I understand that as more businesses wanted to use the web, the desire for online transactions came up. But instead of building something new, all these other things got piled on top of html, and everything turned into a big heaping mess. At least in my opinion. I'm still not convinced of the value of online business though. It's risky, prone to hacking, and more.
Personally, I never bought a pager when they came out. I never got a mobile phone when they came out. I never got a cellphone when they came out. I do not own an mp3 player, an ipod, or an iphone. I mention this merely as a basis to where I am coming from. If I miss a call, they'll either call back, or they won't. I'll either be there to answer it, or I won't. Either way, I go about my daily life without feeling tied to a stupid phone.
The more I type, the more it sounds like a rant, and it isn't meant to. I just want to put my questions into perspective.
So, can anybody explain to me what the big deal is for anything more than simple HTML?
Seriously, does anybody write desktop applications any more? These were my specialty and I feel like all this modern crap has taken away my ability to earn.
Web pages are written in three languages.
HTML to specify the content (hopefully using semantic tags that help to identify what each piece of the content is).
CSS to define how the page should look on the particular device being used to view the page. By keeping this separate from the HTML you can define totally different appearances for the same content to suit a variety of different devices.
I think you missed the underlying question, which is behaviour. HTML documents weren't designed to have behaviour. The web itself is stateless. Why go to these lengths to make it behave more like a desktop application with a persistent state, when we could've just used desktop apps to start with?
I agree that web pages weren't originally designed to have behaviour. That situation only really existed between 1989 and 1996 though. I don't know why it was decided to add behaviour to web pages rather than create a separate protocol for it but since web pages were without behaviour for only 7 years and have had behaviour now for 16 years I don't understand why anyone would bother asking that question now rather than say 15 years ago when it was a relatively new concept. As web pages have had behaviour now for over 2/3 of the time that the web has existed it seems somewhat irrelevant now that it is something that the web didn't have during its first few years of existance when for much of that time the only people who even had access to the web at all worked for universities and other scientific institutions. Very few people using the web today would even be aware that there was a time when web pages didn't have behaviour.
I suppose it is a problem for somebody like me. I began in 1991 and around 1998 or so, I did start complaining. It was easy for me to think in terms of 100% static, or 100% interactive. It was the mixtures that made my mind boggle, become confused as to the purpose of a unit, trace it's flow, and eventually lose the last job I had, back in 2000. I guess some people, me included, just aren't cut out for this generation.
Needless to say, I don't like the idea of combining purposes into products, like the ipad. Computer, web, phone, music, all in one unit? Nah...
I prefer the days when the web was used to GET information, email was used to SEND it, and newsgroups were used to SHARE it. Separately, they were so much simpler. I retired in 2010 after a stroke, and I suppose it's just as well. This old coot probably just needs to move along.
Probably. When HTTP was designed, they certainly had no idea how it would one day be used. If we dig through history, I suspect we'd find that Microsoft tried to introduce a new protocol. But nonetheless, HTTP thrived. I suspect this happened for two reasons: HTML was easy, and browser software was already widely available.
It was more of an evolution rather than a conscious choice.
Jeff, I follow you. But I'm still not certain I 'get it'. For examples sake: my kids operate the universal remote here at our house flawlessly, without reading the manuals. To me, it's too complex. I'm always hitting the wrong button, or getting into some stupid on-screen menu that I can't get out of. For me, it is simpler to just walk up to the box and push the 'channel up' button. I understand how things like this evolve, I just don't like it because 9 times out of 10, it leaves me in the dust.
I guess it's what you're used to.
My grandmother thought microwave ovens and answering machines where complicated.
My parents did OK with those, and even remote controls and cell phones, but drew the line at getting a computer.
I know younger people that can't tell time from a non-digital clock and have never heard of party lines or LPs and wouldn't know what a cassette tape is let alone an 8 track.
When I was in school, the use of pocket calculators was forbidden and I thought bulky walkie-talkies were neat. Now use of computers is mandatory (any wonder why some cashiers can't do simple math?) and almost everyone has pocket-sized cell phones.
When I started using computers it was text only, command prompt, monochrome screen (remember pong?). Personally and fortunately, I have no trouble with this, but I can understand how some would and GUIs make things easier (well, they should hopefully) and look cool.
Would having separate transfer protocols for various things make sense and be better? Probably. But time flies and change is constant. Who know's, maybe 20 years from now there will be?
Heh. I remember everything on that list. Heck, I remember our first black and white tv. It had three knobs. One volume, one gross and one fine channel knob. I could see it and hear it just fine. I'd still use it today if I still had it. =)
Actually, I used to work in at a place where Web Application was frown upon and desktop application is ALWAYS way to go.
Anyways, don't look at HTML/CSS/JS as a reason why WEB became popular. Look at it as HTML/CSS/JS got popular because of Web.
One last comment ^_^... It's been months since I posted here.
Of course, I realised when I started this thread that it uses the very things I don't see any point in. But I use it because it's the only option right now. Until SP introduces a mailing group, then I have to use this. The truth is, I don't even like this, or facebook, even though I'm forced to use it because nobody checks their f-ing email anymore. I feel like I'm being pulled out with the tide, with all this feature overload and dumb crap.
I'm a forum guy, myself.
The truth is, I don't even like this, or facebook, even though I'm forced to use it because nobody checks their f-ing email anymore.
Same! I absolutely hate that. Terrible for communication. And I'm young (no offense), in the "Facebookiscool" generation.
Seriously, does anybody write desktop applications any more? These were my specialty and I feel like all this modern crap has taken away my ability to earn.[/QUOTE]
Wow, someone crankier and more old-fashioned than myself... this will be fun.
Some of the technologies offer real advantages -- CSS for example allows you to enhance the page and create layouts, often using less bandwidth and less HTML. In fact, it lets you take your HTML back to the original intent; saying what things are and then letting the user agent (browser) determine how best to show them... all CSS does is allow you to target certain types of user agents to further enhance their appearance.
It's where the idea of "separation of presentation from content" comes into play -- semantic markup; saying what your things ARE (headings, paragraphs, lists) instead of what they look like (font, center, align) allows you to target multiple targets off one set of HTML, and still have a decent workable page for search engines, screen readers with assistive technologies, or people who just want to turn all the fancy extra crap off.
You go to one of my sites, you turn off CSS, you get a clean, simple flat HTML page that's fully functional. You leave CSS on and turn images off, you get a working CSS layout where all the content is still useful.
CSS also, as I mentioned, can save on bandwidth and make pages load faster; since an external CSS stylesheet is CACHED across pages. So if people visit more than one page that uses the same styling, when they go to that second page it's already on the clients machine ready to go; it also means less markup overall since you can say something once, instead of a dozen times over and over.
You take old HTML 3.2 from the peak of "let's piss on what HTML is for" (The following is taken from an actual site I took over running in 2003 the previous maintainer had tossed together using "HotMetal Pro" -- an old WYSIWYG. My involvement ended last year after they stepped on my johnson with golf cleats connected to a car battery -- that's actually how one of the junior partners described their handling of the changeover!)
</FONT></SPAN><B><SPAN STYLE="Font-Size : 14pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica">Inner Sphere Idenity</FONT></SPAN></B><SPAN
STYLE="Font-Size : 10pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica"><BR>
In a region called home by as many different peoples and cultures as the Inner Sphere, it may seem strange to speak
of an overall identity, or of any similarities at all. Yet every Inner Sphere nation shares three characteristics
that set them apart from the Clans: a workable balance between vastly diverse elements, families in which parents
or close blood relatives care for children of varying ages, and recognition of other human endeavors as equal or
superior to waging war.<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><B><SPAN STYLE="Font-Size : 14pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica">Clan and Inner Sphere Differences</FONT></SPAN></B><SPAN
STYLE="Font-Size : 10pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica"><BR>
Like many groups in the Inner Sphere, individual Clans see themselves as significantly different from their fellows.
Though minor from an Inner Sphere perspective, cultural differences among the Clans frequently threaten to explode
into major rifts. Throughout Clan history, they have prompted everything from long-standing feuds to mini-civil
wars to outright obliteration.<BR>
The realms of the Inner Sphere are far more different from each other than are any two Clans. Some are virtually
bubbling over with different cultural groups and political factions. Others hew sharply to a single cultural pattern
and centralized power structure. Yet even the most freewheeling society possesses some sense of unified identity,
and even the least tolerant realm peacefully incorporates nonconformist elements.<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><B><SPAN STYLE="Font-Size : 12pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica">Falcon vs. Wolf</FONT></SPAN></B><SPAN
STYLE="Font-Size : 10pt"><FONT FACE="Arial, Helvetica"><BR>
Spends time declaring the same things over and over again, isn't semantic so screen readers have no clue what's going on, and is an all around waste of code... for what today would be a simple:
<h3>Inner Sphere Idenity</h3>
In a region called home by as many different peoples and cultures as the Inner Sphere, it may seem strange to speak of an overall identity, or of any similarities at all. Yet every Inner Sphere nation shares three characteristics that set them apart from the Clans: a workable balance between vastly diverse elements, families in which parents or close blood relatives care for children of varying ages, and recognition of other human endeavors as equal or superior to waging war.
<h3>Clan and Inner Sphere Differences</h3>
Like many groups in the Inner Sphere, individual Clans see themselves as significantly different from their fellows. Though minor from an Inner Sphere perspective, cultural differences among the Clans frequently threaten to explode into major rifts. Throughout Clan history, they have prompted everything from long-standing feuds to mini-civil wars to outright obliteration.
The realms of the Inner Sphere are far more different from each other than are any two Clans. Some are virtually bubbling over with different cultural groups and political factions. Others hew sharply to a single cultural pattern and centralized power structure. Yet even the most freewheeling society possesses some sense of unified identity, and even the least tolerant realm peacefully incorporates nonconformist elements.
<h3>Falcon vs. Wolf</h3>
with this as the CSS:
font:bold 120%/120% arial,helvetica,sans-serif;
margin:0 0 1.2em;
So you can see the obvious advantages there. It IS a superior way of handling things. When there's a legitimate benefit, don't be afraid of 'new' technologies.
Especially when said technologies are already over a decade old! (which is the shocking part of people still sleazing out pages in transitional; and why HTML 5 being the 'new transitional' is a step BACKWARDS)
Scripting used with restraint is a great thing -- the total lack of restraint right now is taking good site concepts and flushing them down the toilet... leading the charge of course is the fat bloated idiotic jquery asshattery - that after three and a half decades of programming I can't believe ANYONE is dumb enough to want to use. (See my opinion of HTML 5).
Desktop applications aren't going anywhere, but with Windows 8 and the "metro" interface, as well as on mobile HTML and CSS will see more and more use for designing user interfaces for applications...
This actually isn't anything new; go back to when IE5 came out and Microsoft documented and opened up the API calls to Trident (the rendering engine under IE) for use in making application interfaces... almost a decade before XULRunner was a twinkle in a FLOSS fanboy's eye. It was actually a laugh that a number of Antivirus softwares from '97 through to the early part of the last decade actually relied upon IE to render their user interfaces! They used HTML running inside a IE instance as their UI!
I would suggest taking the time to learn these technologies and to try out some of those devices you "don't have or want" so you can actually be qualified to comment on them. I badmouth a lot of this new stuff, but I only do so after trying them and giving them a serious chance... A lesson I had drilled into me from an early age -- If you aren't going to take the time to review them seriously and understand them you have little business opening your yap on the subject!
Besides, they day you think there's nothing new to learn is the day the rest of the world leaves you behind. The IT field is in constant flux, if you think you can learn to do something one way and then never have to update your skills, you're in the wrong field.
Though I understand the feeling, I had the same reaction when Borland ditched OWL for the VCL -- the latter being visual programming is something I can't wrap my head around; but I don't go around badmouthing Visual C++ or Delphi -- BECAUSE I can't understand how to use them and as such don't, I'm not qualified to rip into them... It is depressing though that I can hand compile my own 6502, 6809, 1802, Z80 or x86 machine language, but I can't understand visual programming. (Though as i've said for years I'd rather hand compile 8k of machine language than try and debug 50 lines of C code -- it's less cryptic)
Rejecting things you've tried to use on legitimate functionality grounds is different from rejecting them just because they are new, different, outside your realm of understanding or supplanting your existing skillset. One is making a rational choice, the other is being a whiny little ....
P.S. Mailing lists? REALLY? I hated them back on Fidonet as being impossible to follow and useless... Compared to a modern forums, even the steaming pile of manure known as vBull is just... wow. What's next? Usenet and IRC? These technologies are dead for a reason.
Just as another consideration - there was already a protocol for document sharing before HTTP - it was called gopher. That HTML allowed the styling of the document to be handled by the browser rather than having it embedded in the document was one of the original benefits of HTML. Early browsers had CSS built into the browser itself. It was only much later browsers in the early 90s that dropped that and made it necessary to provide the appearance info some other way that led to the HTML 3.2 monstrosity that most web sites still use.
That's not true at all. You do have a choice. Just don't use the browser ever again and save money by not having ISP. If you do "decide" to use it then I'd be more appreciative. Sorry to say this but your perfect example of a troll. Of course, you're free to have your opinion..but if you're going to say negative things then first quit using it then criticize it. Seriously, you don't like sitepoint and you decide to rant on a site you don't like? seriously..c'mon~~~ he's a troll right?
Unless I misinterpreted, I didn't hear "I don't like SitePoint" as much as I heard "I'm out of my comfort zone".
As for all the fancy-smancy stuff, I remember seeing sites with gaudy colors, animated gifs, autoplay mids, blink and scroll.
And not used in moderation.
I figure it's the same with this generation. "Ooooh, I can do this". And then go overboard (mis)using the tools at their disposal.
That's true for anything. You'll always find someone who'll misuse the tool. There are many people who still think duck tape or super glue is the solution for everything. I can promise you that dumb programmers will always exist no matter what you do. At work..sometimes I wish I had a shirt that says "I see dumb programmers"..lol~ just j/k~ not everyone is tech saavy..but just a thought.
next page →