On Nov 4, 5:13 pm, Rohit Mehta wrote:
> How to fadeIn page only after the whole page loads(bg, images etc.)
>
> I am buildinghttp://www.socialsupply.co
> The page fades in before the content is loaded. I want the page to
> fade in only after the content is loaded. I will be further optimizing
>
+1 on learning ASM too :)
Although once you write something (anything) in C and you see how much
iterations it takes for a simple string match you might reconsider
writing $('.class div')
Learning from already written code is also a great source for learning.
You see a technique that is not fam
---
Amit Agarwal wants to stay in better touch using some of Google's coolest new
products.
If you already have Gmail or Google Talk, visit:
http://mail.google.com/mail/b-5c41a9a6ec-d0d18582da-5_NwYhymP9jBnSUFNn7m0eQ5SLQ
You'll n
Thanks for being cool about it. That type of attitude is precisely why
Asen & I started JSMentors. We wanted to have a place where devs could
exchange ideas in a nice, safe learning environment. The fact that you
apologized is really awesome and shows that the list is working.
Thanks,
Rey
From: J
Sure. Apologies if my last post came off as inflammatory...
Reminder to self: never post pre-caffeine. :)
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Rohit Mehta wrote:
> Guys..please cool it..both parties have merits..please don't turn it into a
> warzone.. please. Lets focus and keep it. Healthy debate..
I did not learn to program assembler, do not make the silly assembly to C
comparison. C is a different order of magnitude more high level then
assembly.
On the other hand, yes learn C, yes learn ASM. I regret I don't know ASM, I
should. It's on the to do list.
Yes the vast number of people did us
You folks advocating against starting with jQuery, did you learn to program
in assembler? Do you understand what's going on at the register level and
know that your code is as efficient as possible? If not, what's the
difference?
I would wager that a vast majority of "experts" today learned a
For Jake Verbaten,
I would say it's not even a vast collection of lazy people that is blame. I
would say it's the conventions supplied by jQuery where certain underperforming
conventions that are a pain in the ass to natively are made simple by jQuery.
Furthermore this simplicity encourages re
Your not wasting your employers time. You must differentiate between "raw
DOM" development and "raw cross browser compliance".
Not using an abstraction library over the DOM is a perfectly sensible thing
to do. The DOM API is solid enough to use with some minor leakage among the
edges.
However not
Hey Jake,
Thanks for the kudos to the jQuery team. Much appreciated.
What I've seen is an evolution in the jQuery community where developers are
realizing that they need to have a deeper understanding of JS in order to
be successful with jQuery. Nick Morgan's description is right on target and
th
Yes - jQuery is fundamentally a library that gives you a consistent
abstraction over the DOM (which is extremely inconsistent across browsers).
It's useful to understand how to do raw DOM development, but if you're
doing that every day then you're wasting your employer's time.
Nick
On 8 November
11 matches
Mail list logo
