Jump to content


Staff Alumni
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


.josh last won the day on September 16 2019

.josh had the most liked content!

About .josh

Recent Profile Visitors

40,302 profile views

.josh's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (4/5)




Community Answers

  1. a) Let me remind you that you are responding to a post that was posted several years ago, when this stuff was a much bigger issue. b) I work in the web analytics industry. I look at web stats all day long. And I talk to corporations all day long about those numbers vs. their web sites and the user experience (UX) of their sites. What I see is the exact opposite of your thoughts about webmasters still striving to cater to <IE8. I have been fighting for clients to ditch IE6/7/8 support for years and they are only just now starting to come around since earlier this year, only because of Microsoft ending support for it. So the ball is rolling, yes, but I'm sorry, I disagree with the notions that web devs are in a place where they can just completely forget about supporting it. If you don't believe people are still catering to IE6/7 then I don't believe you have much experience dealing with corporations, and possibly even clients in general. I don't doubt for a second there are plenty of random no-name sites and even some "cutting edge" sites that are "with the times" and cater to younger crowds. And of course it's easy for people to upgrade. And of course there's no reason for them not to. But the stats show that there's still a fair chunk of people that don't, and nobody wants to throw away potential revenue, even if it's 1% of users. Also, I'm not saying there isn't a non-jQuery or non-framework solution for things. That's just silly. All I'm saying is when you have a complex site doing complex things, and having to deal with making sure it works for the widest audience possible, you will more often than not save yourself a lot of time by using a framework like jQuery. Look, I'm done arguing with you about this. As I mentioned in a previous post, I used to be hardcore on the other side of the fence, absolutely shunning frameworks as extra bloat used by people who can't be bothered to learn "real" javascript. I know exactly where you're coming from because I've been there, so I know there's little point in trying to argue with you about it.
  2. Frank, that's not a fully cross-browser compatible version of ajax for <IE8. Most people still strive to support IE6 and IE7, even though Microsoft stopped officially supporting those versions (and IE8) earlier this year (April 2014 - XP no longer supported, so by extension <IE9 no longer supported). Also sidenote: you gave a simple example of what to do with the response. That example isn't cross-browser compatible either. And in reality, most people use ajax in conjunction with more complex code, from event handlers to selectors, notwithstanding applying previous stuff to whatever dynamically generated content is likely to come from the ajax call. All of that stuff must be applied in a cross-browser compatible way.
  3. It was not my intention (nor do I think I implied it) to say you're stupid if you don't use a framework. I said do yourself a favor and make your life easier. Also, I am not "just another soldier" in the "we use frameworks" army. I actually actively resisted and opposed frameworks for a very long time. I too made arguments such as "If people learn jQuery, they won't learn the core language and therefore they will be weak." But the bottom line is that there's always going to be a certain amount of coding involved to keep things cross-browser compatible. And after several years of developing and maintaining my own baked framework (because that is essentially what you wind up with), I came to the realization that there's a whole lot of people out there much smarter than me who are dedicated to maintaining frameworks such as jQuery, vs. just myself, and on my very best of days my code will look very similar to theirs anyways. In short, I came to the realization that it was a waste of my time trying to develop and maintain my own baked framework, because my coding career does not revolve around that framework. Now, I still agree with the notion that one should take the time to learn javascript without frameworks, before diving into using them. I still absolutely agree with the dangers of not properly learning the nuances of javascript if you don't. And the same can be said for any language and framework. But if you've reached that level of expertise, all you are doing is holding yourself back by dedicating time and effort to maintaining your own baked solution. There's basically no compelling argument to do it, unless you are looking to distribute it and focus solely on it. Literally thousands of sites and coders out there developing, testing and submitting feedback etc. to a framework will always do it better than you, one person, trying to basically do the same thing on your own. And for what? Bragging rights? If I'm "just another.." then tell me, what makes you think rolling your own is better? I honestly want to know, because as I said, I did start on your side of the fence. Anyways, I also agree that there's little point in using it if you're only going to use like 1 tiny piece of it. I suppose I will concede that maybe I should amend the OP to weigh the options. But thing is, 9/10 times I see people not using a framework for stuff like AJAX.. turns out the site they are working on is already using a framework. This certainly comes up a lot more for freelancers and coders working in agencies who work with many clients on many sites and it's constantly new sites/clients in the door, vs. some coder working as web dev for a single company. Point being that if you get hired by a client to do some work on their site, it is better to evaluate what they already have going on there and use what's already there, than to just start throwing your own stuff into the mix. If you want to talk about unnecessary bloat, well that's a prime example right there. P.s. - telling me to "keep it civil" right after you've thrown out a "you're just another.." statement.. classy.
  4. sounds more like a memory problem, not an ftp program problem. By "map" I assume you mean folder or directory, right? you may need to ftp from command line or write your own script that ftps to it..IOW a method that doesn't involve trying to grab and display a list of the working directory/folder. And then NOT do things like list or display dir content.
  5. Except that lying to get free shit (which is the same as stealing) is wrong. Even moreso since you can afford it.
  6. yeah sorry OP but a few questions in I decided to call it quits..I wasn't really diggin' waiting 10-20s per page load.
  7. maybe it's just me, but that site runs super slow...
  8. This is what I got from the test. Faster than 91% of all tested websites! Anyways...near as I can tell, most of the load/wait time comes from the 3rd party ads (something you don't get if you become a supporter or named membergroup).
  9. Duh, it's obviously the most optimalist tail-chasing breed. How many dogs do you know who actually catch their tail? A LABRADOODLE WOULD.
  10. Also, 20 posts does not in any way clearly demonstrate that you aren't going anywhere. Just sayin'..
  11. Well i guess point 1 you arent logged in yet so thats kinda superfluous. Point 2 you wouldnt be either but IMO you should show it on that page. And the others work under logged in status logic so really the only thing is first point.
  12. Yes that makes sense...but isnt the common denominator between all those pages/scenarios that you ARE logged in? Therefore, you can just base the logic on logged in status.
  13. have it show/hide based on logged in status. I assume you have a session var somewhere in there that is only set when user is logged in, yah?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.