www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - QtD 0.1 is out!

reply Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:
It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first implementation of
signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which means that you can
actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably most suitable tag for
this release. Again - see tutorials for how to use signals.
Feb 04 2009
next sibling parent reply Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:
Eldar Insafutdinov Wrote:

 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first implementation of
signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which means that you can
actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably most suitable tag for
this release. Again - see tutorials for how to use signals.

For those who don't know: http://code.google.com/p/qtd/
Feb 04 2009
parent reply "ideage" <ideage gmail.com> writes:
Great stuff!

Expect window's version! 
Feb 05 2009
parent Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:
ideage Wrote:

 Great stuff!
 
 Expect window's version! 
 
 

Feb 05 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply David Ferenczi <raggae ferenczi.net> writes:
I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!

Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!

Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:

 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
 implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which
 means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably
 most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials for how to use
 signals.

Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent reply Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:
David Ferenczi Wrote:

 I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!
 
 Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!
 
 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 
 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
 implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which
 means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably
 most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials for how to use
 signals.


tutorials are in trunk/examples http://code.google.com/p/qtd/source/browse/#svn/trunk/examples
Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 David Ferenczi Wrote:
 
 I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!

 Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!

 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:

 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
 implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which
 means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably
 most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials for how to use
 signals.


tutorials are in trunk/examples http://code.google.com/p/qtd/source/browse/#svn/trunk/examples

"No files in this directory." Well that sucks. Oh well, I... hey, wait a second... *unblocks javascript* "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!" Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for making their sites break without Javascript... -- Daniel (Not angry at you, Eldar; angry at Google. They should know better :) )
Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Daniel Keep escribió:
 
 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 David Ferenczi Wrote:

 I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!

 Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!

 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:

 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
 implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which
 means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably
 most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials for how to use
 signals.


tutorials are in trunk/examples http://code.google.com/p/qtd/source/browse/#svn/trunk/examples

"No files in this directory." Well that sucks. Oh well, I... hey, wait a second... *unblocks javascript* "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!" Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for making their sites break without Javascript...

What? Why? A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...
 
   -- Daniel
 
 (Not angry at you, Eldar; angry at Google.  They should know better :) )

Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Daniel Keep escribió:
 "No files in this directory."

 Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...

 *unblocks javascript*

 "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"

 Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for
 making their sites break without Javascript...

What? Why? A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...

So... not having a scripting language would make pages run slower. ... I *really* hope you're joking. As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well. The only two things you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic positioning and visibility. But you don't NEED those to make aesthetically pleasing pages. Just go look at CSS Zen Garden. *deep breath* <tirade> I have no problem with having scripting available for pages in general. But what DOES make me spew LIQUID HATE from every bodily orifice [1] is when they use Javascript to REPLACE FUNCTIONALITY THAT HTML ALREADY HAS. Like the sites where instead of using hyperlinks, they use Javascript in onclick events. Gee thanks, a**hole, you just broke tabs. Thanks for dictating how I'm allowed to view your site! Or the sites where they "inject" the content of the page like this:
 <script>document.write("THE PAGE CONTENT");</script>

Or pages where they have forms that go over perfectly ordinary HTTP POST and use perfectly ordinary form elements... but the submit button doesn't work BECAUSE IT REQUIRES F**KING SCRIPTING. This sort of bulls**t is inexcusable. It's like breaking someone's legs and saying "but now you can use crutches; isn't that great?!" No, you broke my legs you bastard! What's more, thanks to the plague of popup ads, ads that hang your browser for 5 seconds every time you mouse over the word "synergy" in an article, ads that show up in the same window but OVER the content, ads that play music or stream video when I'm on a QUOTA-LIMITED 'net connection, ads that start TALKING to you if your mouse goes anywhere near them or sites that just generally abuse the hell out of scripting, I'm amazed ANYONE browses the web with Javascript enabled by default. Frankly, if you build a site that utterly depends on Javascript to function [2], then you're an _idiot_. You want to use JS to make the site more usable? That's great! But you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it. EVER. If you can't figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages [3]. As someone who used to do web development: anyone, **ANYONE** who does this should be taken out back, shot, hung, drawn & quartered then buried upside-down at a crossroads under a crucifix with a steak through the heart and a silver bullet in the head. Then burn and salt the earth just to make sure. </tirade> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better. -- Daniel [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw. [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot function without Javascript. Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.
Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Also, I apologise for the derailment.

Back on topic for a moment, I've never worked with Qt before, but going
over some of the examples it shows definite promise.  It certainly looks
easier to use than other toolkits I've worked with in the past.

Again, sorry for getting off-topic, and do keep up the good work.  :)

  -- Daniel
Feb 05 2009
parent =?UTF-8?B?QWxleGFuZGVyIFDDoW5law==?= writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:
 Also, I apologise for the derailment.

Oh I hear ya. Web development makes pacifistic people wanna kill. Including myself.
Feb 07 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gmfujj$2t5$1 digitalmars.com...
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Daniel Keep escribió:
 "No files in this directory."

 Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...

 *unblocks javascript*

 "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"

 Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for
 making their sites break without Javascript...

What? Why? A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...

So... not having a scripting language would make pages run slower. ... I *really* hope you're joking. As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well. The only two things you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic positioning and visibility. But you don't NEED those to make aesthetically pleasing pages. Just go look at CSS Zen Garden. *deep breath* <tirade> I have no problem with having scripting available for pages in general. But what DOES make me spew LIQUID HATE from every bodily orifice [1] is when they use Javascript to REPLACE FUNCTIONALITY THAT HTML ALREADY HAS. Like the sites where instead of using hyperlinks, they use Javascript in onclick events. Gee thanks, a**hole, you just broke tabs. Thanks for dictating how I'm allowed to view your site! Or the sites where they "inject" the content of the page like this:
 <script>document.write("THE PAGE CONTENT");</script>

Or pages where they have forms that go over perfectly ordinary HTTP POST and use perfectly ordinary form elements... but the submit button doesn't work BECAUSE IT REQUIRES F**KING SCRIPTING. This sort of bulls**t is inexcusable. It's like breaking someone's legs and saying "but now you can use crutches; isn't that great?!" No, you broke my legs you bastard! What's more, thanks to the plague of popup ads, ads that hang your browser for 5 seconds every time you mouse over the word "synergy" in an article, ads that show up in the same window but OVER the content, ads that play music or stream video when I'm on a QUOTA-LIMITED 'net connection, ads that start TALKING to you if your mouse goes anywhere near them or sites that just generally abuse the hell out of scripting, I'm amazed ANYONE browses the web with Javascript enabled by default. Frankly, if you build a site that utterly depends on Javascript to function [2], then you're an _idiot_. You want to use JS to make the site more usable? That's great! But you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it. EVER. If you can't figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages [3]. As someone who used to do web development: anyone, **ANYONE** who does this should be taken out back, shot, hung, drawn & quartered then buried upside-down at a crossroads under a crucifix with a steak through the heart and a silver bullet in the head. Then burn and salt the earth just to make sure. </tirade> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better. -- Daniel [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw. [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot function without Javascript. Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.

This is by far the best description/explanation of the evils of Javascript I have ever seen. It might sound a little extreme to some people, but speaking as another person who has done plenty of web development, there is absolutely no way to cover this topic *properly* without putting it in such terms. If the above rant is overly-*anything*, it's overly conciliatory. There's just no excuse for so many of the things that most web developers do. Now if we can only nudge Daniel to give the same treatment to Firefox 3... ;) BTW, Daniel, if you're on Firefox, you need to install the Adblock Plus addon and set it up with some of the subscriptions here: http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions I'm not exaggerating when I say that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad I was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely. (I have some other addon recommendations too, if you're interested.) In fact, that addon is the main reason I use Firefox as my primary browser even though I generally dislike Firefox. This addon still doesn't solve all of the problems with JS, but it at least changes to web from "completely unusable garbage" (and that's no exaggeration) to merely "frequently irritating". Also, your footnote [3] seems to be missing...I'm on the edge of my seat here!!
Feb 05 2009
parent reply Chris R Miller <lordsauronthegreat gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Daniel Keep"<daniel.keep.lists gmail.com>  wrote in message
 news:gmfujj$2t5$1 digitalmars.com...
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Daniel Keep escribió:
 "No files in this directory."

 Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...

 *unblocks javascript*

 "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"

 Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for
 making their sites break without Javascript...

A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...

... I *really* hope you're joking. As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well. The only two things you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic positioning and visibility. But you don't NEED those to make aesthetically pleasing pages. Just go look at CSS Zen Garden. *deep breath* <tirade> I have no problem with having scripting available for pages in general. But what DOES make me spew LIQUID HATE from every bodily orifice [1] is when they use Javascript to REPLACE FUNCTIONALITY THAT HTML ALREADY HAS. Like the sites where instead of using hyperlinks, they use Javascript in onclick events. Gee thanks, a**hole, you just broke tabs. Thanks for dictating how I'm allowed to view your site! Or the sites where they "inject" the content of the page like this:
 <script>document.write("THE PAGE CONTENT");</script>

and use perfectly ordinary form elements... but the submit button doesn't work BECAUSE IT REQUIRES F**KING SCRIPTING. This sort of bulls**t is inexcusable. It's like breaking someone's legs and saying "but now you can use crutches; isn't that great?!" No, you broke my legs you bastard! What's more, thanks to the plague of popup ads, ads that hang your browser for 5 seconds every time you mouse over the word "synergy" in an article, ads that show up in the same window but OVER the content, ads that play music or stream video when I'm on a QUOTA-LIMITED 'net connection, ads that start TALKING to you if your mouse goes anywhere near them or sites that just generally abuse the hell out of scripting, I'm amazed ANYONE browses the web with Javascript enabled by default. Frankly, if you build a site that utterly depends on Javascript to function [2], then you're an _idiot_. You want to use JS to make the site more usable? That's great! But you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it. EVER. If you can't figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages [3]. As someone who used to do web development: anyone, **ANYONE** who does this should be taken out back, shot, hung, drawn& quartered then buried upside-down at a crossroads under a crucifix with a steak through the heart and a silver bullet in the head. Then burn and salt the earth just to make sure. </tirade> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better. -- Daniel [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw. [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot function without Javascript. Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.

This is by far the best description/explanation of the evils of Javascript I have ever seen. It might sound a little extreme to some people, but speaking as another person who has done plenty of web development, there is absolutely no way to cover this topic *properly* without putting it in such terms. If the above rant is overly-*anything*, it's overly conciliatory. There's just no excuse for so many of the things that most web developers do. Now if we can only nudge Daniel to give the same treatment to Firefox 3... ;) BTW, Daniel, if you're on Firefox, you need to install the Adblock Plus addon and set it up with some of the subscriptions here: http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions I'm not exaggerating when I say that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad I was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely. (I have some other addon recommendations too, if you're interested.) In fact, that addon is the main reason I use Firefox as my primary browser even though I generally dislike Firefox. This addon still doesn't solve all of the problems with JS, but it at least changes to web from "completely unusable garbage" (and that's no exaggeration) to merely "frequently irritating".

You must frequent some fantastically horrible websites. I use the 'net quite frequently, and I don't experience anywhere near enough consternation to even consider finding a popup blocker.
Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Chris,

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 
 "Daniel Keep"<daniel.keep.lists gmail.com>  wrote in message
 news:gmfujj$2t5$1 digitalmars.com...
 
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 
 Daniel Keep escribió:
 
 "No files in this directory."
 
 Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...
 
 *unblocks javascript*
 
 "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"
 
 Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for
 making their sites break without Javascript...
 

A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...

... I *really* hope you're joking. As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well. The only two things you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic positioning and visibility. But you don't NEED those to make aesthetically pleasing pages. Just go look at CSS Zen Garden. *deep breath* <tirade> I have no problem with having scripting available for pages in general. But what DOES make me spew LIQUID HATE from every bodily orifice [1] is when they use Javascript to REPLACE FUNCTIONALITY THAT HTML ALREADY HAS. Like the sites where instead of using hyperlinks, they use Javascript in onclick events. Gee thanks, a**hole, you just broke tabs. Thanks for dictating how I'm allowed to view your site! Or the sites where they "inject" the content of the page like this:
 <script>document.write("THE PAGE CONTENT");</script>
 

POST and use perfectly ordinary form elements... but the submit button doesn't work BECAUSE IT REQUIRES F**KING SCRIPTING. This sort of bulls**t is inexcusable. It's like breaking someone's legs and saying "but now you can use crutches; isn't that great?!" No, you broke my legs you bastard! What's more, thanks to the plague of popup ads, ads that hang your browser for 5 seconds every time you mouse over the word "synergy" in an article, ads that show up in the same window but OVER the content, ads that play music or stream video when I'm on a QUOTA-LIMITED 'net connection, ads that start TALKING to you if your mouse goes anywhere near them or sites that just generally abuse the hell out of scripting, I'm amazed ANYONE browses the web with Javascript enabled by default. Frankly, if you build a site that utterly depends on Javascript to function [2], then you're an _idiot_. You want to use JS to make the site more usable? That's great! But you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it. EVER. If you can't figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages [3]. As someone who used to do web development: anyone, **ANYONE** who does this should be taken out back, shot, hung, drawn& quartered then buried upside-down at a crossroads under a crucifix with a steak through the heart and a silver bullet in the head. Then burn and salt the earth just to make sure. </tirade> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better. -- Daniel [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw. [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot function without Javascript. Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.

Javascript I have ever seen. It might sound a little extreme to some people, but speaking as another person who has done plenty of web development, there is absolutely no way to cover this topic *properly* without putting it in such terms. If the above rant is overly-*anything*, it's overly conciliatory. There's just no excuse for so many of the things that most web developers do. Now if we can only nudge Daniel to give the same treatment to Firefox 3... ;) BTW, Daniel, if you're on Firefox, you need to install the Adblock Plus addon and set it up with some of the subscriptions here: http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions I'm not exaggerating when I say that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad I was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely. (I have some other addon recommendations too, if you're interested.) In fact, that addon is the main reason I use Firefox as my primary browser even though I generally dislike Firefox. This addon still doesn't solve all of the problems with JS, but it at least changes to web from "completely unusable garbage" (and that's no exaggeration) to merely "frequently irritating".

'net quite frequently, and I don't experience anywhere near enough consternation to even consider finding a popup blocker.

Yeah, I don't go to that many websites beyong a usual few. Firefox's built-in popup blocker has been sufficient for me (and it usually tells me when it has blocked a popup). It's actually been a long time since I've worried too much about popups. I /do/ remember the day, though, when popups were a problem, and it was annoying. My beef is mostly with JS and Flash which noscript handles quite well. -JJR
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Chris R Miller" <lordsauronthegreat gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gmgeq2$11jp$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 BTW, Daniel, if you're on Firefox, you need to install the Adblock Plus
 addon and set it up with some of the subscriptions here:
 http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I say
 that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad 
 I
 was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely. (I have some 
 other
 addon recommendations too, if you're interested.) In fact, that addon is 
 the
 main reason I use Firefox as my primary browser even though I generally
 dislike Firefox. This addon still doesn't solve all of the problems with 
 JS,
 but it at least changes to web from "completely unusable garbage" (and
 that's no exaggeration) to merely "frequently irritating".

You must frequent some fantastically horrible websites. I use the 'net quite frequently, and I don't experience anywhere near enough consternation to even consider finding a popup blocker.

Adblock Plus blocks any type of ad, not just popups. To be honest, I would have no problem with web ads if they were just simple static images like from back before popups. It's just all of the visual-movement, slow-JS, potential for malware, etc. that I can't/won't tolerate.
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Daniel Keep escribió:
 
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Daniel Keep escribió:
 "No files in this directory."

 Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...

 *unblocks javascript*

 "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"

 Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for
 making their sites break without Javascript...

A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...

So... not having a scripting language would make pages run slower. ... I *really* hope you're joking. As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well. The only two things you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic positioning and visibility. But you don't NEED those to make aesthetically pleasing pages. Just go look at CSS Zen Garden. *deep breath* <tirade>

 
 </tirade>
 
 Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.

lol :) Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree, but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder (like dsource) is slow for me. You are right in that replacing href="" with onclick="" just for a link is stupid. But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?
Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 lol :)
 
 Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree,
 but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder (like
 dsource) is slow for me.

The point is that instead of giving you a sub-optimal but functional alternative, they give you none. It's like not putting in wheelchair access ramps on the argument that they're inconvenient due to being a longer path than the stairs.
 You are right in that replacing href="" with onclick="" just for a link
 is stupid.

Not just stupid; there's a whole circle of hell devoted to people who do that. They sit in endless thirst with water coolers everywhere. The catch is the taps have been replaced with "low-resistance" jobbies that require a special spanner to turn. Such spanners were never built.
 But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?

Leaving aside Javascript the language and talking about JS as used in browsers, it's not the language itself. It's how it's used. It's the constant needless use of it that breaks the user experience. I think I enumerated all the big ones previously. Let's say you're moving house, and ask someone to help. They come over, and are really helpful. But every five minutes, they bitch-slap you and kick you between the legs. Then go back to being helpful. Eventually, you're going to throw them out no matter HOW helpful they is. Bad web developers have abused JS so much, so often and for so long, that I've decided it's less stressful to run with JS disabled. Don't even get me started on sites based entirely on Flash... -- Daniel
Feb 05 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gmg4av$dqp$1 digitalmars.com...
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 lol :)

 Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree,
 but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder (like
 dsource) is slow for me.

The point is that instead of giving you a sub-optimal but functional alternative, they give you none. It's like not putting in wheelchair access ramps on the argument that they're inconvenient due to being a longer path than the stairs.
 You are right in that replacing href="" with onclick="" just for a link
 is stupid.

Not just stupid; there's a whole circle of hell devoted to people who do that. They sit in endless thirst with water coolers everywhere. The catch is the taps have been replaced with "low-resistance" jobbies that require a special spanner to turn. Such spanners were never built.
 But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?

Leaving aside Javascript the language and talking about JS as used in browsers, it's not the language itself. It's how it's used. It's the constant needless use of it that breaks the user experience. I think I enumerated all the big ones previously. Let's say you're moving house, and ask someone to help. They come over, and are really helpful. But every five minutes, they bitch-slap you and kick you between the legs. Then go back to being helpful. Eventually, you're going to throw them out no matter HOW helpful they is. Bad web developers have abused JS so much, so often and for so long, that I've decided it's less stressful to run with JS disabled. Don't even get me started on sites based entirely on Flash...

Oh great, now you've gotten ME started on Flash... ;) There are a LOT of people (myself included), that will immediately leave a site, never to return, the moment they see that FlashBlocker box taking up 99% of the page. I can sum up all my feelings about Flash (and many, but not all, uses of JS) pretty simply: They are the 2000's version of animating GIFs and blink tags, except it's worse simply because most people don't seem to have actually learned anything from the history of animating GIFs and blink tags. Interesting side note: I've noticed that such flash-only pages and sites seem to be by far the most common among musicians and restaurant chains. Don't get me started on actual Flash development... (I have the oh-so-wonderful luck of being near the beginning of a large project that, due to client requirements, is built primarily on Flash and PHP. Whooo boy, am I having fun...(/sarcasm))
Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Interesting side note: I've noticed that such flash-only pages and sites 
 seem to be by far the most common among musicians and restaurant chains.

Yup; I *hate* looking up tour dates.
 Don't get me started on actual Flash development... (I have the 
 oh-so-wonderful luck of being near the beginning of a large project that, 
 due to client requirements, is built primarily on Flash and PHP.  Whooo boy, 
 am I having fun...(/sarcasm))

lol, enjoy!
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Nick Sabalausky escribió:
 "Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:gmg4av$dqp$1 digitalmars.com...
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 lol :)

 Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree,
 but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder (like
 dsource) is slow for me.

alternative, they give you none. It's like not putting in wheelchair access ramps on the argument that they're inconvenient due to being a longer path than the stairs.
 You are right in that replacing href="" with onclick="" just for a link
 is stupid.

that. They sit in endless thirst with water coolers everywhere. The catch is the taps have been replaced with "low-resistance" jobbies that require a special spanner to turn. Such spanners were never built.
 But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?

browsers, it's not the language itself. It's how it's used. It's the constant needless use of it that breaks the user experience. I think I enumerated all the big ones previously. Let's say you're moving house, and ask someone to help. They come over, and are really helpful. But every five minutes, they bitch-slap you and kick you between the legs. Then go back to being helpful. Eventually, you're going to throw them out no matter HOW helpful they is. Bad web developers have abused JS so much, so often and for so long, that I've decided it's less stressful to run with JS disabled. Don't even get me started on sites based entirely on Flash...

Oh great, now you've gotten ME started on Flash... ;) There are a LOT of people (myself included), that will immediately leave a site, never to return, the moment they see that FlashBlocker box taking up 99% of the page. I can sum up all my feelings about Flash (and many, but not all, uses of JS) pretty simply: They are the 2000's version of animating GIFs and blink tags, except it's worse simply because most people don't seem to have actually learned anything from the history of animating GIFs and blink tags. Interesting side note: I've noticed that such flash-only pages and sites seem to be by far the most common among musicians and restaurant chains. Don't get me started on actual Flash development... (I have the oh-so-wonderful luck of being near the beginning of a large project that, due to client requirements, is built primarily on Flash and PHP. Whooo boy, am I having fun...(/sarcasm))

Oh, you are not near as lucky as me. Imagine a site built entirely in Silverlight. Whoooooo!!!
Feb 06 2009
parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Oh, you are not near as lucky as me. Imagine a site built entirely in 
 Silverlight. Whoooooo!!!

I can -- it looks like about:blank.
Feb 06 2009
prev sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
 But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?

Yesterday, I was on digitalmars.com, browsing the archive for the D newsgroup. Actually, I just had it open in a tab, and was actively browsing another website. I wondered why the browser had such a bad response. Finally, I figured out, that the cause was some JavaScript code included from Amazon. It showed some applet on the bottom of the archive page, and it didn't even work. All it did was displaying some loading gif animation and eating CPU. When I blocked Amazon, all was fast and responsive again. Another example is Candydoc. That tree on the left is awful JavaScript hackery. It only works if JS is enabled, and even then it is slow, annoying to use, and all that. Candydoc advertises itself as "Produced result is AJAX web-application that is compatible with all mainstream web browsers." Without AJAX, the authot of Candydoc would have done a much better job. Now isn't that typical? (By the way, AJAX for offline browsable documentation? What?) And sorry, I can't stop my rant. Did you ever see those polls, which are mostly added on the left or right border of a webpage? Lately, I only see AJAX-style ones, and you can use them only with JavaScript enabled. When you vote, they show an animation, which alpha blends from one display state into another. Wheee, great. In the old days, you had to wait for the slow GUI to respond. Today, you wait for the GUI animation to finish. Both introduce a small but annoying delay. And not to forgot, when some dirty piece of AJAX JavaScript code runs wild. Then it will send HTTP requests in a loop, even though the page finished loading. Good that we have Noscript to trash the AJAX programmer's worthless effort. Sometimes I love new technology.
Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"grauzone" <none example.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgjou$1af5$1 digitalmars.com...
 But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?


 Another example is Candydoc. That tree on the left is awful JavaScript 
 hackery. It only works if JS is enabled, and even then it is slow, 
 annoying to use, and all that. Candydoc advertises itself as "Produced 
 result is AJAX web-application that is compatible with all mainstream web 
 browsers." Without AJAX, the authot of Candydoc would have done a much 
 better job. Now isn't that typical?

 (By the way, AJAX for offline browsable documentation? What?)

Yes, yes, yes, exactly! A couple more examples of API docs that are barely-usable (ie, painful sluggishness, lack of offline viewing, and general bugginess) thanks to AJAX: MSDN Library and Adobe LiveDocs.
 When you vote, they show an animation, which alpha blends from one display 
 state into another. Wheee, great. In the old days, you had to wait for the 
 slow GUI to respond. Today, you wait for the GUI animation to finish. Both 
 introduce a small but annoying delay.

Yes, yes, yes, exactly! DVD menus do it too, and the blatant lack of thought that goes into such a design always irritates me. "I don't want to [watch | listen to] some cute little [transition | movie quote | film clip], I just want to [watch the movie | select a scene | setup audio options | view extras]." Most people, like myself, who have spent time in game programming (particularly old-school style games) learn very quickly that interactive interfaces need to have response times of no more than about 100ms max (preferably less) and transition times of no more than about 250ms (preferably less) for the user to really feel "in control". That's *not* much time, and far less time than many modern interface designers (games or otherwise) are comfortable restricting themselves to these days. I think part of the problem is that artists and graphic designers are usually hired for these jobs instead of actual interactive interface designers (because when most managers think "user interface" they just think of the visual side, and sometimes audio too, but they don't know that there are also temporal and usability concerns).
 And not to forgot, when some dirty piece of AJAX JavaScript code runs 
 wild. Then it will send HTTP requests in a loop, even though the page 
 finished loading. Good that we have Noscript to trash the AJAX 
 programmer's worthless effort.

 Sometimes I love new technology.

I have a certain viewpoint on that: AIUI, The strict definition of "technology" is the application of science to improve the quality of life. As such, there are many things that people consider to be "technologies" that I insist aren't technologies because they only satisfy the "application of science" part and not the "improve the quality of life" part. (A related pet peeve I have when dealing with laymen: "Technology" does not necessarily imply "electronics". Heck, even indoor plumbing is a technology...and one of my personal favorites ;) )
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
grauzone wrote:
 But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?

Yesterday, I was on digitalmars.com, browsing the archive for the D newsgroup. Actually, I just had it open in a tab, and was actively browsing another website. I wondered why the browser had such a bad response. Finally, I figured out, that the cause was some JavaScript code included from Amazon. It showed some applet on the bottom of the archive page, and it didn't even work. All it did was displaying some loading gif animation and eating CPU. When I blocked Amazon, all was fast and responsive again.

I had some email discussions with Amazon about the miserable speed of the Amazon cloud widget. The idea of the cloud widget is great, it's supposed to look at the contents of the page and produce links to Amazon products, like books, that are related. So I really wanted this to work. But Amazon tech support insisted that it was not slow, it was merely pining for the fjords (ok, I added that last bit <g>). I was seeing load times that averaged around 30 seconds. In the face of that, I removed the widget a few weeks ago, after telling tech support I'd add it back in once they fixed the speed problems. If you found a page where it is still active, can you please give me the url?
Feb 06 2009
parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 grauzone wrote:
 But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?

Yesterday, I was on digitalmars.com, browsing the archive for the D newsgroup. Actually, I just had it open in a tab, and was actively browsing another website. I wondered why the browser had such a bad response. Finally, I figured out, that the cause was some JavaScript code included from Amazon. It showed some applet on the bottom of the archive page, and it didn't even work. All it did was displaying some loading gif animation and eating CPU. When I blocked Amazon, all was fast and responsive again.

I had some email discussions with Amazon about the miserable speed of the Amazon cloud widget. The idea of the cloud widget is great, it's supposed to look at the contents of the page and produce links to Amazon products, like books, that are related. So I really wanted this to work. But Amazon tech support insisted that it was not slow, it was merely pining for the fjords (ok, I added that last bit <g>). I was seeing load times that averaged around 30 seconds.

Not sure what you're saying, but it was eating up my CPU even some minutes after the page was loaded.
 In the face of that, I removed the widget a few weeks ago, after telling 
 tech support I'd add it back in once they fixed the speed problems.
 
 If you found a page where it is still active, can you please give me the 
 url?

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/learn/Mixin_versus_c_preprocessor_11830.html I suspect this is the offending piece of HTML: <SCRIPT charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822/US/classicempire/8006/adfa749b-6f27-4cdf a046-716a8fab7cab"> </SCRIPT>
Feb 07 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
grauzone wrote:
 If you found a page where it is still active, can you please give me 
 the url?

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/learn/Mixin_versus_c_pre rocessor_11830.html

Ah, I see. It's an older page, one that I didn't update.
 I suspect this is the offending piece of HTML:
 
 <SCRIPT charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" 
 src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822/US/classicempire/8006/adfa749b-6f27-4cdf
a046-716a8fab7cab"> 
 </SCRIPT>

Yeah, that's it.
Feb 07 2009
prev sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Ary,

 What? Why?
 
 A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...
 

without javascript, the page should show the full directory tree (or n levels down). they could get real cute and have that anyway and just have the JS hide it.
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gmfo1e$2ktp$1 digitalmars.com...
 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 David Ferenczi Wrote:

 I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!

 Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!

 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:

 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
 implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) 
 which
 means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is 
 probably
 most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials for how to 
 use
 signals.


tutorials are in trunk/examples http://code.google.com/p/qtd/source/browse/#svn/trunk/examples

"No files in this directory." Well that sucks. Oh well, I... hey, wait a second... *unblocks javascript* "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!" Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for making their sites break without Javascript...

I'd be first in line for that even if I had to camp out all week. Plus, notice that you can't open one of the files in a new tab without it *also* opening in the same tab. That sort of garbage would never happen without JS. As for concerns about a web without JS being too slow: JS-heavy sites ARE absurdly slow. I never had a problem with lag on *basic text entry* on a 386 or even an Apple 2. But with Firefox it happens constantly. Pathetic.
Feb 05 2009
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:gmfr9m$2u54$1 digitalmars.com...
 Plus, notice that you can't open one of the files in a new tab without it 
 *also* opening in the same tab.

Clarification: That problem seems to happen on Ctrl-Click, but not "Right-Click"->"Open In New Tab".
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling parent grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:
 
 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 David Ferenczi Wrote:

 I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!

 Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!

 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:

 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
 implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which
 means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably
 most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials for how to use
 signals.


tutorials are in trunk/examples http://code.google.com/p/qtd/source/browse/#svn/trunk/examples

"No files in this directory." Well that sucks. Oh well, I... hey, wait a second... *unblocks javascript* "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!" Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for making their sites break without Javascript... -- Daniel (Not angry at you, Eldar; angry at Google. They should know better :) )

Finally somehow who shares my pain. You have my sympathy. Especially Google is really bad with this. Not only are they pushing AJAX. They completely fail to make their sites useful without JS. Did you ever try to browse Youtube with JavaScript disabled? It's really fun to see, for what things they thought you _must_ have JS enabled. (My solution to this is not to browse Youtube at all.)
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling parent David Ferenczi <raggae ferenczi.net> writes:
Thank you!

Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:

 David Ferenczi Wrote:
 
 I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!
 
 Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!
 
 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 
 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
 implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d)
 which means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is
 probably most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials for
 how to use signals.


tutorials are in trunk/examples http://code.google.com/p/qtd/source/browse/#svn/trunk/examples

Feb 06 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote:

 </tirade>

 Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.

  -- Daniel

 [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw.

 [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot
 function without Javascript.  Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript
 image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.

There's something really humorous about a guy going on a rambling, fired-up, emotional tirade for a page and a half, but concluding it with proper footnotes. :-) --bb
Feb 05 2009
parent reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Bill,

 On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Daniel Keep
 <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote:
 
 You want to use JS to make the site more usable?  That's great!  But
 you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it.  EVER.  If you can't
 figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages
 [3].


what I want to known is what happened to that last footnote!
 </tirade>
 
 Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.
 
 -- Daniel
 
 [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw.
 
 [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot
 function without Javascript.  Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript
 image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.
 

fired-up, emotional tirade for a page and a half, but concluding it with proper footnotes. :-) --bb

Feb 05 2009
parent Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
BCS wrote:
 Reply to Bill,
 
 On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Daniel Keep
 <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote:

 You want to use JS to make the site more usable?  That's great!  But
 you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it.  EVER.  If you can't
 figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages
 [3].


what I want to known is what happened to that last footnote!

I believe I was going to make a comment to the effect that it's fine to make websites like this for the purposes of learning. I decided that I was probably going a bit far in attempting to clarify myself. -- Daniel
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
 http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I say
 that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad I
 was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.

What kind of sites do you go that are so bad? I find things a little annoying without FlashBlock, and I have Firefox's default popup blocking on, but with those two things, I don't see much of anything all *that* annoying in my day-to-day web use. So I'm wondering if it has to do with the sites you frequent or something? Or is it just your threshold for tolerating an ad or two is so much lower than mine? --bb
Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.658.1233882921.22690.digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com...
 http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I say
 that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad 
 I
 was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.

What kind of sites do you go that are so bad? I find things a little annoying without FlashBlock, and I have Firefox's default popup blocking on, but with those two things, I don't see much of anything all *that* annoying in my day-to-day web use. So I'm wondering if it has to do with the sites you frequent or something? Or is it just your threshold for tolerating an ad or two is so much lower than mine?

FlashBlock is another one of my essential addons :) Let me put it this way: I don't have any sort of documented reading disability (ex, I've always done well on reading comprehension tests). But dispite that, I find it nearly impossible to read anything more than a single trivial sentence whenever there's anything moving, blinking, spinning, a slideshow, etc anywhere near the text (or when there's a voice reading it to me). It's not just annoying, it's a genuine distraction that my mind is simply unable to block out. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any moving, spinning, pulsating, animating crap to be blocked out of my mind in the first place.
Feb 05 2009
next sibling parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.658.1233882921.22690.digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com...
 http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I say
 that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad 
 I
 was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.

annoying without FlashBlock, and I have Firefox's default popup blocking on, but with those two things, I don't see much of anything all *that* annoying in my day-to-day web use. So I'm wondering if it has to do with the sites you frequent or something? Or is it just your threshold for tolerating an ad or two is so much lower than mine?

FlashBlock is another one of my essential addons :) Let me put it this way: I don't have any sort of documented reading disability (ex, I've always done well on reading comprehension tests). But dispite that, I find it nearly impossible to read anything more than a single trivial sentence whenever there's anything moving, blinking, spinning, a slideshow, etc anywhere near the text (or when there's a voice reading it to me). It's not just annoying, it's a genuine distraction that my mind is simply unable to block out. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any moving, spinning, pulsating, animating crap to be blocked out of my mind in the first place.

I run AdBlock, NoScript, FlashBlock and Nuke Anything Enchanced. And if I DO see an ad get through all that, I add the company to my mental "people I will never buy from" list. I'm an advertiser's worst nightmare. -- Daniel
Feb 05 2009
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gmg4oj$dqp$2 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.658.1233882921.22690.digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com...
 http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I 
 say
 that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so 
 bad
 I
 was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.

annoying without FlashBlock, and I have Firefox's default popup blocking on, but with those two things, I don't see much of anything all *that* annoying in my day-to-day web use. So I'm wondering if it has to do with the sites you frequent or something? Or is it just your threshold for tolerating an ad or two is so much lower than mine?

FlashBlock is another one of my essential addons :) Let me put it this way: I don't have any sort of documented reading disability (ex, I've always done well on reading comprehension tests). But dispite that, I find it nearly impossible to read anything more than a single trivial sentence whenever there's anything moving, blinking, spinning, a slideshow, etc anywhere near the text (or when there's a voice reading it to me). It's not just annoying, it's a genuine distraction that my mind is simply unable to block out. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any moving, spinning, pulsating, animating crap to be blocked out of my mind in the first place.

I run AdBlock, NoScript, FlashBlock and Nuke Anything Enchanced. And if I DO see an ad get through all that, I add the company to my mental "people I will never buy from" list. I'm an advertiser's worst nightmare.

I use QuickJava instead of NoScript. I find it handy to be able to toggle JS on/off with just a single click. I used to keep JS off by default and only turn it on when I really needed it, but sites requiring JS became more and more common to the point that I ended up reluctantly just keeping JS on by default, and only turning it off when something obnoxious is going on. Not an action I'm proud of, but it keeps me sane. My other bare-minimum essentials, in addition to Adblock Plus and FlashBlock, are Winestripe, Tab Mix Plus, and DisableBackspaceNavigation. I also make heavy use of Repagination, DownThemAll (I'm a packrat), BatchDownload, DownloadHelper, Download Statusbar (a little ugly, but much more handy than the default download window) and FasterFox (useful to see just how absurdly slow page-loading often is. I'm on a good broadband connection, and I frequently find sites that take 40-50 seconds to load a single page whenever JS is enabled (that's a good example of how JS slows the web down instead of speeding it up)).
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling parent Chad J <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 
 FlashBlock is another one of my essential addons :)
 
 Let me put it this way: I don't have any sort of documented reading 
 disability (ex, I've always done well on reading comprehension tests). But 
 dispite that, I find it nearly impossible to read anything more than a 
 single trivial sentence whenever there's anything moving, blinking, 
 spinning, a slideshow, etc anywhere near the text (or when there's a voice 
 reading it to me). It's not just annoying, it's a genuine distraction that 
 my mind is simply unable to block out. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, there 
 shouldn't be any moving, spinning, pulsating, animating crap to be blocked 
 out of my mind in the first place. 
 
 

Whoa. At some point I realized that I was at peace with the web because my eye balls would automatically repel from all of the pulsating/spinny/blinky crap on the sides of web pages. So apparently my mind works a bit differently than yours. My brain must have, at some point, grown entire subnetworks of neurons dedicated to spam blocking. I have come to consciously realize this as well, and become incredibly thankful to it at the same time. Nick, you have my sympathies. Unfortunately for me, conceptual distractions are the bane of my existence. Really, I should be doing homework right now. But I'm not. I'm doing this instead.
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Hello Bill,

 http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I
 say that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web
 was so bad I was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.
 

annoying without FlashBlock, and I have Firefox's default popup blocking on, but with those two things, I don't see much of anything all *that* annoying in my day-to-day web use. So I'm wondering if it has to do with the sites you frequent or something? Or is it just your threshold for tolerating an ad or two is so much lower than mine? --bb

It's not always about the class of sites anymore. Although naturally, there will be a higher incident of problems among certain types of sites. The problems are starting to prevalent among many types of sites since these locations, commercial or otherwise, are "pushing" a lot more than they use to. Many elements (like flash) are not necessarily visible, but still gather "permanent" information on you, and it doesn't seem to matter if you had your cookies disabled or not. I use noscript with firefox (which also allows control of Java and Flash). I completely agree that the use of JavaScript is pretty evil these days. Even worse is that websites are taking advantage of so many people that are rather ignorant of how to protect themselves. I have found some sites that are quite surfable without javascript: I'm very impressed when I see this because it says volumes about their good manners and respect for the user. I must admit that I also get greatly irritated when I come across websites that are inoperable without javascript. I often will refuse to use them... unless I really must. Contrary to popular opinion, javascript does not appear to be a dire necessity for a fast, usable website (though, I also admit there are certain good applications for it). Javascript is one of the worst potential security breeches today /especially/ because of all the websites that force you to keep it enabled. Unfortunately, most people have become so dependent on it that they can't think of giving it up just to have more privacy and security. Yet disabling JavaScript remains one of the most highly recommended ways to eliminate a whole spectrum of attacks that regularly can sneek through all your anti-virus and anti-malware software. And the attacks can come from websites that normally would be harmless because sometimes they get "injected" (I don't know how) with evil Javascript that is just waiting to be run in your browser. Flash is also a secret horror. The funny thing is that the blocking of cookies has long been controllable in most browsers, but little is said about flash "local shared objects" that can accomplish the same sort of tracking in a much more hidden medium. Even worse is that there is much less stricture on these objects (like expiry dates and storage size). There is a way to limit these LSO's but few people seem to know or think about this being necessary. A simple google search on Flash cookies gives a fair amount on interesting information on this. Incidentally Google is another one to keep your eye on; and while I don't want to sound alarmist, I think Google will eventually could turn out to be one of the greatest security/privacy concerns on the web over the next few years. They have managed to spread their influence everywhere by getting people excited on various ideas, and it's amazing to see that almost every website out there is linked to Google in sort of way or use a "free" Google feature (google analytics for one). All these "free" services are concerns. It seems Google is very clever... a little too clever for my liking. Overall, I think the web is a mess... a dangerous mess, and it's getting worse as fast as people are becoming ignorant: the gap expands even faster in the relative sense. I'm guessing the security and privacy risk it presents to the public will only get worse as we eat up the freebies, for which most of us have developed a taste from the bountiful supply of the information age. There's a general apathy that has grown along side it all. -JJR PS. I've found a few good ways to view both outgoing and incoming internet communications. Any sort of port logging is both interesting and educational. A couple good pieces of software to monitor these things are PeerGuardian2 (not only useful for p2p ... just generally useful to see incoming/outgoing traffic) and PortReporter (a Microsoft tool). Both allow you to see what kind of probes occur over time, including what your computer is doing to communicate with the outside world, perhaps even when you don't intend it to. :P
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling parent "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:36:54 +0300, Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com>
wrote:

 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Oh, you are not near as lucky as me. Imagine a site built entirely in  
 Silverlight. Whoooooo!!!

I can -- it looks like about:blank.

It is also built entirely in JavaScript. But wait!.. How can it be built entirely in Silvermoon if it is built entirely in JavaScript? o_O
Feb 06 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Chris Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first implementation of
signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which means that you can
actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably most suitable tag for
this release. Again - see tutorials for how to use signals.

Very cool! What versions of DMD/Tango are currently known to work with QtD? (ie, what are you developing against.) It'd be nifty to add a QtD profile to Sean Kerr's awesomely nifty sandboxing script. -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
Feb 05 2009
parent Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls Wrote:

 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first implementation of
signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which means that you can
actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably most suitable tag for
this release. Again - see tutorials for how to use signals.

Very cool! What versions of DMD/Tango are currently known to work with QtD? (ie, what are you developing against.) It'd be nifty to add a QtD profile to Sean Kerr's awesomely nifty sandboxing script. -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

It's dmd v1.036 and tango-trunk dated November 25. But QtD is not on the bleeding edge of both compiler and tango, so I think tango 1.037 will be enough, so as compiler. I should specify dependency on tango on main page.
Feb 05 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply grauzone <none example.net> writes:
Do I see correctly, that you didn't need to introduce a MOC compiler for 
D? And that the Signal and Slots implementation is written in pure D?
Feb 05 2009
parent Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:
grauzone Wrote:

 Do I see correctly, that you didn't need to introduce a MOC compiler for 
 D? And that the Signal and Slots implementation is written in pure D?

Yes. But it is limited. No information, no dynamic invokation, different type of connections not implemented(but this theoretically is possible to do without moc)
Feb 06 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Chad J <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
What you and your crew are doing is really awesome!  And you are beating
all of the nasty linker errors and odd obstacles.  Way to go.

At some point in the future I will probably need to write cross-platform
GUI apps in D, and I'll be looking to QT since it is good at this kind
of work.  So your work could potentially make my life much easier and my
code much better at some point.  Thanks.

Keep up the good work and victory!
Feb 21 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:
 The D system has a major limitation, though -- you can't split the source
 for a module across multiple files. Which pushes you towards enormous source
 files. It's more restricted than both C# and C++ in this respect.

Yeah. Imagine if DMDFE were written in D; how big would those modules have to be?
Mar 01 2009
prev sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
 implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d)
 which means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1
 is probably most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials
 for how to use signals.

I read on http://code.google.com/p/qtd/ the following: "QtD requires tango. Those who use phobos should try tangobos or modify qtd(that should not be very difficult)." I bet quite some of the non-Tango users ignore QtD because they don't want to install Tango just for one thing. If you can find a Phobos user who has done this "not very diffcult" QtD modification, he might write a short description. And a link to that could be on the page, next to the sentence. Even better would of course be to make QtD work with both already.
Mar 06 2009
next sibling parent Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> writes:
Georg Wrede Wrote:

 Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
 implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d)
 which means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1
 is probably most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials
 for how to use signals.

I read on http://code.google.com/p/qtd/ the following: "QtD requires tango. Those who use phobos should try tangobos or modify qtd(that should not be very difficult)." I bet quite some of the non-Tango users ignore QtD because they don't want to install Tango just for one thing. If you can find a Phobos user who has done this "not very diffcult" QtD modification, he might write a short description. And a link to that could be on the page, next to the sentence. Even better would of course be to make QtD work with both already.

of course once there is somebody to do this job, it will appear in repos. Moreover there will be starting a job to port it to D2. Most probably there won't be D1+phobos support. I don't use phobos myself and the trend is that some projects I like use tango. DWT is one of them and it also uses tango. So the main concentration will be on D1-tango and D2-phobos I guess.
Mar 06 2009
prev sibling parent Max Samukha <samukha voliacable.com.removethis> writes:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:34:19 +0200, Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi>
wrote:

Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
 It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
 implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d)
 which means that you can actually start doing something useful. 0.1
 is probably most suitable tag for this release. Again - see tutorials
 for how to use signals.

I read on http://code.google.com/p/qtd/ the following: "QtD requires tango. Those who use phobos should try tangobos or modify qtd(that should not be very difficult)." I bet quite some of the non-Tango users ignore QtD because they don't want to install Tango just for one thing. If you can find a Phobos user who has done this "not very diffcult" QtD modification, he might write a short description. And a link to that could be on the page, next to the sentence. Even better would of course be to make QtD work with both already.

I'm planning to make it work with D2 sooner or later. No plans for D1+phobos.
Mar 07 2009