>>4
It's some Finnish meme. They post a picture of a bastardization of pedobear and say it's "ebin" or "e/b/in" because "epic" is wordfiltered on the big Finnish imageboards.
Imageboarders get upset by it, in which case you just remind them that pedobear himself is a bastardization of a Japanese character, and that 4chan has had its fair share of zany catchphrases.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-17 12:36
>>5
Imageboard freshies also get upset when you reveal to them that ``pedobear'' is a bastardization of pretty kuma, REALLY upset. The younger they are, the more upset they will be, literally. I fucking guarantee it like George Zimmerbergsteinman.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-17 12:39
And how would you have us make dynamic web pages, if not with Javascript?
>>7
Have you ever been reading a book and thought, ``Wow, this book sure is great, but I'd like the text to move and do cool things!''
No? Then don't expect the same of web pages, ``faggot''.
Okay, so how would you host an application on a web page if not by making the page dynamic. Are you suggesting we go back to shoving flash and java applets in everything?
come on javascript guys, have you not started the scheme revolution yet. Make it a requirement on your pages, like we did in the 90's with shockwave player. Also tell them that IE is shit, and they should use another browser.
>>16
The web isn't meant for ``applications''. Only Apple losers think this. ``Web apps'' are...
- not scriptable by the shell
- slow
- proprietary by nature
- subject to change or disappear without the ability to save a copy of the software
- grossly intrusive on user privacy by nature
Pretty much the worst case software possible, for users
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-17 18:15
My clients want animated transitions for their galleries. What alternate do I really have? Flash?
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-17 18:17
it's only 2012 if you're using the shit-tier gregorian calendar
>>31
Can CSS animate stuff like opacity or position?
I've heard CSS3 or 4 will have that shit, but like no browsers support it. I spend my time trying to get the current CSS to even work on old ass browsers like IE5 that so many people still use for some reason.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-17 18:31
I'm programming DCSS right now. Dynamic Cascading Style Sheets. Pure C#. Animations, content manipulation, everything.
It'll be the industry standard. I'll be somewhat rich. Within a decade, all you kiddy web designers will be including a .dcss link in your HTML headers.
>>33 Yes, and with canvas and svg.... Just be sure to use Scheme instead.
Use DCSS with scheme NOW! I need to make a AWK version, and ksh93 too.
>>30
I used International Fixed Calendar, and it is still 2012. However my clients get confused when I date my things today as 2012-11-13 IFC, so I had to stop using it.
If a website requires JavaScript to ``work'' (and some do, even just to load the content the page is for), then it isn't a website worth using. If you must use JavaScript, it should be to somehow enhance a page rather than to make the page function as it's supposed to. If it's supposed to be something other than content, then it doesn't belong in the hypertext domain.
It sickens me that Web designers and developers talk about writing ``non-JavaScript fallbacks''. Your page should be written like that by default.
I AM LAUGHING SO FUCKING HARD RIGHT NOW
YOU DONT EVEN KNOW HOW HARD I AM LAUGHING
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-18 16:19
>>42
depends on what you are making. none of these are possible to create without javascript and lots of it. http://backbonejs.org/#examples
the cost of supporting people without javascript only continues to go up while users demand more and more interactive applications. non-obtrusive simply doesn't matter.
>>45
They can if you're willing to go from page to page. That would be a cool idea. If the web was organized as a series of pages and you go from one to the next. Then we could even have back/forward buttons that let you go through your history. Someone should write a Node.js framework to do this.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-18 17:25
>>45 none of these are possible to create without javascript and lots of it
And thank fuck they aren't. I want my webpages with actual easily readable accessible content, not a dozen goddamn gadgets whirling and blinking in my face all built upon some huge bloated monstrosity created by dozens upon dozens of layers of power-hungry CPU-heavy abstraction. What a disgusting waste of resources.
Maybe it doesn't to you. Maybe you're a substance-only guy. But in the real world, style and aesthetics and cool gadgets matter. Even especially on the web.
>>51 especially on the web
Nope. Just because douchebags buy stylish smartphones to impress the cute hipster bitch at their local Starbucks doesn't mean they care or know anything about style. Hardly anybody gives a shit what their computer looks like and nobody gives a shit about the web.
Even those that do max out of their credit card on a Macbook just to make a fashion statement spend all their time on Facebook anyway, which is about as bland as Windows 95.
The Macfag Web 3.0 Developer douchebags who do care what their webpages look like spend their time on fucking Hacker News: black, white, orange, and three shades of gray. 99% of those retards would feign nausea if they ever clicked "view source" to reveal that the layout relies completely on tables.
Then finally, there's you, telling me that style matters on the web...on world4ch.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-18 19:46
I make most of my money doing freelance web work. 80% of the actual work is fixing Javascript or PHP code. Browser-supported CSS can emulate simple JS tricks. AJAX is a different beast altogether, and normal users have gotten used to it via Facebook. Find a way to get rid of the J in AJAX and JS will die a slow, abandonware-style death. HTML5 and CSS3 are ready to replace Flash, so JS is next on the chopping block.
When I make websites from scratch, it's all about getting paid. Users don't pay me, the clients do. If they want some obnoxious popups or client-side input validation, that's what they get. To explain why anything they want is a bad idea evokes a response similar to putting on a magic show for my cats - they don't give a fuck. Just throw up a Wordpress site with a nice template, tweak it for a few hours, and then wash your hands of the project.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-18 19:52
It is 2012...
...and you are still not checking my dubs?
>>54 HTML5 and CSS3 are ready to replace Flash, so JS is next on the chopping block.
No. HTML5 and CSS3 are part of a family that includes JS. The only reason why they're buzzwords now is because they are works in progress, whereas JS is still the same old JS. It doesn't mean they are poised to replace JS. HTML5 elements like canvas, audio and video are programable interfaces for JS.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-19 0:21
>>54,56
Flash was just "too much of a good thing". Originally it was a simple, efficient way to show vector graphics and animations with some little bit of interactivity. Then people started making websites consisting of exactly one page with a SWF on it, advertisers did you-know-what with it, and Adobe (not Macromedia) began bloating up the plugin with all sorts of extra bullshit.
It's better than JS because it isn't present in the browser all the time and only loaded when needed, and you can change it separately from the browser. That actually follows the UNIX philosophy of designed to do one thing well.
Name:
Anonymous2012-10-19 1:16
It's hard to do without it for interactive websites. /prog/'s solution to that seems to be "Don't make interactive websites," but when those are what everybody besides /prog/ wants, those are what gets made.
>>53
Let me know when you actually synchronize with reality. Users don't want to use a website that looks (or functions) like shit, and clients don't want to pay for one.
>>61
Does it? Works just fine without. That's what >>42 is talking about, JS should be used to enhance functionality but not to replace it and break things that would otherwise be very trivial to do. One big example is not being able to open a new window/tab to a link target. "But you can simulate that functionality in JS too," they say. Not often have I seen that actually been done, and this is unnecessary complexity for something that browsers, ever since they first existed as GUIs, could do naturally already.
Browser UIs have back and forward functionality, they have history, etc. They're well understood for navigation and easy to use. Similarly, links that you can copy and paste, that will always take you to the right location, also have this maturity. Those bloody in-browser sorted tables that have links at the top to sort by various columns are the worst offenders --- if I see a link, I should expect to be able to copy it, open it in a new window that has the content appropriately sorted, etc.
Web developers were complaining about frames a long time ago, claiming they're more complex. (4chan suffered too; compare how easy it is to navigate between boards with http://www.4chan.org/frames instead of the little links at the bottom of each board.) But now they're adding even more complexity at little benefit with these JS emulations of existing browser behaviour.
>>67
There's no reason to force yourself to use posting forms and following hyperlinks for every single interaction when a few lines of javascript are easier, vastly more flexible, and still work on every browser made after 1997.
If javascript actually removes functionality, then no shit that's retarded. But any kind of serious interactivity needs some client-side code. There's just no way around it.
If javascript actually removes functionality, then no shit that's retarded.
That's exactly what's going on with the majority of "web applications" I've used. They reinvent some of the basic browser functionality and leave out a lot more.
If you can sort a table in-browser using JS, all good. If JS is disabled then you should just get basic links, which is even better. But either way I should still be able to copy those links and use them somewhere else, with the expected results.
Imagine if they changed all the imageboards to use AJAX and broke all the Reply links in the process so you can't do anything like bookmark threads, open them in new windows/tabs, or whatever else you can do with links. That's what using these fucked-up sites feels like.