Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Announces Web Development Learning Initiative

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the where-do-all-the-cat-pictures-come-from dept.

Mozilla 44

bonch writes "Mozilla has announced Webmaker, a web development initiative aimed at teaching the average user the building blocks of the web. Users can join a 'code party' and learn web development with provided authoring tools, and existing developers can volunteer to run their own events. To kick it off, Mozilla is announcing the Summer Code Party starting June 23."

cancel ×

44 comments

Oh God... (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#40084517)

This give me flashbacks to what the "average user" produced back in the day, armed and dangerous with FrontPage.

Please, for the sake of my retinas, I hope that something better comes out of this.

Re:Oh God... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40084545)

Help me dancing Jeebus!

Re:Oh God... (5, Informative)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40084615)

Oh, you mean like when you teach people to read and write, they sometimes write crummy stuff? Funny, the way I see it, that's still better than what they wrote before -- namely nothing. Kinda like someone who makes a website with blue text on green background is still an improvement over someone who doesn't know how to make a website at all.

And frankly, look at Slashdot, look at Facebook, look at any fucking page Google ever made, look at Stackoverflow, look at Reddit, and so on.. 99% of the sites we don't even blink at are utter crap. They're either white with no separators, or with separators that crawled out of the ass of a blind man, and then died. Blue text on green background would be an improvement in a lot of cases.

Mozilla websites on the other hand I can't complain about, from the top off my head -- at least they're constantly switching it up and try to keep it pretty in a ^_^ way. So if anyone should do something like this, let it be them. But regardless of that: I'd rather read more websites with mediocre design coming from genuine humans, than have everybody know how to play it safe, or how to install a wordpress fucking theme, or how to just use facebook instead. Fuck all that stuff, and the whores it rode in on, too. /rant :D

Return. Return! (-1)

ReturnToGamemakerdom (2645771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40084705)

I implore you, a thinking individual, to return to Gamemakerdom!

Every slave throughout history that suffered a horrible fate didn't return to Gamemakerdom.
The Jews horrifically murdered by the Nazis didn't return to Gamemakerdom.
The poor, innocent souls who died in 9/11 didn't return to Gamemakerdom.

Will you return to Gamemakerdom? It's the only sensible choice if you value your life and family.

This Gamemakerlessness is an eyesore!
Disappear.
This Gamemakerlessness.
This Gamemakerlessness.
This Gamemakerlessness.
This Gamemakerlessness.
This Gamemakerlessness.
This Gamemakerlessness.
This Gamemakerlessness!

Re:Oh God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40084739)

Wow. Funny how this thread is leaning hard to thinking web development means webpage design.

We've been there already. Everybody got intoxicated and wore silly hats. Web dev these days is more about app dev.

And yeah, "real" developers are going to bitch and moan, but that's where all this is headed, and quite like napalm it ain't going back in the jar.

Re:Oh God... (1)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085017)

This.

Computing (as in development of automatic behavior of machines) is still a forbidden lore out of the reach of the masses, but it shouldn't be that way.

We're at the early stages of software development where a few scribes herd the knowledge of the kingdom and eveyone else must subcontract them to fulfill their needs for automation. In the future we'll have software development tools that don't require having a career to create some trigger conditions and simple interactions; until then, it's good that people interested in computers have a venue to be initiated in the basics of the current state of the profession.

Re:Oh God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40085097)

"Oh, you mean like when you teach people to read and write, they sometimes write crummy stuff? Funny, the way I see it, that's still better than what they wrote before -- namely nothing."

That's the problem with analogies, they often fail to capture the problem they're related to.

It's not about them not writing anything at all, it's about them using tools to publish instead of writing raw markup.

It's more like the difference between someone producing something shortly after they've learnt a language using a pen, vs. them writing something using a word processor. The latter is going to be better because they have things like spell checking, and grammar checking to improve their output.

Re:Oh God... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085309)

It's not about [..], it's about

what is? the post I replied to? because

This give me flashbacks to what the "average user" produced back in the day, armed and dangerous with FrontPage.

  Please, for the sake of my retinas, I hope that something better comes out of this.

is kinda the opposite of:

[using tools to publish] is going to be better

so...

That's the problem with analogies, they often fail to capture the problem they're related to.

... wtf is that about? maybe you should start really small, by either actually replying to people you're talking to, or opening a new post. I disagree with what you said, but because it's so utterly unrelated and random I can't even be arsed go into details. I'll just say "no".... thanks for the demonstration of the exact brainlessness I was bitching about though ^^ people who use standard tools are going to produce "better" results, if I just randomly type keys it constitutes a "reply", herpa derp.

Re:Oh God... (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085463)

Mozilla websites on the other hand I can't complain about, from the top off my head

Try this page [mozilla.org] ... :-)

Re:Oh God... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096343)

It still gives me a vibe that an actual human being made that according to what they find pleasant and useful; certainly compared with a LOT of other sites, that each have lots more traffic than that Mozilla page... and if people who wouldn't know something nice if it killed their whole family and burned their house down can make the pages for Google and Facebook, surely "newbies" making "unprofessional" websites will not hurt, or even throw us back in the dark ages.

Slashdot had one "re-design" (I recall), which was mostly updating the old one a bit and going fully Ajax. That makes Slashdot the Champ of Kings, because hey, Craigslist looks like shit, too, and have you ever been to Ebay? IMDB? Amazon? Heh. You may say that it's not about design, and I'd agree, but there's still a difference between not caring about design and eye cancer. Flickr, a site for photographers of all things, for fucks sake... What they have is a good first attempt, but to leave it sitting like that for like *forever*? The biggest photo sharing site on the web last time I checked (which is never), and *that* is the message they're sending, "meh, *scratches ass*"? Seems so, and lucky for them and others, hardly anyone is listening, they just gobble it up.

But of course, the story is about web development, not design. Well, Just recently it became possible to, although still VERY painfully, follow a conversation in the comments that has unrelated comments in between replies. How many years did it take them? And it's still fucking shit, it still says "you're not supposed to actually talk" (kinda like Twitter). But at least it now looks nicer, they polished the turd that is their UI somewhat. And oh yeah, Twitter. I loved when they went full Javascript, with like a megabyte to download to get more than a completely white page.. that was also very pro right there. They actually tested that and thought "yeah, that's good enough for now". Priceless.

So I say, bring on the barbarian newbies -- if every person on the planet learned in school how to operate a CMS and what RSS feeds are, Facebook and many other cynical abominations wouldn't even exist, and Google would run a search engine bot and otherwise STFU about things they clearly haven't half a clue about; and if a bunch of Geocities-style pages were the price for that, I'd pay it several times over, and gladly, because it'd be such a bargain.

Re:Oh God... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40096351)

Well, Just recently it became possible to

Whoops.. I'm talking about youtube there, must have deleted that word when editing sorry.

Re:Oh God... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40084645)

Mozilla, and the folks behind HTML5 in general just don't get it.

They built HTML5 with the goal of making it easier for your average Joe to develop, whilst fucking over professional developers by completely destroying separation of concerns, and encouraging we move away from the insanely well supported and highly interoperable XML to the arbitrary HTML5 markup standard which isn't even SGML.

But it's the wrong approach. Nowadays web applications are getting bigger and more complex, and Joe Average isn't writing markup, Joe Average is using authoring tools provided by the professional developers - things like Wordpress, Facebook etc. so really HTML5 at it's core should've aimed at being a more professional specification to support that added complexity.

Still, I don't even think HTML5 is the right tool for the job anymore, we need a stronger push for something to replace HTML and HTTP that better supports interactive web applications for interactive web applications, HTML at this point would be better left as a document markup language to handle informational documents, whilst applications are built using a new language. There's no reason the two couldn't interoperate well, just have web apps use app:// or whatever and the existing URL scheme can happily handle linking between them. There has been a few attempts at this sort of technology but nothing serious.

Still, back to the topic at hand, instead of trying to get anyone and everyone back to writing HTML markup, Mozilla should be focussing on better supporting professionals, those who aren't professionals but want to be have more than a wealth of information out there to get going already. There are enough bad web developers out there already, this will only encourage an explosion of that.

Re:Oh God... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#40084829)

Mozilla, and the folks behind HTML5 in general just don't get it.

They built HTML5 with the goal of making it easier for your average Joe to develop, whilst fucking over professional developers by completely destroying separation of concerns,

What separation of concerns did HTML/Javascript ever have?

Re:Oh God... (3, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085039)

He's probably referring to XHTML, whilst XHTML2 wasn't really ideal, it was at least going down the right path in terms of doing just that. Though it's worth pointing out that Javascript/HTML is itself an example of separation of concerns - client side scripting separated from document structure, though HTML5 does nothing particular to cripple this at least.

Personally I'm not keen on semantics been wedged into the HTML5 spec though, I think that's a concern that could be far better dealt with like stylesheets. The semantic tags are one of my pet hates in HTML5, because they're based on a study that was out of date shortly after it was produced and it was produced in something like 2006. The set of tags is so small and arbitrary that it's meaningless, it would've made far more sense to apply semantic information to classes and ids as that way you could store them in a separate file, which gives you the additional benefits that they can also be applied to existing sites that are no longer maintained in the same way you can apply custom stylesheets. You could have separate people handle the semantics, which would be handy on massive projects, and you'd be able to update the available semantic options without having to update the main HTML spec or have a "living" non-spec as WHATWG have proposed. ARIA roles already basically duplicate the semantic tag functionality but do so in a far more flexible manner, so it's an example as to where, IMO, we should have gone, and should be going.

There are other issues with semantic tags - older browsers just don't even recognise them and fail to render those blocks, you can fix this with Javascript hacks, assuming everyone has Javascript enabled and working of course (they don't). They're hence not even properly backwards compatible, so if you want to use them you've realistically got to accept that someone is browser your site with an HTML5 compatible or higher browser. The other argument for the tags is to get rid of div soup, and sure it's a pain, but honestly? the benefit of divs is that they're generic, and by keeping your tags generic and applying additional information (i.e. styling) using the ids/classes, you're maintaining flexibility and keeping things both futureproof, and backwards compatible at the same time - new stuff can be added whilst old browsers can safely ignore it. Even now the semantic meanings of the semantic tags have become meaningless anyway as there's so much disagreement for example as to what should be an article. There's any number of questions that go something like this "There isn't a semantic tag to mark up this part of my web page, what do I do?" to which the response is "Use divs anyway", or "Use this semantic tag, which isn't exactly what the element is but is the closest element" - the problem with the latter which many people accept and use is that it dilutes the semantic meaning of that tag, an article is already not actually an article half the time, it may be a comment. You could argue a comment is an article, and that's great until you go to the next HTML5 page where someone has instead arbitrarily decided a comment is actually an aside.

There's some nice stuff in the spec, canvas being the obvious one, and web sockets if they ever get implemented properly in every browser, but in general I agree with the GP and think it's pretty awful. CSS3 in itself is pretty nice though, and doesn't have many issues with it beyond it's current level of support.

Really, as I say, CSS3 is pretty decent, but HTML5 is indeed a terribly thought out spec, the whole process has been rather amateurish and felt more like they were building a script kiddies wish list of shiny stuff rather than a spec to take the web forward. Many things such as accessibility and security seem to have been worryingly neglected in a number of areas. It doesn't help when you see grand commander Hixie engaging in flamewars with people and basically ending up with comments that amount to "I don't care what you think, I'm doing it my way whether right or not" - he just doesn't have the maturity to be doing something this important. The whole WHATWG mindset seems like a bit of a farce in general, they complained about the way the W3C was organised yet I do not see how they are better. The W3C took it's time over things because it's engaged just about everyone from every sector of the techology market - hardware producers, browser vendors, developers, designers, etc. (go see W3C's website to see just how broad their representation was) whereas WHATWG is basically some elite council stemming mostly from only a couple of companies (rather than the 100s that compose the W3C) representing an absolute minority interest that dictates what everyone should do, regardless of whether it fulfils people's needs. It's certainly a difference in ideologies, WHATWG can get stuff done quicker, there's no doubt about that, but if the price is abysmally poor quality as with the HTML5 spec? Personally I'm one of those who prefers things to be done "right" and WHATWG has proved it's absolutely not capable of that even if it has proven it can get lots of shiny shit that sounds good in practice out the door pretty quickly, but I guess it really is down to your personal preference at the end of the day. Some people prefer something quick and dirty, others prefer slow and proper. I guess I'm just not a fan of the totalitarian "grand council" mindset at all, I'm more democratic in my world view than that- I think democracies for all their faults still provide a better outcome than totalitarian regimes.

There is another argument, that HTML5 has at least forced browser to start complying to the same standards, but I'm not even convinced that's true, ignoring the fact that implementations of new HTML5 components vary wildly between browsers, frankly I think it's the increased competition in the market that's forcing browsers to try and render more pages, more correctly rather than anything HTML5 has done. Now that the browser market is healthy and competitive that just seems to have come naturally regardless of the specs. The older specs are now adhered to pretty well, whilst the newer specs are being fought over in a battle for dominance as to who gets to define what certain HTML5 components should look like or how they should work in practice.

Still, I digress, on the point of the original article it's good that Mozilla is doing this if they can do it properly but I think the GP has a point in that there is a major risk that they're just going to churn out more bad developers, developing some really poor code. People have to start somewhere of course, but it's making sure they have a path that allows them to go on and do things properly, and do them well once they've passed that first hurdle, assuming they want to progress down the path at all of course.

Re:Oh God... (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085499)

He's probably referring to XHTML, whilst XHTML2 wasn't really ideal, it was at least going down the right path in terms of doing just that.

No, it wasn't.

Personally I'm not keen on semantics been wedged into the HTML5 spec though, I think that's a concern that could be far better dealt with like stylesheets.

HTML has always been about semantics. What HTML5 does is update them and introduce elements that web developers have been needing.

Without the semantics HTML is meaningless. Stripping off the semantics is crazy talk.

There are other issues with semantic tags - older browsers just don't even recognise them and fail to render those blocks

Wrong. IE is the only web browser that doesn't render them. All other older browsers render them just fine.

The other argument for the tags is to get rid of div soup, and sure it's a pain, but honestly? the benefit of divs is that they're generic, and by keeping your tags generic and applying additional information (i.e. styling) using the ids/classes, you're maintaining flexibility and keeping things both futureproof, and backwards compatible at the same time

No, you're just creating a maintenance nightmare.

Even now the semantic meanings of the semantic tags have become meaningless anyway as there's so much disagreement for example as to what should be an article.

ohnoes there's disagreement let's throw everything out.

The spec isn't even done yet.

Re:Oh God... (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085981)

"No, it wasn't."

Nice argument, well cited, and highly intelligent. I can't disagree. Oh wait, you didn't actually have an argument.

Good software development is all about modularity, ensuring a spec is can grow to the dynamic needs of something like the web demands that you define the generic building blocks, and let people build whatever they need from there. XHTML2 was trying to do both of these things.

"HTML has always been about semantics. What HTML5 does is update them and introduce elements that web developers have been needing."

No, it's about defining document structure. It used to define some styling, but if you didn't get the memo this thing called CSS came along. It can include content, but this is often populated dynamically now, server side.

"Without the semantics HTML is meaningless. Stripping off the semantics is crazy talk."

Do you actually understand the concept of semantics? This comment is nonsensical. HTML still defines structure regardless of any semantic meaning.

"Wrong. IE is the only web browser that doesn't render them."

Wrong because it's right? what???

"No, you're just creating a maintenance nightmare."

As opposed to a mishmash of ill defined tags with arbitrary meanings? Really? Have you ever even been involved in large scale software development?

"ohnoes there's disagreement let's throw everything out."

Er, the whole point of a spec is to specify things. If there's disagreement about something fundamental within the spec then the spec has failed to define something properly, and failed at the fundamental task a spec is precisely designed to fulfil.

"The spec isn't even done yet."

Yes, well that's one advantage of a living spec I suppose. When someone points out fundamental flaws in it you can say "It's living", or "It's not done yet".

Come back when you actually understand:

1) What HTML defines

2) What semantics means in the context of the web

3) What the purpose of a technical specification is

Re:Oh God... (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40088751)

Nice argument, well cited, and highly intelligent. I can't disagree. Oh wait, you didn't actually have an argument.

Neither did you. You just namedropped XHTML2 and that was it.

Good software development is all about modularity, ensuring a spec is can grow to the dynamic needs of something like the web demands that you define the generic building blocks, and let people build whatever they need from there. XHTML2 was trying to do both of these things.

It was trying to do it in a bad way through XML namespaces, leading to namespace confusion [whatwg.org] .

No, it's about defining document structure.

That, too. They go hand in hand.

HTML still defines structure regardless of any semantic meaning.

The only structure it would define is that of a tree devoid of meaning.

Wrong because it's right? what???

If all older web browsers were IE browsers, you'd be right. But there are lots more of them out there that will render HTML5 just fine.

As opposed to a mishmash of ill defined tags with arbitrary meanings?

They're not ill defined tags with arbitrary meanings.

If there's disagreement about something fundamental within the spec then the spec has failed to define something properly

Disagreement about the semantic meaning of a bunch of elements is hardly fundamental. Besides, the spec isn't even done. If no one disagreed on things we wouldn't need anyone to work on specs.

Yes, well that's one advantage of a living spec I suppose.

We're talking about HTML5, not the versionless living spec living at the WHATWG. Did you forget that the W3C embraced the WHATWG's work and used that as a basis for HTML5?

Come back when you're living in reality again.

Re:Oh God... (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093249)

"It was trying to do it in a bad way through XML namespaces, leading to namespace confusion."

I fail to see any worthwhile arguments on that page, unless you're working on the premise the AC at the start of the thread point out as being so flawed - that HTML should serve to allow the lowest common denominator to publish at the expense of professional developers being able to write better code. The web is in a different place to where it was 15 years ago - as the AC said, non-programmers aren't publishing via HTML, nor do they have any interest in doing so, they're publishing via web apps written by the professionals. When the argument is not only so weak to start with, but based on a fundamentally flawed premise it's meaningless, but it highlights one of many fallacies WHATWG has based their entire argument on. Even then my point was absolutely not that XHTML2 was some super perfect spec - to anyone that isn't some mental HTML5 fanboy that much should have been pretty obvious - I was merely stating it was going in the right direction. Your link isn't even close to being any kind of evidence to the contrary, it is merely one perceived flaw based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the modern web.

"The only structure it would define is that of a tree devoid of meaning."

Exactly. A generic flexible tree that can be dealt with as you need to. The meaning is applied externally, and it is then upto the user agent as to what sets of technology it supports to provide meaning - semantics, styles, scripting. It's called separation of concerns, it's incredibly important in modern software, it's sad so many people like you don't get this vital concept in software design.

"If all older web browsers were IE browsers, you'd be right."

That's if you prefix my use of the term "older browsers" with the word "all". I can't really be held responsible for what fucked up logic you carry out in your head to create disagreement for the sake of creating disagreement.

"Disagreement about the semantic meaning of a bunch of elements is hardly fundamental."

Yes, except when the elements are design specifically as semantic elements, then it kind of is fundamental. If you can't define the semantics of tags designed purely for the purpose of being semantic, then it's a fundamental failure.

"We're talking about HTML5, not the versionless living spec living at the WHATWG. Did you forget that the W3C embraced the WHATWG's work and used that as a basis for HTML5?"

Have you looked at the list of outstanding issues? Hint: The definition of semantic tags is no longer something still under discussion.

Still, have fun not understanding even the fundamentals of what you're arguing whilst arguing on the topic regardless. Doing so doesn't make you right, it just makes you a failure.

Re:Oh God... (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093581)

I fail to see any worthwhile arguments on that page

Nice argument, well cited, and highly intelligent. I can't disagree. Oh wait, you didn't actually have an argument.

Even then my point was absolutely not that XHTML2 was some super perfect spec - to anyone that isn't some mental HTML5 fanboy that much should have been pretty obvious - I was merely stating it was going in the right direction.

And it is this right direction that I took issue with.

Exactly. A generic flexible tree that can be dealt with as you need to.

Semantics are so tightly coupled to structure that you'd end up right back where we started. There is nothing to be gained by stripping out the semantics. There's a reason HTML was designed from the outset with them in mind.

It's called separation of concerns, it's incredibly important in modern software, it's sad so many people like you don't get this vital concept in software design.

Except that we're not talking about software. We're talking about web pages. It's beyond obvious now that you're thinking of them like a programmer, which is missing the point.

That's if you prefix my use of the term "older browsers" with the word "all". I can't really be held responsible for what fucked up logic you carry out in your head to create disagreement for the sake of creating disagreement.

When "older browsers" really means "IE browsers", you're being misleading as there are many other older browsers out there. Hence, whether you like it or not, my disagreement was called for.

Re:Oh God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40086001)

>> whilst fucking over professional developers

Good. I'm sick of "professional" pages with der-blinken-litzen, nonsensical navigation, bloated flash/script, and overall user-antagonism.

Re:Oh God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40086181)

So you prefer "amateur" pages with der-blinken-litzen, nonsensical navigation, bloated flash/script, and overall user-antagonism? I find this kind to be much worse.

Re:Oh God... (2)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40084965)

Still, I don't even think HTML5 is the right tool for the job anymore, we need a stronger push for something to replace HTML and HTTP that better supports interactive web applications for interactive web applications, HTML at this point would be better left as a document markup language to handle informational documents, whilst applications are built using a new language. There's no reason the two couldn't interoperate well, just have web apps use app:// or whatever and the existing URL scheme can happily handle linking between them. There has been a few attempts at this sort of technology but nothing serious.

Extremely well said, this is something I've wanted to have to some time already. HTML/HTTP has never worked very well for applications, and it's becoming more and more a mess of bubblegum.

Re:Oh God... (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085507)

An imaginary mod point (for lack of real ones) for you. If I were choosing a separate language for app://s it would be the existing SVG, Javascript (ES 5.5, just to be safe), CSS, and a language-generic form of object (called xml:object? though what if I decide I want it to be supported in non-XML SGML stuff?) to embed apps within docs (and vice versa) and music, video, and more complicated whiz-bang 3D or outright novel stuff within both. I'd ask browsers to use their built-in "HTML5"-or-whatever player for those objects but allow something (the user? the dev? either?) to specify a plugin if they insist or if the built-in doesn't support the format. (I don't like the audio and video tags and think img should be deprecated for object now that IE and friends show images with object in a similar way.)

Also instead of that ugly and misleading HTML5 shield I'd make the logo for it all a witch, because a good app would be like magic and I have A Thing(tm) for witches at the moment.

Re:Oh God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40085257)

This give me flashbacks to what the "average user" produced back in the day, armed and dangerous with FrontPage.

The average user thinks coding is about as much fun as being stabbed in the eye with a fork. More ludicrous social ineptitude from an organisation of geeks that has managed to put off geeks. Take your awful bar, constantly breaking extensions and insane numbering scheme and shove them where the sun don't shine. FUCK YOU MOZILLA for making a great browser and then pissing on it and setting it alight.

Re:Oh God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40085869)

WARNING: do not look at this site [theworldsw...teever.com] with remaining eye.

Re:Oh God... (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40086309)

And today the same people have Facebook pages. Was that really worse?

Re:Oh God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40087397)

You can't set your Facebook page to display your last status as a blinking marquee.
You can't set your Facebook coloration to magenta on cyan (or white on yellow).
You can't embed awkwardly loud music on your Facebook page, with a control hidden somewhere in the invisible frame.
For that matter, you can't do any of the frame abuses through Facebook.

In conclusion, yes, there are things worse than Facebook. (And I know I will remember more within 5 minutes of clicking submit)

great (3, Interesting)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40084519)

I love all the new tools out there to help people engage with technology on a deeper level. Going to have to see if we can set up a local event for kids from the nearby school. They have been using Codecademy [codecademy.com] this year in some of the classes, seems like this might be a nice bridge over the summer and maybe something they can use throughout next year.

Re:great (1)

qu33ksilver (2567983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40084649)

Its great to see web development taking over traditional app development in terms of popularity. We are already in the internet age. Let the web development begin !

Because we haven’t enough "webdesigners" alr (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40084619)

I remember the (first) .com bubble
- where the taxi driver that drove me to my job, hat a HTML4 book in her car.
- where I had to work with a sinologist, a germanist, and somebody with a 1-month course in "computers".
- where I suggested using templating as it hat cut my work load by 90%, but it was rejected because "functions are a too complicated concept"!!
- where PHP became a language of choice, with people writing things like: if (myfunc() == True)
- where there were 8 lines of empty space between each line of HTML, because people converted line breaks in one direction only.
- where indentation was completely ignored, and hence every file required reformatting to become readable
- where nobody could tell the difference between a reserved word and a function, and hence wrote things like if(myfunc ($x,$y)) { ... }, thinking if is a function, and myfunc is... no idea.
- where people refused to test stuff in anything other than Internet Explorer (5.5 and 6.0 back then). If they tested it at all.
- where copypasta was sometimes the only stuff a whole site was made out of.
- where I hat to fix the spaghetti code, and was called "slow" for it, while everyone else was "fast" because his shit only worked until the next day when I was called to help.

HELL NO!

HTML5 is already enough cancer (compared to XHTML5) for a decade of fuck-up.

Re:Because we haven’t enough "webdesigners" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40084643)

Above posts contains free hats. Don't tell Valve! ^^

Re:Because we haven’t enough "webdesigners" (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40084997)

where PHP became a language of choice, with people writing things like: if (myfunc() == True)

I remember a story about a PHP coder who used things like $jep (Finnish for "yeah") extensively for variable names.

Re:Because we haven’t enough "webdesigners" (1)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085183)

- where PHP became a language of choice, with people writing things like: if (myfunc() == True)

honest question, I don't use php that much but what's wrong with that expression?

Re:Because we haven’t enough "webdesigners" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40085255)

It is redundant.

myfunc() by itself returns True or False. No need for "== True".

But this is not a question of PHP, it's a question of logic, so as a programmer you should have spotted it instantly. I don't think you are the spawn of Satan for not recognizing this but I guess some others on Slashdot might.

Re:Because we haven’t enough "webdesigners" (1)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085551)

yeah I never use == True/False but I thought it was some stupid error like if(a = b)

Re:Because we haven’t enough "webdesigners" (1)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40086049)

Well, " == True" is something some people prefer for clarity, which I can respect, so I assume that he's saying people made actual functions with completely useless abstract names like myfunc. If I saw if (myfunc() == True) I'd be able to parse it but would have no idea what it would mean.

Re:Because we haven’t enough "webdesigners" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40086363)

Well, " == True" is (has the property of) something (that is, a way of writing code) some people (which are a subset of developers who love redundancy and tautologies) prefer (give preference) for clarity (explanation of meaning), which I (the person who writes this comment) can respect (find it to be not without reason) , so I (the person who writes this comment) assume (make assumption) that he's (author of grandparent post) saying (that is, writing a comment) people (a previously mentioned subset of coders) made (by which i mean "wrote") actual functions (in abstract sense, not the one he mentions earlier) with completely useless (giving no more readability, maintainability or anything else) abstract (not bound to the functionality) names (identifiers) like myfunc. If I (the person who writes this comment) saw (visually perceived) if (myfunc() == True) I (the person who writes this comment)'d be able to parse (extract syntactic information) it (the aforementioned piece of code) but would have no (zero, zilch, nada) idea what it (the aforementioned piece of code) would mean (what functionality does it have).

Here, expanded for the sake of clarity.

It doesn't add clarity at all, especially when mixed with interchangeable != True and == False instead of (!func()) and != False in other places, probably for completeness. And such code usually doesn't stop at this level of redundancy.

Re:Because we haven’t enough "webdesigners" (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40086907)

It doesn't add clarity at all, especially when mixed with interchangeable != True and == False instead of (!func()) and != False in other places, probably for completeness. And such code usually doesn't stop at this level of redundancy.

That reminded me - I have sometimes pondered if programs should only have "positive" configuration options, for example "[x] Load tabs before being selected" instead of "[ ] Don't load tabs until selected". Is there some written GUI guidelines as to whether or not use "don't" to negate the statement?

Authoring tools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40084771)

Why aren't those tools already avaible without registration for those willing to start learning now, and not sign up for some meeting in a month or two date away.

This gives me a weird feeling behind all this.

Accept-Language (4, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40084967)

Do you think they could teach the fucktards over at Google what the Accept-Language header is for?

That way they could stop guessing which language I want to see based on where I happen to be at any particular time.

Kthxbye.

Re:Accept-Language (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085613)

All they know is the User-agent header which they sniff all the time to decide which version of their pages to show you.

They can't even output valid HTML.

Re:Accept-Language (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40087815)

Accept-Language is another HTTP header that they get along with the User-agent string. Accept-Language lists a preferred languages that you would like the request to be honored. I believe that is what the grandparent to this post was referring to.

"That maker spirit" (1)

swell (195815) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085135)

Mozillaâ(TM)s Executive Director, Mark Surman speaks of "That maker spirit". We used to have that in the US. Now we have devolved into a consumer society. I wonder if we can recapture that attitude with these new affordable tools, or if the third world will grab the opportunity alone.

Pro tip, (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40085269)

When planning summer events for an American audience you need to get word out long before the Memorial Day weekend.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...