There's an active community of people in the demoscene writing code for long-"obsolete" platforms like C64, Atari, NES, etc. These platforms are slow, quirky, and relatively limited, yet they can do all these amazing things with them.
Seeing all these HTML5 "new features" demos, the thought occurred to me: what can we do with a more limited browser? Not something really limited like Lynx, but something still considered obsolete yet maybe more powerful than most people would think. How about IE6? It has JavaScript so you can write programs in it, lots of undocumented/buggy behaviour, and relatively slow, so could be compared to a C64 in some ways. (Lynx would be like a 4004.) What sort of things can you do with it? Should there be a demoscene category "Platform: IE6"?
Discuss.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-07 8:40
Demoscene is a useless waste of human and machine time. "Creativity" should be banned for good.
>>6
No. I'm a fascist. I want all these Malevich, Kandinsky and Picasso kikes dead.
There should be no art, but market research and production based on demand of target auditory. That is why I love anime - it is a very mechanistic phenomena, with all its fanservice.
See, this is why the web is terrible. It was supposed to be an information network that was device independent and could gracefully degrade to whatever was currently viewing it. But then faggots took over and we now consider browsers ``platforms'', and people talk about targetting these platforms.
>>19
I agree completely, although many of the features that MS added in IE were in that direction too. It's just stupid that everyone else decided to go in a completely different direction, often reinventing stuff. Examples: userData (DOM storage), ActiveX (Google Native Client), etc.
The other day I discovered that RWI, one of our flagship AJAX web applications, required only 2 lines of code changes to get working in IE6. One particular page uses 12.5MB there, while it takes over 60MB in a relatively recent (<6 months old) version of Firefox and 59MB in Chrome (2 processes)! A rather old pre-HTML5 version of Opera takes 16.8MB, which is pretty good. Keeping in mind that this page works in all of the above browsers, WTF is going on?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-08 9:00
>>20 I agree completely...
Cudder you're just butthurted kike, because nobody needs your Jewish x86 and assembly skills anymore. If CPU runs Firefox, then it is an acceptable CPU, even if it's ARM or MIPS. And video games now completely run on GPU.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-08 9:27
>>19
It's only yourself that's stopping yourself from using HTML4. The rest of the world has different visions and different goals, everyone else will use HTML5 and all the other web technologies.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-08 9:29
>>21
x86 - JEW
assembly - JEW
Firefox - JEW
ARM - JEW
video game - JEW
>>20 reinventing #2 source of windows vulnerabilities of all time just stupid
mfw ActiveX LEL
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-08 9:39
>>20
>Keeping in mind that this page works in all of the above browsers, WTF is going on?
Different approaches and internal web data structuring, data caching, javascript engine differences, and OS platform rendering differences.
>>20
>Firefox takes 50MB more than IE6 to display a page.
Yes, and winXP takes more memory than DOS, which clearly means that WinXP is the cancer killing operating systems.
Stay subhuman, jewdder.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-08 9:55
>>20
Is it acceptable to trade space for simplicity, correctness, consistency and completeness?
I don't blame Microsoft for trying to make new features, competition is good after all. What I really hate is their snail pace to implement established standards in their products.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-08 17:52
>>22
I do use HTML4 when I (thankfuly rarely) have occasion to create things that are consumed by browsers. But ``everyone else'' is a collection of idiots for paying web ``devs'' to use these new ``web technologies'' for no apparent reason.
>>30
the only thing I enjoyed about HTML5 was being able to have decent platform-independent video and audio playback by using <audio> (and both mp3 and ogg sources), then a lightweight flash fallback nested inside (with that IF IE to make it work for IE), then a fallback for text browsers with a link to the song/video to be downloaded.
Still would be better if we had one standard for playback formats, or if browsers were format agnostic. Oy vey!
Don't hesitate to call ``OP'' by his official name, which is JEWDDER.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-08 22:10
I love JEWDDER. I love JEWS. I'm sad because Shabbat is over. I frigging love Shabbat.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-09 0:34
>>35
I think that could have been handled much better. Why only audio and video? What if smell-o-vision becomes a reality, will we have to wait for HTML6 to use <smell> tags? What if I want to embed text files for side-by-side comparison on my site, but I don't want to fuck around with javascript and would prefer to let the browser handle it?
Rather, I believe simple <a> tags should be inspectable by the browser, so if you link to a .ogm file and a user views it with a browser that can detect .ogm, the browser could, at the user's request, embed the content instead of simply treating it as a link. "But," you say, "doesn't that mean that I have to write separate tags for multiple file formats to cover all the possible browsers?" Yes, it does, but you're already doing that anyway! This just allows a user who prefers H.264 over Theora to download H.264 himself anyway, even if his browser of choice feels uneasy about patents, and allows the content to gracefully degrade if you're using IE5 or something.
>>25
They could've taken ActiveX and done the same sort of validation that NativeClient does, instead of reinventing the whole damn thing. And vulnerabilities are only an issue if they're exploitable, which in this case means don't let all sites use those features, only a trusted subset. [Another area where Firefox and Chrome FAIL compared to IE - per-site/per-zone configurable security settings. The latter two by default are basically all-or-nothing. But that's a rant for another day...]
>>26
In other words, some browsers are vastly more inefficient.
>>29
Standards has nearly nothing to do with it; look at Opera, it's much more aligned with the spec but doesn't need to use several times more memory to do it. There's also no obligation for anyone to follow standards, and they're basically only doing it when it makes sense to from a pragmatic perspective. Look at GNU for example,
I said "nearly nothing" because there are clearly certain features that just aren't easy to implement, and in that case they're better off not being used. (In the C++ world the export feature is an example of this.)
>>39
There's already the <object> tag for embedding ANY media you want... What if I want to embed text files for side-by-side comparison on my site, but I don't want to fuck around with javascript and would prefer to let the browser handle it?
I have no idea why you mention that use case, but that's trivial: <table><tr><td><iframe src="file1.txt"></iframe><td><iframe src="file2.txt"></iframe></table>
(unless you're one of those brainwashed "web developers" who can't see a simple solution if it hit you in the face...)
The issue with Cudder is that he only browses /prog/ and some text-only GNU pages. That's why any browser that can do slightly more than that is considered useless and cancerous.
>brainwashed "web developers" who can't see a simple solution if it hit you in the face
That's not a solution. What I would expect is a proper, kawaii as fuck diff, with colors, little +/- thingies and all.
You really should stay in your Jewish ASM threads, Jewdder.
>>42
I'm actually >>39, and I would expect such a thing to just work in any browser, not only in versions of the Big 3/4 released in the last two months, I don't care how it's implemented.
<object> was kind of decent (I only ever saw it used for fucking flash and java applets though), and it further compounds my point: that we didn't need HTML5, even for <audio> and <video> tags. It just exists for the sake of existing, and for the sake of complicating the existing standard.
>>40
>ActiveX
stop already, it is not even fun, Microsoft would tamper any competitor attempt by releasing MOAR [poorly documented] FEATURES, even their own teams don't communicate well
>per-site/per-zone configurable security settings
yes, I also miss it and IE > Chrome > Firefox in this aspect
>some browsers are vastly more inefficient
space × time is a tradeoff, but of course you know that... because IE is RUBY AS FUCK
>Standards has nearly nothing to do with it
well, so you better sit your anus in my dick and teach me how to surf web servers without following their standards (do it gently please ;)
>aren't easy to implement, and in that case they're better off not being used
of course, because everything is solved with a CRUD with rounded corners
[okay... if the FEATURE is cumbersome, you shouldn't use it. but implementation problems shouldn't be the last word, e.g. do you remember how RDBMS were born?]
><table><tr><td><iframe src="file1.txt"></iframe><td><iframe src="file2.txt"></iframe></table>
mfw tables everywhere, mwahahahaha [I actually don't care if it solves the problem, html is stupid and there's no right thing to do with it]
--
just try, and I gonna fill your buffers until they overflow, Cudder:3
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-09 16:36
>>44 Microsoft would tamper any competitor attempt by releasing MOAR [poorly documented] FEATURES, even their own teams don't communicate well
Software is my battlefield.
Compiler is my weapon.
Ignorance is my armor.
>>43
>It just exists for the sake of existing, and for the sake of complicating the existing standard.
There's no standard for embedding audio and video. That's the whole point of HTML5. Standards. So you don't have to worry about how differents browsers, different platforms and different implementations. How the new tags are called doesn't matter (they certainly could have reused the old <object> tag, though).
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-09 18:04
>>43
Did you know there are new tags to delimit the different sections of a web page? Without these new tags, the solution today is to delimit parts of the web page using <div> and <span> tags. These new tags help separate content from the presentation.
>>46
I really don't get what's not standard about it. You take an object tag, and you point the data at your file. Done. All of the attributes of, for example, the audio tag, are/should be only suggestions for the browser, so they might as well have been tacked on to object. Hell, maybe I think your browser should display my .swf files muted.
The only problem is that some browsers don't support some formats, and that should be completely expected. If I look at a page that tries to embed a file my browser can't display, I want a link to that file so I can use another program on my computer to view it.
>>49
>You take an object tag, and you point the data at your file.
You need a clear definition of what can go inside the tag and what can't. There's no point otherwise. You can't just throw in a <embed src="2hu_animu_PV.mkv"> and expect it to work everywhere.
>>52
Yes, Anon. This way, when you try to embed an mkv file, you don't have to worry about how the browser will handle it. That's what standards are for.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-09 23:38
>>50
Why not? Why shouldn't I be able to write <object data="Satori.dwg" type="application/acad" /> and expect that 1) browsers that choose to allow embedding CAD files embed as expected, and 2) browsers that don't understand application/acad provide a link for download, and 3) the W3C doesn't have to give a shit. We shouldn't need to have a listing of approved filetypes entrenched into the standard.
>>54 expect that 1) browsers that choose to allow embedding CAD files embed as expected
Nope. What the user and the developer expect is a properly rendered webpage on 99% of browsers without any cross-browser compatibility headaches.
Nobody wants to deal with ``Your browser doesn't support this image format'' or ``You need the SatoriDawg™ plugin to display this page correctly'' inane crap.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-10 5:41
>>54
Doesn't that already happen? What do you think happens today?
The issue with Cudder is that he only browses /prog/ and some text-only GNU pages. That's why any browser that can do slightly more than that is considered useless and cancerous.
Wrong on both my web usage and gender. The Internet is much more than stupid Web 2.0 sites filled with flashy mind-numbing uninformative content. If not using a browser with those latest features means I miss out on that, then so be it --- I don't want to see that shit anyway. (Have you seen Imageshack's page with and without JS enabled? The latter is usable, the former is bloody obnoxious with its popup divs, hiding image links, "social media" crap and whatnot.)
That's not a solution
You wrote "embed text files for side-by-side comparison", and that's exactly what you got. Write "proper, kawaii as fuck diff, with colors, little +/- thingies and all" if that's what you want. I'm not psychic.
What the user and the developer expect is a properly rendered webpage on 99% of browsers without any cross-browser compatibility headaches.
What the user expects is what he/she wants to see, which is not necessarily the same as the developer. I really wish "web developers" would stop believing that what they designed their page to look like is absolutely what their users want. I don't want your dark grey on black text in some horrible tiny font. I don't want your pointless JS animated puke crawling around on the page. I don't want to see your time-wasting page transitions, fancy CSS effects or other brainless tripe. I don't care if your divs are a few pixels off in browser X or Y or Z, or that the colours aren't quite the same. I want to see your substantive content, the text and images that actually have an informative purpose. If I can see that in some older browser despite it looking very different from what you see, then your site is useful no matter what you think. Think of it this way: if I was searching for something (let's say a solution to some problem) and happened upon your site, do I care about anything other than the part that I'm interested in? No, so cut out all that other crap and make it easy for me to see that part. (Google's text-only cached version is awesome for this.)
Imageshack
Imageshack is probably the worst image host out there.
I want to see your substantive content
This is exactly what web development is about. But for some reason, you always use the most inane example, exactly like you did with Imageshack. It's amazing how you automatically associate ``web dev'' with ``JS/CSS abuse''.
do I care about anything other than the part that I'm interested in?
Exactly. You care about the content. And for the content to be displayed properly not only in your browser, but in all (or almost all) browsers without any tricks, hacks and other completely retarded IE6-tier workarounds, you need standards.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-10 7:30
test
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-10 7:34
>>57
Guess what, the paying customers and the businesses who attract these customers are the people who drive this "innovation". Welcome to life in 2001.
>>65 I don't want to see your time-wasting page transitions, fancy CSS effects or other brainless tripe. I don't care if your divs are a few pixels off in browser X or Y or Z, or that the colours aren't quite the same.
While the Internet was certainly government funded, you can't tell me the demand for multimedia control and multimedia presentation in HTML5 was because the government decided the public would like such features. HTML5 was requested by developers and designers who work in commercial businesses.
Imageshack is probably the worst image host out there.
Maybe because you have all those "features" enabled? With JS off it's a perfectly usable image host. (Better than some that don't even work without JS.)
It's amazing how you automatically associate ``web dev'' with ``JS/CSS abuse''.
It's amazing how you automatically associate ``black person'' with ``steals things''.
The term "web developer" has taken that association precisely because of the practices of the majority of them. I make websites too but I don't call myself that.
And for the content to be displayed properly not only in your browser, but in all (or almost all) browsers
Depends what you mean by "properly". To me, it's "can I see the text and the important images? If so, it's good. This div/span/whatever is a few pixels out of place in some browsers? Font size or colour not the same? Doesn't matter a gnat's ass."
>>65
The idea of "usability" created by "UI designers" these days is "let's make things look 'simpler' by hiding everything and making UI elements non-obvious"... UIs these days are dumbed down and contain extra roadblocks to usage, possibly just to create more work.
>>63,67
This is probably why some of the best sites are noncommercial ones. Commercial interests want things like HTML5 because it creates work, whether or not that work is actually useful or just frivolous waste. From the lazy employee perspective, anything that takes time with little gain means "I can earn more by doing less!", while everyone sane loathes such inefficiency. Looks like another case of "Money is the root of all evil"...
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-11 9:25
>>69 Commercial interests want things like HTML5 because it creates work, whether or not that work is actually useful or just frivolous waste.
Do you know why infographics are a popular way to educate people? There are real psychological reasons why infographics are so effective for its purpose. The theory that explains the nature of an effective infographic is the reason why designers demand certain controls for web development. Designers can design websites that are optimally effective in helping the general public to buy something. Businesses also value customer mindshare and the desire to attract customer mindshare is what drives designers to demand control over multimedia. Information design isn't frivolous because it helps attract customers that pay the bills.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-11 10:55
>>70
Graphics are populat because visual perception is evolutionarily most developed in humans. About 90% of information is received visually, but text is only a tiny share of visual forms. `A picture is worth a hundred words`, they say.
>>71
Unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific bullshit. Keep it functional and information based (no useless images) and ignore the stupid pseudo-evolutionist "just so" stories.
Infographics make me feel like I'm in first grade again.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-11 20:08
>>70 Designers can design websites that are optimally effective in helping the general public to buy something
Knew it, the whole web thing was a kike plot to promote consumerism and dehumanization.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-11 22:51
Objective: Allow the user to play the audio of Act one, Scene one of World of the Fourth Chánnel : The Musical. User should be able to get access to the audio regardless whether they use Firefox, IE, emacs or a mail daemon that fetches the webpage (that's you, rms). Easiest playback should be available first, then last.
here's my solution- in a pastebin because shiitchan eats my HTML posts for breakfast and then calls me a spambot, possibly because I mentioned the !!UNMENTIONABLE THINGS!!
I don't like this X-or-Y-or-Z solution, you're only ever going to handle the cases you think of, and it's shitty to handle anything more than one format when storing the audio.
Something like >>54-san's idea would be a lot better.
We could take it further and make any HTML tag that is unknown but contains a src/href attribute to be transformed into a link- or whatever the browser thinks is best. It sees .mp3, it makes a web player (ala HTML5 and the audio tag).
In the real world, people use the X-or-fuck-off standard, which is javascript/jquery for audio, and flash (sometimes with HTML5) for video.
I guess that's the thing, at the end of the day developers want the solution that takes the least amount of time and effort, but displays for the majority of people.
Heck, the only reason HTML5 has been adopted for video is because Apple stopped supporting Flash, and they have a relatively large userbase.
Fuck, my post (>>78) was much better before I lost it to the ban page. I can't express the quality, it was something that'd frontpage on a link agggregator or would be praised as best web-standards blog post of 2013. It wasn't just VIP quality, it was enterprise and DQN quality too.
Now I won't be able to properly bitch with my friends about web standards.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-11 23:33
Also, what's going to be next after javascript runs its course?
Personally I dream of client-side Haskell/Racket/Clojure.
That'd be real fuqqin neato.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-12 0:09
>>80
I predict Go, Ruby, or Dart. Google or complete fucking hipsters control the field of bloating browsers for no goddamn reason, although Mozilla might appear to make the first stab (but whatever they choose won't stick unless Google chooses it as well). I don't think it will happen for a while though, because hipsters don't like working with inelegant codebases, and Google seems to be pretty bad at making decent languages.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-12 1:08
>>8
This guy is a true nutter and doesn't even understand what it means to be a fascist or what a fascist is.
Hint, it has nothing to do with your "science" based view of things.
>>71
Unnecessary graphics on a page cause visual overload. While an obnoxious ad might stick in the brain more, to me that just says "I'm not going to buy your product."
>>83
I'm sure the majority of computer users out there would think the C64 is a useless obsolete piece of junk too.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-13 6:42
>>84 Unnecessary graphics on a page cause visual overload. While an obnoxious ad might stick in the brain more, to me that just says "I'm not going to buy your product."
Whatever. You still promote Intel x86, despite their annoying "Intel Inside" ads.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-13 6:43
>>84
c64 could be useful for teaching hardware engineering, because of it's siplicity.
>>Cudder
I just got after a long vacation, as you can tell, and if I recall correctly, you could use lynx.cfg for scripting in lynx, and use external scripts (awk/sh) using the command line options for some really neat tricks. Heck Lynx can run many CGI scripts and user display modes: http://lynx.isc.org/release/lynx2-8-7/lynx_help/cattoc.html
What are you looking to do? IE6 is not an option for me, sorry. I'd rather do better things on ELinks.
>>90 Your browser is out of date. It has known security flaws and cannot display all features of this and other websites
Fuck off. That's as discriminatory as "you're riding a motorcycle, which is dangerous. Please go buy a car instead."
>>91
"Common Gateway Interface (CGI) is a standard method for web server software to delegate the generation of web content to executable files."
Emphasis mine.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-14 6:17
>>92
no, it's more like saying "your car was made in 1985 and is no longer road worthy. You can't legally drive it on state roads from now on."
>>97
"reckless endangerment" of who? The user herself. It's my fucking choice.
And I'll argue that IE is more secure than Firefox or Chrome if configured properly, because by default you have zone-granular control over exploit routes like ActiveX and JavaScript. Turn off everything for all sites, turn on what you need only for sites you trust. You can't do that easily with Firefox without needing to bloat things even more with an assortment of extensions, and Chrome is even more pathetic in comparison. Sure they have "Disable JavaScript" but that's all or nothing.
It's also hilarious to see people say "but I was using Firefox/Chrome/<insert your advertised-as-safe browser here>! There's no way I could've gotten infected from that, because I didn't use IE!" To push the car analogy further, it's like saying "I can drive drunk because I have airbags and ABS." Idiots.
>>104
Of course, instead of having a properly designed client-side scripting API, we can always make a crappy one and tell users to disable it for each site they don't trust (or alternatively disable by default and enable it for each site they trust, i.e., let the crap sink and users go to the competition).
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-15 13:11
MYTHICAL TRIPS
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-15 13:11
EGIN DOuBLE DuPS
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-15 13:32
Solving anal quizes with amateur shitty-crap was allways being best hipstors game, pardon my French.
>>111
Whatever "properly designed" means, if there is any client-side scripting there are going to be websites which abuse it. Thus it should be mandatory that the user has control over which sites have the privileges to do so.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-16 9:39
>>115 properly designed: adj. Having the term `sandbox' used somewhere in the promotional literature.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-16 15:57
>>115
Whatever you mean, it ain't an excuse to make broken ActiveX.
>>116 LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL XXXDDDDDDDDDDDXXXDXDDDXDDDDDDXDDD
LE MFW
LE WIN9XU
LE NO PROTECTED MEMORY
LE 15 MINUTES UPTIME
LE U MAD?
LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLL
>>136
Then you're going to be bumping forever because I have no plans to produce one and this thread was intended as discussion and not production from the beginning. You're welcome to do so, however.