Coffeehouse Thread

95 posts

IE Team Interview?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Bas

    evildictaitor wrote:
    
    creditcard wrote:
    Silverlight is a waste of time just like DirectAnimation was before then. The web is an open platform get used to it Microsoft.


    You sound like corona_coder when you say things like that.


    Predicting doom for Microsoft... Just listing a bunch of baseless statements without coming to a real point... yeah, I think you're on to something here.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    BruceMorgan wrote:
    

    The laxness of HTML means anyone can make pages.  That makes HTML incredibly more approachable and powerful and ubiquitous than a rigid structured, "easy to parse" language.  It's why the web happened in the first place.



    I know that's the usual response, and I'm sure the original intention of HTML, but I suspect that now-a-days it's simply untrue. Having a lax standard means that different browsers interpret the same stuff differently, wheras a stricter (but also complete) standard would mean that Firefox and IE and Opera et. al. would be able to unambiguously give the same result for each webpage.

    I'm not saying that IE should (or could) change this, and I'm not just "having a go", but it does seem to me that until a stricter standard appears, webdesigners will be spending lots of time coding around the browsers, rather than concentrating on the content and design that they ought to be.

    Ironically I think that in this, the multi-browser era of computing, the laxness of HTML is an obstacle to getting into webdesign.

  • User profile image
    BruceMorgan

    evildictaitor wrote:
    
    BruceMorgan wrote:
    

    The laxness of HTML means anyone can make pages.  That makes HTML incredibly more approachable and powerful and ubiquitous than a rigid structured, "easy to parse" language.  It's why the web happened in the first place.



    I know that's the usual response, and I'm sure the original intention of HTML, but I suspect that now-a-days it's simply untrue.


    No, it's still totally true.   Myspace wouldn't be nearly so popular if modifying your page required "real" software development skills and knowledge.

    HTML is still incredibly scalable.  A little kid can make a working webpage with only knowing a couple tags and angle brackets.   A professional web developer can do amazing web applications knowing the full spectrum of web technologies.  And most people can play in the middle.

    Don't underestimate how powerful and important it is to keep both the high and low end of the scale working. 

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    Even with the lax interpretation other browsers do manage to render correctly, it is more the case that it becomes an issue when a browser vendor decides to totally ignore what is specified in the spec and re-interpret it in bizarre ways*. 


    * The button bug seems to be getting the most publicity on the IE blog, but getElementById is my personal fave.... 

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    Koogle wrote:
    And one last thing that I definitly want to see improved..



    how something so simple could be released with IE7 and feel like it didn't even get the slightest bit of attention..says it all really 


    That's one of the things I miss most when I use linux.

    I can't seem to make it do that. Sad

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    BruceMorgan wrote:
    
    No, it's still totally true.   Myspace wouldn't be nearly so popular if modifying your page required "real" software development skills and knowledge.

    HTML is still incredibly scalable.  A little kid can make a working webpage with only knowing a couple tags and angle brackets.   A professional web developer can do amazing web applications knowing the full spectrum of web technologies.  And most people can play in the middle.

    Don't underestimate how powerful and important it is to keep both the high and low end of the scale working. 


    I applaud everyone from MySpace who takes up webdevelopment as a result of playing around with "MySpace codes".

    The thing for me is not "standards compliance" or "CSS compliance" (who's to say what's "right" and what isn't?) but rather just for some consistency across the browsers.

    When IE5 and IE6 were the only browser in town, the Internet was a utopia of consistency. Writing a website meant getting content and wrapping it with informative tags such as "<h2>" and "<p>", and the Internet was bliss.

    The joint abominations that were Macromedia Flash and Javascript now mean that automatically parsing a webpage is horrendous, and for the partially sighted or fully blind, using the Internet is a joke.

    Since then HTML has increased in volume to the attrocity that it is today, where all sites are big, and getting them to render properly is less like putting a round peg through a square hole, as trying to bash three melons through a square, triangle and circular hole respectively with a hammer.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    creditcard wrote:
    
    Flash came a long time ago (before the existance of most web standards), and I wouldn't call it "very successful". As much as Adobe pushes it on developers, and the fact that it is installed on something like 98% of all internet facing computers, the fact that it's fully compiled bytecode and runs on almost all computing platforms, it is still mostly used for advertisements and cartoon animations made by 16-year olds. The only real success of Flash lately is as a glorified video player. Hopefully Flash will die one day too.


    Either HTML must replace what Flash does, or another technology must replace it.

    Here's me voting for Silverlight to overtake the God-forsaken horribleness that is Flash.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    creditcard wrote:
    it is still mostly used for advertisements and cartoon animations made by 16-year olds.


    This is the very definition of very successful.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    evildictaitor wrote:
    
    Here's me voting for Silverlight to overtake the God-forsaken horribleness that is Flash.


    I want interfaces created in Silverlight to behave -exactly- like desktop interfaces. This includes text selection, right mouse button support, et cetera. That'd completely blow me away as a mature web development platform..

  • User profile image
    Bas

    creditcard wrote:
    
    Bas wrote:
    
    evildictaitor wrote:
    
    Here's me voting for Silverlight to overtake the God-forsaken horribleness that is Flash.


    I want interfaces created in Silverlight to behave -exactly- like desktop interfaces. This includes text selection, right mouse button support, et cetera. That'd completely blow me away as a mature web development platform..


    What you are looking for is System.Windows.Forms.


    Web development.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    BruceMorgan wrote:
    Don't underestimate how powerful and important it is to keep both the high and low end of the scale working. 


    Thing is, the "low end" (i.e. tag soup) only works when UA implementations are advised on how to work with broken markup (typical of MySpace-related phenomemon, previously Angelfire/Tripod). But if there comes along a specification with explicit rules on how to handle bad markup, then Authoring programs have no incentive to make "correct" markup.

    I think with HTML5 and XHTML2.0, UAs should display a "This page's markup is not well-formed" message in the Information bar or something. This doesn't break backwards compatibility (and the myspace-types can still churn out Frontpage/Dreamweaver-generated HTML4.01) and websites created by people wanting to be the best can be the best (since how many % of wannabe web developers/designers have even used the W3C validator or code by hand?)

  • User profile image
    Bas

    creditcard wrote:
    
    So what you are looking for is System.Windows.Forms inside of a web browser? Why not reduce the overhead of your application and remove the need for the web browser entirely?


    Yes please!

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    creditcard wrote:
    
    No problem. The amazing ability to write Windows applications without the need for a web browser has been part of the Windows SDK since Windows 1.0. Kind of like XMLHttpRequest which is like 10 years old, maybe one day this amazing and unheard of ability of creating applications which do not need a web browser will one day be utilized.


    Oh, if only everybody wrote applications like that.

    Sadly they suffer from a couple of drawbacks: You cannot benefit from the vast amounts of data that only a webserver can provide, you cannot interact with others on the same project, you cannot upgrade seamlessly, you cannot get your application to the user without an installation and they cannot guarrantee that when it's delievered it won't do Bad ThingsTM without the code-execution prevention mechanisms of Flash and Silverlight.

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    evildictaitor wrote:
    Either HTML must replace what Flash does, or another technology must replace it.

    Here's me voting for Silverlight to overtake the God-forsaken horribleness that is Flash.

    I think the former is the most likely and it is already making steps in that direction.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    creditcard wrote:
    
    Of course you can, in fact, the general point XML (and by extension the REST architecture) and XHTML is to allow data (which is often served by a webserver), to be effectively used by a client application.

    It depends how fine-grained you want to have access to the general execution engine. If you're fine with users downloading the code that runs, then goahead with REST and XML data transfer. If you need your inner workings to be secret (such as in Google Apps) or for lots of small massive-data bindings, you might need your app to basically be a front-end on a webserver elsewhere.

    creditcard wrote:
    
    Nonsense. If you mean developers interacting on the same project that is nonsense, that is what software engineering and source control systems are for, and I don't see any real advantage to web applications in this collaboration. If you are talking about end users interacting, I don't see any advantage either in this regard, except perhaps the simple nature of developing HTML pages which is not transfered over to Flash or Silverlight development.

    I mean end-users, not developers. I see no need for development to migrate to a web-based platform at this time.
    You seem close to conceding there that HTML pages do allow for collaboration through use of appropriate web-technologies, and Flash and Silverlight are designed to complement, rather than replace this.

    creditcard wrote:
    
    Flash itself has suffered from many vulnerabilities and it's existence on your machine decreases the overall security of the system. .NET is not exactly immune to vulnerabilities but it does have some pretty fine grained access control via application domains.

    Well, that's Flash's problem. No (currently released) system is immune to vunerabilities, and while I'm sure the .NET framework is no exception, their reliance on managed code rather than pseudo-byte code means that while it is easy to "crash" the app, the potential for you to do Bad Things through security vunerabilities is very much lessened.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    creditcard wrote:
    
    Wow what a bunch of patent nonsense. You have no clue on how .NET works or what "managed code" or bytecode is. In fact, ironically Silverlight 2 is built with the .NET framework.


    Yes. I have absolutely no idea about the .NET framework, or managed code or bytecode. Oops. Hands up, you got me. Yes. No knowledge of it whatsoever. I've never even seen ECMA-335 and the MSIL language.

    Imagine you seeing through me like that. Shucks. It must all be a terrible mistake, you see, me and all of that complicated maths involved with designing and implementing managed code and the .NET framework - waaaay over my head.

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    creditcard wrote:
    
    Apparently so. I mean, you suck at law, you seem to suck at computers, you suck at debating, what are you good at evildictaitor? I mean, you must be good at something!


    I think this post wins irony of the year.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    creditcard wrote:
    No problem. The amazing ability to write Windows applications without the need for a web browser has been part of the Windows SDK since Windows 1.0. Kind of like XMLHttpRequest which is like 10 years old, maybe one day this amazing and unheard of ability of creating applications which do not need a web browser will one day be utilized.



    You don't seem to understand what web applications are, do you?

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.