Live data from Hacker News

I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer

polygeek.com

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer

#41
post #17

Actually, this criticism is true when you use HTML for what it was not intended to do : Make pretty renderings. The core functionality of HTML is to provide hyperlinked data. It does that concisely and efficiently. CSS and DIVs are a mere kludge added on top of a language that is supposed to transmit mainly semantical data. I really wish xhtml would have won in place of HTML/CSS. This kind of things would have been f…

  > I really wish xhtml would have won in place of HTML/CSS.
This makes me doubt that you understand what you are talking about. XHTML and HTML have exactly the same semantics. CSS has little to do with them (you can use CSS to style you XML documents if you wish so). With CSS3 and modern browsers you can pretty much avoid anything to HTML just for styling purposes. Heck, take a look at http://camendesign.com/ It's not visually complicated, but there are no IDs and CLASSes in the source.

Re: I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer

#42
post #18

For me, web development seems like the exact opposite of desktop development. In desktop development, you learn the underlying foundations first (the programming language, files, networking, graphics, GUIs, etc), then weave them together to build your application. It's slow, but worth it -- often the concepts are universal. How many times do you have to re-learn file IO? In web development, it's really easy to build…

> How many times do you have to re-learn file IO?

What are you defining as file IO? What do you mean by re-learn--do you mean forgetting and having to learn again, or learning some new fact that changes your total understanding of the thing? What has gotten me in the past is learning how some particular language does file IO[1], which might mean learning something new about file IO I didn't know before (but didn't matter for what I wanted to do at the time) that expanded my perception. Though I guess the concepts of "read", "write", "rewrite", and "append" are the same.

I really don't think you get any more universality in desktops than you do in the web world. You might get more in the web world if you restrict your universe to the web world, due to a limited selection of choices on the front-end. (And backend too if you go the traditional route of learning LAMP with PHP on a shared host provider.)

Related to the other comment on RAD systems, even NeXTSTEP in '89-'95 had the WYSIWYG concept applied to everything as one of its major selling points. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j02b8Fuz73A Around 23:00 Jobs starts to demo making a GUI application that talks to a backend DB and shows pictures, and you don't need to know SQL or joins or anything.

So I don't think the desktop world has been any better in regard to keeping abstractions at bay or offering universal modes of thought (hey fork()!). The first time I programmed something with tkinter I kept asking "Where's my user-defined main loop? Where's my event handler? Where's my render stage? WTF is this 'pack' method?" Because my prior UI experience on a desktop was with pygame, which defaults to having you control every pixel.

[1]Bash likes its pipes and IO redirection, C likes its file pointers, C++ likes its streams, Java likes those too but also likes Buffer Objects et al., PHP has a nice function to glob a whole file in as a string (but you can shoot yourself in the foot if you run out of memory), "Python is obvious", "Perl is magic". If I try and load "./file" what's the context of "." and how does my language let me get a known value for that that's relative to my program and that's platform independent? What about encrypted folders, different file systems, file encoding? Will the language/OS abstract that for me? Now I want to start doing things asynchronously. Now I want to start talking to web files, now I want to start sending cookies and stuff when I'm talking to web endpoints instead of files, maybe I want to do socket IO now, and this whole trip has taken me through several other realms which seem to me pretty far removed from simple file IO.

Re: I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I think the return to "do whatever you want and we try to interpret it correctly" was wrong. Code in XHTML is way more readable, maintainable and easier to learn (IMO). I still write my HTML5 in correct XHTML Syntax.

I freaked out a little when I started seeing do-whatever-you-want creep back in when I first read diveintohtml5.org (mirrored: http://diveintohtml5.info/ ). Sure, you save some (or a great deal many) characters, but at the cost of making everything that needs to work with it more complex. (Browsers are a large slice of this pie, but by no means is the only slice.) I'm going to sit back and wait for the cycle to come…

"I'm going to sit back and wait for the cycle to come back around to XHTML-like correctness again."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Re: I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer

#44
He bemoans the lack of debuggers and breakpoints, but there could be no such thing beyond the "Is this format valid?" stuff.

HTML is a hint as to the presentation, and every client that reads the hints will largely present it the same way. But some may not... older clients, newer clients, clients for accessibility (Jaws Reader).

Accept it, be at peace with your lack of absolute control and put only the markup you need to hint at the layout you need, and then use only the CSS you need to hint at the positions of things relative to each other, and sizes relative to each other.

Once you realise you don't know anything about the screens, resolution, connection speed... or even if there is a screen, it's a lot easier to use HTML quite elegantly.

Re: I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer

#46

Stop conflating your non-understanding of something with inherent difficulty. You might find the code (defmacro unless (cond &body res) `(if (not ,cond) ,@rest)) rather opaque; but it's actually pretty darn simple. You might find body { width: 800px; position: relative; left: 50%; margin-left: -400px; } impossible to pull out of one's ass; it's not, you're just unused to negative margins. To you, TeX macros or M4 or…

You've also got to make a distinction between necessary and accidental complexity. That example would be better written as:

    body {
        width: 800px;
        margin: auto;
    }
(This also has the benefit that the left hand side of the body does not disappear off the side of the screen in small browser windows.)

There's a similar problem with the css in the article he links to - it is more complicated than it needs to be, which just confuses the subject. Anything is hard to learn if it is taught badly.

Re: I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer

#47

Stop conflating your non-understanding of something with inherent difficulty. You might find the code (defmacro unless (cond &body res) `(if (not ,cond) ,@rest)) rather opaque; but it's actually pretty darn simple. You might find body { width: 800px; position: relative; left: 50%; margin-left: -400px; } impossible to pull out of one's ass; it's not, you're just unused to negative margins. To you, TeX macros or M4 or…

Shouldn't that be (cond &body rest)?

Re: I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer

#48
CSS is a declarative language, not an imperative language, so there is no concept of a breakpoint in CSS, because there is no concept of one thing occurring before another. There is a chain of inheritance of course, but Firebug will show you that.

A web browser + Firebug/Web Inspector is effectively a giant REPL, what more could you want?

Re: I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer

#49
post #45
post #3

off topic: Which is correct grammar -- "an HTML" or "a HTML" ? This question has always bugged me.

Just out of curiosity, what's the usage? Saying (a|an) HTML sounds weird to me, like saying "a plumbing". Isn't it just plumbing/HTML?

An HTML developer. An HTML editor. An HTML file. An HTML standard. You get the idea.

Re: I’m too lazy to be a HTML developer

#50
it also means that "I'm too lazy to figure out that there is no such html developer".

html is all about a few xml tags. everybody can do it. I know some music bands, authors and politicians who code website learning basic html.

and I see some developers who ignores coding html because they think they're too smart to code a simple website. no comment.

Post reply on HN