I want to only block those lines of javascript on the site, and I only need to from this one browser. I tried looking for a greasemonkey script to base my script off of, but I've discovered that I don't know jack shit about javascript. It's all greek to me.
Any javascript people care to reveal the secret to me?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 20:53
Frames suck. Javascript hates them also.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 20:56
Javascript sucks. Disable it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 22:16
Javascript sucks sure there's an ebuild for Javascript but it just get dropped to /opt, it's statically linked, and it's CLOSED SOURCE, which means that it is a BINARY package.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 22:17
Lemme be more clear.
This will only be used on this one workstation, in firefox. And it needs to be a frames page for how it's all set up.
The site that is loaded in the frame needs to have javascript enabled, but to stay in that frame.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-07 22:36
parent.frames["framename"].location.href
or
parent.frames[index].location.href
and yes, frames suck, etc etc.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-08 3:03
A FRAME IS FINE TOO... not
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-08 9:23
in the frameset page: <script type="text/javascript">
frames.length=0;
</script>
>>11
the words "solution without a problem" come to mind.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-08 23:26
>>12
Really? It would seem like a simple and useful way to conserve bandwidth without resorting to javascript. Refreshing a whole page is plain retardation.
>>13
ever heard of frames? they do the same thing as iframes, but have been around a lot longer.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 2:36
>>14
Frames are also supposed to be evil, remember?
they do the same thing as iframes
No, they don't. Is google too hard for you?
I still welcome a non-idiot who can explain why iframes suck.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 5:05
because IE came up with it
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 9:00
No, they don't. Is google too hard for you?
okay, fine, iframes let you put a frame in a document without a frameset.
I still welcome a non-idiot who can explain why iframes suck.
it's like putting a td in a document without a table...
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 9:45
frames (and iframes) break the "one resource per window" scheme that the rest of the web uses. now you have to worry about link targets, it's impossible to give other people the url of any page except for finding out the url of the inner frame and just linking that. you're not going to save any significant amount of bandwidth on your stupid navbar by making the content of your page be in an iframe.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 20:26
now you have to worry about link targets, it's impossible to give other people the url of any page except for finding out the url of the inner frame and just linking [snip]
So if I were to make some secure site that shouldn't be linked from outside anyway (say, a shopping cart), or make a webgame with an interface that doesn't completely suck (people sure are going to want to link to that expired game view of yours), this is stupid?
You realise that iframes give the audience a more responsive interface, instead of waiting for a page reload? Not everyone is on a ZOMG FAST OC3? It's simpler than implementing AJAX for anything that doesn't need that sort of power (and how are you going to link an AJAX state, hmm?)?
I realise the koolaid-swilling pedants want the rest of us to do things the One True Way, but I'll err on the side pragmatism. While the linking is a valid issue, that's like saying a hammer sucks because you can't remove screws with it. Bollocks on that.
Anyone else want to give a stab at it?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 20:35
>You realise that iframes give the audience a more responsive interface, instead of waiting for a page reload?
frames can do that, too.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 21:19
frames can do that, too.
You might want to reread >>15.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-09 23:51
>>19
if you're so worried about bandwidth, then you're making html-bloated pages of failure anyway. the same problem you're trying to solve with frames can be done better with css and efficient code, without the side effects of fucking up your search engine rankings (unless you're actually smart enough to use <noframes> to your advantage) and the accessibility bullshit you'll encounter by using frames.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-10 0:39
>>22
...or even better: mixing CSS, efficient code, and iframes. What a concept! You seem to think that they're mutually exclusive! Hello?
I'd also like you to explain how you can only update part of a page with server-provided data without using AJAX or iframes. Completely reloading a page just adds latency (<- zomg related to bandwith) and the user can't do much with the unchanging part of the page in the meantime. Oh shit, the whole page reloaded, where was I again?
Can someone else, not the same pedantic idiot, give a good reason why iframes suck?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-10 3:21
iframes suck because you can do it better with *cough* AJAX ;)
>>32
Interesting. How do you do that for a page you're already on? Ie: can you bookmark it easily?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-14 4:01
>>29
Then Microsoft, Sun, Accenture, banks, and every fucking large software company has sucky programmers because they never use the right tool; they use the most enterprise-ready tool.
I get sick and tired of programmers always blaming the managers.
If your manager sucks, you have a problem, but much of the time the problem is that the programmer couldn't communicate if their life depended on it. Most managers don't have a fucking clue what's going on, because they can't program.
So it's probably your fault too, not just your manager. Suck it up, bitch.
Sucking up to your manager or being replaced by outsourcing to India?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 4:14
>>37
There's a difference between being an ass-kisser and learning to communicate well, and if you don't want to be outsourced, communicating well is a great way to reduce the chances.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 10:15
>>36 Most managers don't have a fucking clue what's going on, because they can't program.
And that's MY fault? What the hell?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 13:18
>>38 if you don't want to be outsourced, communicating well is a great way to reduce the chances.
Companies tried to outsource programmers, but it ended up costing more because the communication is shit.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 14:50
>>40
IMAGINE A FUCKING OWL HERE.
OH RLY. The bit about outsourcing programmers is actually pretty funny in many ways. It's like an universal way to say "I FUCKED UP, I SUCK COCKS."
>>39
Imagine you have a lawyer. Imagine you don't tell your lawyer what he needs to know to defend your sorry ass in court. Whose fault is it when you lose? Answer: both, but particularly yours.
Imagine you have a manager. Imagine you don't tell your manager what he needs to know to make an effective decision (and keep both your sorry asses employed)... yadda yadda.
This isn't rocket science.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-15 23:11
let's just nuke India, that'll take care of the outsourcing problem
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 5:21
>>44 Whose fault is it when you lose?
Yours; you didn't have enough money to grease the jury and pay fat ugly lawyers. Facts do not have anything to do with veredicts, don't let the name "justice" deceive you into thinking the system is any just.
Imagine you don't tell your manager what he needs to know to make an effective decision
Oh boy I *love* providing my manager with information. Things will go smooth as long as developers can provide managers with information. Problems come when developers can't because whatever acronym some idiot manager reads in a WeeklyCircleJerk magazine has more weight over what his geeks tell him.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 7:30
Yours; you didn't have enough money to grease the jury and pay fat ugly lawyers.
A fine example of faux cynicism. Still in the rebellious phase?
Things will go smooth as long as developers can provide managers with information.
Yes, it certains helps things go smoother. The company I work for is in trouble now because of miscommunication. Regrettably, most of the fault lies with me and my fellow developers.
The manager? Well, he just stands to lose something he's invested the past decade of his life in, but it's no big deal. He's just a manager, right?
Regardless, communication, particularly email records, is a fine way to protect yourself. You seem to dislike your manager, so I'm sure you'd enjoy causing him or her some pain on the way out.
Yes, it certains helps things go smoother. The company I work for is in trouble now because of miscommunication. Regrettably, most of the fault lies with me and my fellow developers.
Protip: There are only 2 things "technical" managers want to hear:
1) It's your fault.
2) Information that supports their case and what some "consultant" told them, else you're not a team player.
GOOD managers actually consult with their OWN development team before shooting their mouths off. If you have to keep butting in to fix things, chances are you have a bad manager.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 17:58
>>46 A fine example of faux cynicism. Still in the rebellious phase?
I never had a rebellious phase; I used to be so official and pro-established-everything, but after years I've seen for myself it doesn't work as intended (or maybe it does work as intended). Either way, if I ever have a problem demanding a trial, I'd rather hire a nigger to stab some motherfucker than sue him, it's cheaper, faster, and more just.
>>47 Regrettably, most of the fault lies with me and my fellow developers.
Easy fix; you just call every manager, and gather together under this minutes:
1. Java sux you fags
2. Use Lunix lol
3. Kill magazines with fire
4. K thx
The manager? Well, he just stands to lose something he's invested the past decade of his life in
Good managers trust their geeks, but most managers indeed fuck with everything they've invested by trusting acronym shit they read in a magazine about this week's Best Practices.
You seem to dislike your manager
Far from that, I have the best manager ever. We take technological decisions together and he's always open to get into gory details of development if it helps clarifying something. We talk at least once a day, and he allows me to use my full potential with the right tools (which usually turns into congratulations for high productivity and "lol I didn't think we'd have that for today"). I'm just talking about the average managers I hear from my mates (co-workers' past jobs, or friends working elsewhere).
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 18:26
>Easy fix; you just call every manager, and gather together under this minutes:
I appreciate the humor, but we don't have a single one of those problems. I'd never work at a Java shop either. :)
I'm just talking about the average managers I hear from my mates (co-workers' past jobs, or friends working elsewhere).
See, I hear about these people too, but I have never actually seen one. Maybe my sample is biased, because I only send my resume to smaller companies.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 18:50
>>44
Terrible analogy. If the manager cannot program he will never be able to understand what's going on.
If you insist on using a lawyer/client analogy (which is just plain wrong as everyone knows all computer analogies must involve cars) then it's more like this: imagine you are a lawyer. Your client, despite not knowing jackshit about law (which is why he needs a lawyer, duh) decides that he's going to formulate a legal strategy and you are just going to carry it out. Whose fault is it when you lose?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-16 20:10
If the manager cannot program he will never be able to understand what's going on.
There doesn't seem to be much correlation between how technical a manager is, and how good they are. Unless, of course, you never tell them anything.
Whose fault is it when you lose?
Yours? Lawyers aren't under any obligation to carry a case, and usually aren't in a financial position where then have to.
You're right, it's a bad analogy.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-13 9:43
I CAST THE MIGHTY SPELL OF NECROMANCY ON THIS THREAD
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-13 10:09
I AM A POWERFUL CLERIC AND THIS THREAD DIES IN MY PRESENCE
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-27 12:57
ur gay
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-27 13:51
my homework is to read the first chapter of SICP: Can someone do that for me please so I don't have to??
Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy