All of the technologies that form the foundation of the WWW really suck. HTML blows, Ajax blows, Javascript/ECMAscript blows, XML blows, all browsers blow, Flash sucks, ActiveX sucks HARD, it *all* sucks. This is the future? A bunch of bloated technologies, initially meant to insure proper delivery of decorated textual information, forced and twisted into a multimedia landscape?
ITT we redesign the WWW.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 12:33 ID:ezN5Vq52
gopher
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 13:07 ID:+cjqkdHe
Welcome to networked computing, where everything sucks shit
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 13:29 ID:1vvjch9r
HELLO I AM AN CERTIFIED CISCO PROFESSIONAL YOU GUYS ARE WRONG NO I DO NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN MYSELF MY STATEMENTS ARE BACKED BY SEVERAL YEARS OF INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 14:33 ID:MHRDe4Nq
Designing a stack of technology superior to that of the web is trivial; getting people other than you to use it is not.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 15:11 ID:pZR/Hp9p
STEP 1: DESTORY BROWSER, REPLACE WITH VIRTUALIZED OS
STEP 2: NEED PROTOCOLS
STEP 3: REVOLUTION COMPLETE
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 15:13 ID:+cjqkdHe
You should be aware of the fact that getting non-EXPERT PROGRAMMERS to write proper RFCs is non-trivial
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 15:51 ID:vTNJ5Ztc
WEBMUX
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 17:46 ID:GKFQAkTU
>>5
To the contrary, it's incredibly easy. Just design the whole thing around porn.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 17:54 ID:7tv60ch+
do it all in lisp.
(html (head (title "WEBPAGE"))
(body :bgcolor red
(h1 "MY FUCKING WEB-PAGE")))
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 18:09 ID:KWRkJHYN
>>10
Which reminds me of how funny it is that the very same people that constantly complain about Lisp syntax don't see anything wrong about XML.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 19:11 ID:MHRDe4Nq
>>11
THAT'S BECAUSE XML IS EASY AND HUMAN-READABLE, LIKE COBOL.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 20:08 ID:iBO+7G4b
>>1
you only think they blow cos you cant do them.
I don't have a problem with a text-based language but why oh why did they have to make html such fail? It's too fukken verbose, almost as bad as Cobol or Pascal.
At least CSS has a decent syntax, and if you use it to decorate strict XML the result is nearly tolerable. Now if we had a decent scripting language that actually worked in all browsers and had a better set of built-in functions..
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-11 16:58 ID:8NDf1F5S
>>1
Truth, but let's see. Suckage level in ♀, more ♀ more sucks, max 5 ♀.
HTTP: ♀♀♀♀♀
SGML: ♀♀♀♀♀
HTML: ♀♀
XHTML: ♀♀♀♀
XML: ♀♀♀♀♀
CSS: <no suck>
JavaScript as a language: ♀
JavaScript standard "library": ♀♀♀♀♀
JavaScript implementations: ♀♀♀♀♀
AJAX: ♀♀♀♀ (what you have to do because HTTP and HTML suck)
Browsers: ♀♀
ActiveX: ♀♀♀♀♀
Flash: ♀♀♀♀
Java: ♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀
I'd put one suck for CSS (and, because JS/HTML both suck more, raise it to two sucks for JavaScript and three for HTML). Reason being, why does CSS bother with having a brace-based syntax and yet NOT have some way to nest elements? It'd be far more natural to write
.balls {
font-size: small;
color: red;
#mine {
font-size: bigger;
+ #yours {
spacing: 1em;
}
}
}
instead of some repetitive mess like
.balls {
font-size: small;
color: red;
}
.balls #mine {
font-size: bigger;
}
.balls #mine + .balls #yours {
spacing: 1em;
}
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-11 17:53 ID:CKCHOzpF
>>22
IE can't even deal with the current CSS correctly, if we ignore the screwed up box model for a while there's plenty of other things like broken selectors and associated parsing errors.
Making CSS more complex would just break it more because the code monkey rejects at Microsoft could never code a functioning parser for it, let alone make the IE renderer support any new features.
With IE's market share no one would dare use the new shit, and Microsoft would probably come up with some proprietary replacements which would fuck up the web's standardization further.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-11 18:07 ID:TkAY58Ll
>>20
>XHTML: ♀
Fixed. XHTML requires browsers to fail hard on errors, which largely makes up for the massive failure of using XML. Also, you forgot one:
PHP: OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAND
>>24
Required fail only makes people annoyed when pages break because of something stupid. Yes, it's bad programming that's usually to blame for bad XHTML, but sometimes it's people screwing the code up because they changed something without knowing how XHTML works. There's a *lot* of that in the corporate world for some strange reason, and many of these people aren't sensible enough to stay out of things they shouldn't be messing with because it "looks like HTML" ... and then they go and test their changes with MSIE which doesn't support XHTML properly so the server's almost certainly sending it as text/html which defeats the purpose. Then you have a bunch of clients who can't access the site because *they* are sensible enough to use a browser that fails on bad XML.
This wouldn't be an issue if they'd implemented death on syntax errors from the very start, but HTML has traditionally been an unfortunately permissive environment, leading people into this sense of security that their code won't cause immediate death to the whole site.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-11 22:21 ID:/wNAfQ0k
>>26
A lot of the web could be fixed by implementing death on user error.
"On detecting that the web developer is a MSCE tard who doesn't close his fucking block tags because 'it works in IE', implementations MUST find him, hunt him and destroy him. They SHOULD prolong his death for increased suffering. Implementations MAY also kick his girlfriend, fuck his dog and urinate on his grave."
W3C are such pussies.