You can make a perfectly effective UI in vanilla HTML5 and it will work forever, just like you can roll up for your date wearing practical clothes driving a 2002 Honda Civic, but you’re not guaranteed to look impressive enough to snare the targets. I think the point of all this JavaScript library evolution is not to be a good coder or a practical husband.
Yes, it needs to work, fully, without CSS or JS. Then, use CSS to make it look nicer, and use JS to make it behave nicer.
The total failure of most people who build professional web sites to follow standards and make them pain-free continues to baffle me, when it’s not that hard to do right and helps ensure the site is maintainable going forward, regardless of which new JS library or framework becomes popular.
This doesn't happen for me when clicking around sites like HN or my blog, both are server side rendered and I'm on a pretty flakey connection right now. Browsers solved this a long time ago with how they deal with page changes.
I read the server-side-rendered forums of DLang, and everything happens so fast, in around 200 ms, that I don't feel I am losing anything by the forums not being an SPA.
I mean, is this really a legitimate problem? Full page reloads don't bother me very much at all, and they actually come with a lot of niceties. Like URLs and the back button working normally.
For me personally, not usually. But having worked on a few different companies with embeddable widgets, yes it is. The page-based (SSG) routing is not an option there. And even in CRUDs the product folks want WYSIWYG and smooth uploads of assets. With more and more bling it's just inevitable that one will need a JS framework eventually.
His software was so strong, it made the Macintosh what it was at the time, and indirectly shaped Windows and Linux’s UI to either imitate or showboat against it. The magnitude of his contributions to everything we think was normal now can’t even be stated. Apple drifts around more but the products still have a lot of his DNA in it.
Agree. I hate to see Bill and team not get the credit they deserve. There is the idea (so famously put forward by Bill Gates) that Windows and Lisa (Mac) both ripped off Xerox — and I think that is misleading at best. As you can see in the Polaroids, Lisa took the lead from Xerox but then charted their own course. (Windows, it is said, then copied that.)
The full saying goes, “good artists copy; great artists steal.” It’s usually attributed to Picasso originally.
I didn’t really understand what this meant until I heard Johnny Cash’s version of Hurt. He transformed the song, made it his own, to the point where a lot of people don’t know about the original. Even Trent Reznor said Hurt is Johnny Cash’s song now. This is how a great artist steals; they elevate and transform the original into something new that is able to connect with more people in a deeper way.
When Jobs said it, I’m sure his view was that Apple took what they saw at Xerox and made it their own, to a level that makes Xerox’s original largely irrelevant, like a great artist would. Meanwhile, Microsoft were not great artists, and simply copied.
Average velocity of the particles if there are enough of them to collide frequently (and if you can factor out bulk motion). But you can also look at average vibrational energy.
The funding for scientific projects comes from applying for grants from the government. Researchers must write proposals to demonstrate the value of their projects. After the project is completed, they are also required to submit a final report to verify that the project was indeed carried out as approved by the supervising authority.
reply