ;)
Thanks.
And going
grauzone escribió:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your
web browser. So that's not a reason.
Also, Javascript makes some stuff faste
> Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I
> don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell,
lol
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:12 PM, grauzone wrote:
>> to get a new machine? They're like $12 now.
>
> Where can I buy 12$ computers?
>
lern2hyperbole.
> My only concern with NoScript is, enabling a site reloads all tabs
> containing a script from that site. Oh, and by default, it shows some sort
> of GUI animation when loading a site with blocked scripts. But you can
> disable it.
As you can disable the reloading ;)
>>> And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it
>>> *only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't
>>> have the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I
>>> really want them.
>>
>> Just use noscript for blocking flash
>
>
to get a new machine? They're like $12 now.
Where can I buy 12$ computers?
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jarrett Billingsley" wrote in message
> news:mailman.165.1243195228.13405.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com...
>>
>> I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow
>> Javascript interpreter_ in your browser. I ha
What browser are you *using*?
Firefox. But I often use Konqueror for "serious work" (!= entertainment,
wasting time). With Konqueror, some sites become dead slow with Java
Script enabled. Oh, and although Konqueror is a very nice browser,
scripting often causes malfunctions. That all just sho
Adblock is essential. Most ads have gotten so completely out-of-hand, I
seriously wouldn't even be using the web anymore if it weren't for Adblock.
Definitely. It's also useful for blocking other obnoxious stuff like
emoticons or avatars in those phpBB forums.
IIRC, I think NoScript does let
"Saaa" wrote in message
news:gvcb0n$2l9...@digitalmars.com...
>
>>
>> And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it
>> *only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't
>> have the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I
>>
"Jarrett Billingsley" wrote in message
news:mailman.165.1243195228.13405.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com...
>
> I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow
> Javascript interpreter_ in your browser. I have no idea what you're
> talking about with text input lag. I
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gvcb23$2lg...@digitalmars.com...
> "Saaa" wrote in message
> news:gvcac0$2k6...@digitalmars.com...
>> The tango website is the slowest website I know, so I think it is an
>> exceptionally bad example for showing js being slow as I know a lot of
>> webs
"Saaa" wrote in message
news:gvcac0$2k6...@digitalmars.com...
> The tango website is the slowest website I know, so I think it is an
> exceptionally bad example for showing js being slow as I know a lot of
> websites which use loads more of web 2.o stuff and show up in less than a
> second.
>
"BCS" wrote in message
news:a6268ff641a8cbaa84e...@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> Yes, yes, yes. This. All of it.
> [...]
>
> Anything that can be used for good can be used for ill. Yes, lots of sites
> out there are junk, but that would be true no matter what tools were
> avail
> IIRC, I think NoScript does let you do site-by-site, right? I just hope it
> plays nice with QuickJava though, (or contains QuickJava-style
It does, both.
> functionality), because trying to configure sites/pages manually would be
> a major PITA and possibly not even be worth it.
>
> And then t
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gvcaph$2kt...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Although I may often say things to the contrary, I don't actually advocate
> the outright elimination of JS or Flash world-wide (hell, I've even used
> them myself *where appropriate*).
However, I *would* like to see
>> Yes, yes, yes. This. All of it.
> [...]
>
> Anything that can be used for good can be used for ill. Yes, lots of sites
> out there are junk, but that would be true no matter what tools were
> available.
>
> The (long term) solution isn't to reject the tools but to figure out how
> to make th
> I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow
> Javascript interpreter_ in your browser. I have no idea what you're
> talking about with text input lag. I have never experienced that.
> And the Tango API opens in about 2 seconds with JS enabled for me.
>
> What browser ar
"grauzone" wrote in message
news:gvc6r3$2dm...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
>> news:gvc4kc$29b...@digitalmars.com...
>>> And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce
>>> proper design on the web, the one thing I *can*
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> To add a little though, grauzone says "You know, Win 3.11 feels faster." My
> 486 Win 3.11 machine *was* faster (not in terms of raw operations per second
> of course, but in terms of responsiveness.) My machine has a clockspeed in
> the
Hello Nick,
Yes, yes, yes. This. All of it.
[...]
Anything that can be used for good can be used for ill. Yes, lots of sites
out there are junk, but that would be true no matter what tools were available.
The (long term) solution isn't to reject the tools but to figure out how
to make them
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gvc4kc$29b...@digitalmars.com...
And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce
proper design on the web, the one thing I *can* do is just simply disable
that shit. So I do. And as you can already tell, I'm fa
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gvc4kc$29b...@digitalmars.com...
And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce
proper design on the web, the one thing I *can* do is just simply disable
that shit. So I do. And as you can already tell, I'm fa
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gvc4kc$29b...@digitalmars.com...
> And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce
> proper design on the web, the one thing I *can* do is just simply disable
> that shit. So I do. And as you can already tell, I'm far from the only
>
"grauzone" wrote in message
news:gvbr5u$167...@digitalmars.com...
>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>
> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
>
> When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
> default. Sometimes, some min
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable
JS. Now it's really rare to see f
Charles Hixson escribió:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
BCS escribió:
Hello Nick,
what they can do is additionally provide a
non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
the first place.
If they can, ye
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
BCS escribió:
Hello Nick,
what they can do is additionally provide a
non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
the first place.
If they can, yes, but they might not have
BCS escribió:
Hello Nick,
what they can do is additionally provide a
non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
the first place.
If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file
54 matches
Mail list logo
