CS teacher tip of the day:

server side input checks and sanitization are always useless. because nowdays all browsers have javascript enabled by default and nobody disables it. so client-side checks are safe.

me: ***WTF!?!***

TABLE BASED WEB DESIGN

I was surprised there were no rants about this topic before I realized it was more than a decade back 😳

We've never had it better! So to help add a little perspective for all those ranting about what is unarguably the golden age for web developers... let me fill you in on web dev in the late 90's;

JavaScript was a joke. No seriously! - I once got laughed out of the room for suggesting we try use it for more than disabling a button - (I wanted to check out the new XHR request thingy [read AJAX]).

HTML was simple and purely a markup language (with the exception of the marquee tag). The tags were basically just p,ul,ol,h*,form inputs,img and table and html took 10 minutes to learn. Any style was inline and equally crude - anything that wasn't crude could not be trusted and probably wouldn't render at all in most browsers (never mind render correctly).

There were rumors of a style TAG and something called a cascading style sheet which were received with much skepticism since it went against the old ways and any time saved would be lost writing multiple [IE version specific] style sheets for each browser just to get it to work - so we simply didn't.

No CSS meant the only tags you had to work with to create a structured layout were br, hr and table... so naturally EVERYTHING was in nested tables! JS callback hell can't touch this! - it was not uncommon to have 50+ nested tables all with inline style in a single page which would be edited without any dev tools or linting.

You would spend 30 minutes scanning td tags until your eyes bled to find something, make a change, ftp the file to the server, reload the web page and then spend 10 minutes staring at the devastation on your screen convinced you broke
the internet before spotting an un-closed td tag with your bloodshot eyes.

Tables were not just a silver bullet - they were the ONLY bullet and were in the wild west!

Q: Want an inline form or to align your inputs left?
A: Duh table!

Q: Want a border with round-corners, a shadow or blur?
A: That's easy! Your gonna want to put that table in the center cell of another table then crop a image of the border into 6 smaller images to put in the surrounding cells... oh and then spend 10 minutes fucking with mystical attributes like cell-padding and valign to get them flush.

...But hey at least on the bright-side vertically & horizontally centering stuff was a breeze!

I just invented a new JavaScript operator. It's named "plus with wings", and it's used to sum to numbers without ambiguity or any need of type conversion, for example:

3 -+- "2" // 5

"2.1" -+- "4" // 6.1

"-1.1" -+- "" // -1.1

So, from now, you won't have to wonder anymore what type is that variable.

Tested on all browsers

"Fuck JavaScript, its such a shitty language" seems to be quite a common rant today. It seems as if JS is actually getting more hate than PHP, which is certainly odd, considering the stereotype.

So, as someone who has spent a lot of time in JS and a lot of time elsewhere, here are my views. Please, discuss your opinions with me as well. I am genuinely interested in an intelligent conversation about this topic.

So here's my background: learned HTML/CSS/JS in that order when I was 12 because I liked computers. I was pretty shitty at JS until U was at least 15, but you get the point, Ive had it sploshing about in my brain for a while.

Now, JS certainly has its quirks, no doubt, but theres nothing about the language itself that I would say makes it shitty. Its a very easy leanguage to use, but isn't overdeveloped like VB.net (Or, as I like to call it, TheresAFunctionForThat)

Most of the hate is centered around JS being used for a very broad range of systems. I doubt JS would be in the rant feed so often if it were to stay in its native ecosystem of web browsers. JS can be used in server backend, web frontent, desktop and mobile applications, and even in some system services (Although this isn't very popular as of yet). People seem to be terrified that one very easy to learn language can go so far. And, oh god, its interpreted... How can a system app run off an interpreted language? That's absurd.

My opinion on JSEverything is that it's progress. Thats what we're all about, right? The technologies already in place are unthreatened by JS, it isn't a gamechanger. The only thing JS integration is doing is making tedius and simple tasks easier. Big companies with large systems aren't going to jump ship and migrate to JS. A startup, however, could save a fucking ton of development time by using a JS framework, however. I want to live in a world where startups can become the next Google, because technology will stagnate when youre trying to protect your fortune, (Look at Apple for fucks sake) but innovation is born of small people with big ideas.

I have a feeling the hate for JS is coming from fear of abandoning what you're already doing. You don't have to do that. JS is only another option (And a very good one, which is why it's becoming so popular).

As for my personal opinion from my experiences... I've left this part til the end on purpose. I love programming and learning and creating, so I've never hated a lamguage, really. It all depends on what I want to do. In the times i've played arpund with JS, I've loved it. Very very easy. The idea of having it on both ends of web development makes a lot of sense too, no conversion, just direct communication. I would imagine this really helps with speed, as well. I wouldn't use it in a complicated system, though. Small things, medium size projects: perfect. Running a bank? No.

So what do you think about this JSUniverse?

I'm trying to sign up for insurance benefits at work.

Step 1: Trying to find the website link -- it's non-existent. I don't know where I found it, but I saved it in keepassxc so I wouldn't have to search again. Time wasted: 30 minutes.

Step 2: Trying to log in. Ostensibly, this uses my work account. It does not. Time wasted: 10 minutes.

Step 3: Creating an account. Username and Password requirements are stupid, and the page doesn't show all of them. The username must be /[A-Za-z0-9]{8,60}/. The maximum password length is VARCHAR(20), and must include upper/lower case, number, special symbol, etc. and cannot include "password", repeated charcters, your username, etc. There is also a (required!) hint with /[A-Za-z0-9 ]{8,60}/ validation. Want to type a sentence? better not use any punctuation!

I find it hilarious that both my username and password hint can be three times longer than my actual password -- and can contain the password. Such brilliant security.

My typical username is less than 8 characters. All of my typical password formats are >25 characters. Trying to figure out memorable credentials and figuring out the hidden complexity/validation requirements for all of these and the hint... Time wasted: 30 minutes.

Step 4: Post-login. The website, post-login, does not work in firefox. I assumed it was one of my many ad/tracker/header/etc. blockers, and systematically disabled every one of them. After enabling ad and tracker networks, more and more of the site loaded, but it always failed. After disabling bloody everything, the site still refused to work. Why? It was fetching deeply-nested markup, plus styling and javascript, encoded in xml, via api. And that xml wasn't valid xml (missing root element). The failure wasn't due to blocking a vitally-important ad or tracker (as apparently they're all vital and the site chain-loads them off one another before loading content), it's due to shoddy development and lack of testing. Matches the rest of the site perfectly. Anyway, I eventually managed to get the site to load in Safari, of all browsers, on a different computer. Time wasted: 40 minutes.

Step 5: Contact info. After getting the site to work, I clicked the [Enroll] button. "Please allow about 10 minutes to enroll," it says. I'm up to an hour and 50 minutes by now. The first thing it asks for is contact info, such as email, phone, address, etc. It gives me a warning next to phone, saying I'm not set up for notifications yet. I think that's great. I select "change" next to the email, and try to give it my work email. There are two "preferred" radio buttons, one next to "Work email," one next to "Personal email" -- but there is only one textbox. Fine, I select the "Work" preferred button, sign up for a faux-personal tutanota email for work, and type it in. The site complains that I selected "Work" but only entered a personal email. Seriously serious. Out of curiosity, I select the "change" next to the phone number, and see that it gives me four options (home, work, cell, personal?), but only one set of inputs -- next to personal. Yep. That's amazing. Time spent: 10 minutes.

Step 6: Ranting. I started going through the benefits, realized it would take an hour+ to add dependents, research the various options, pick which benefits I want, etc. I'm already up to two hours by now, so instead I decided to stop and rant about how ridiculous this entire thing is. While typing this up, the site (unsurprisingly) automatically logged me out. Fine, I'll just log in again... and get an error saying my credentials are invalid. Okay... I very carefully type them in again. error: invalid credentials. sajfkasdjf.

Step 7 is going to be: Try to figure out how to log in again. Ugh.

"Please allow about 10 minutes" it said. Where's that facepalm emoji?

But like, seriously. How does someone even build a website THIS bad?

so i guess ill use my code.org teacher for this:

"credit card information is encrypted with the public keys"

"lists and arrays are the same thing"

"javascript is a powerful, fast, programming language" (bhahahaha)

"javascript is [only] used in web browsers"

"java and javascript are *extremely similar* but not the same"

2007
Works in all browsers, except IE. Rewrite JavaScript to work in IE.

2017
Same but replace IE with Edge.

*Opens some Computerphile video on YouTube in Chrome Canary*
CPU > hey ho dude, wait a minute..! I can't process all of this in realtime!!! >_<

Alright.. I think I've still got a copy of all their videos sitting somewhere in the file server.. perhaps I could use that instead.
*Opens said video from the file server in SMPlayer*
CPU > aah, thanks man. Now I can allocate 15-ish % of my resources to that and give you a good watching experience.

Web browsers are really great for being the most general-purpose document viewers, application execution environments (remote code execution engines as someone here called it), and overall be one of the most versatile programs on any PC's standard software suite.

But that comes at a price.. performance. And definitely when it comes to featureful fucking WordPress shitsites (shites?), bloated YouTube, Google, Facebook, and all that fucking garbage.. I fucking hate web browsers and this "Web 2.0" that people keep on talking about. Your boatload of JavaScript frameworks just to ease your own fucking development has a real impact when it happens on dozens of tabs, you know.

Besides, can't those framework creators just make it into a "compiler" * of sorts? So that front-end devs can flail their dicks in an shit-infested environment full of libraries and frameworks all they want, but the framework can convert it into plain JS code that the web server can then serve. Or better yet, the JavaScript standard could be improved to actually be usable on its own!

Look, I'm not a front-end dev. Heck, I'm not even a dev to begin with. But what I do know is that efficiency matters, especially at large scale. Web browsers being so overgeneralized and web devs adding a boatload of fucking libraries or frameworks or whatever, it adds up, both to the CPU's and my own temper.

(*) Quote marks because source code to source code isn't really compiling, but then uglified JS looks worse than machine code anyway so meh :/

Would the web be better off, if there was zero frontend scripting? There would be HTML5 video/audio, but zero client side JS.

Browsers wouldn't understand script tags, they wouldn't have javascript engines, and they wouldn't have to worry about new standards and deprecations.

Browsers would be MUCH more secure, and use way less memory and CPU resources.

What would we really be missing?

If you build less bloated pages, you would not really need ajax calls, page reloads would be cheap. Animated menus do not add anything functionally, and could be done using css as well. Complicated webapps... well maybe those should just be desktop/mobile apps.

Pages would contain less annoying elements, no tracking or crypto mining scripts, no mouse tracking, no exploitative spam alerts.

Why don't we just deprecate JS in the browser, completely?

I think it would be worth it.

Did you know that
console.table(arr);
will let you print whole JavaScript arrays in table form in console?

Today someone was testing a website for me.

Tester: I've found a bug this button doesn't work
Me: It works. I tested it in Firefox and Chrome.
Tester: I'm using Edge
Me: Oh yeah. Forgot that was even still a thing...

Im so fucking pissed. so in my family (im an only child) im the computer expert. but everytime i touch something EVERYONE THINKS IM GOING TO BREAK IT OR TELL ME I DONT KNOW WHAT IM FUCKING DOING. FUCKING EXCUSE ME?

My mother was bitching about her laptop she uses for college about how something was not working and she was on the phone with a guy that told her "Its a JavaScript error and he told me I have to redownload windows" and im just like "MOm THERE IS NOT A DAMN NEED FOR YOU TO REINSTALL AN OPERATING SYSTEM FOR AN ERROR ON YOUR BROWSERS SIDE OR THE WEBSITES SIDE" (i didnt get to see the error)

I pick up the laptop and unplug it and she yells at me because the IT man told her it wouldnt work if she unplugged it. So i told her im done helping her with all her bullshit she can do what she wants. and comes in says it works now and she doesnt know why. then goes out and buys a new laptop bc she cant process moving her files on the cloud or a flashdrive.

my entire fucking family is like this.

S E N D H E L P .

Modern web frontend is giving me a huge headache...

Gazillion frameworks, css preprocessors, transpilers, task runners, webpack, state management, templating, Rxjs, vector graphics,async,promises, es6,es7,babel,uglifying,minifying,beautifying,modules,dependecy injection....

All this for programming apps that happen to run inside browsers on a protocol which was designed to display simple text pages...

This is insanity. It cannot go on like this for long. I pray for webasm and elm to rescue me from this chaos.

I work now as a fullstack dev as my first job but my next job is definitely going to be backend/native stuff for desktop or mobile. It seems those areas are much less crazy.

Fuck web dev.
I dabbled in many areas but I do web dev most often. And seriously: fuck web dev. Your site has to work on multiple browsers. Multiple screen resolutions. The code has to be tiny for load time. The images have to work for every resolution and still be small. The styling can look different in different browsers. So many useful javascript features are only supported by modern browsers. An on top of that: IE.
I’ve gotten quite good at all of this, but still: it’s such a fucking pain.

Chrome, Firefox, and yes even you Opera, Falkon, Midori and Luakit. We need to talk, and all readers should grab a seat and prepare for some reality checks when their favorite web browsers are in this list.

I've tried literally all of them, in search for a lightweight (read: not ridiculously bloated) web browser. None of them fit the bill.

Yes Midori, you get a couple of bonus points for being the most lightweight. Luakit however.. as much as I like vim in my terminal, I do not want it in a graphical application. Not to mention that just like all the others you just use webkit2gtk, and therefore are just as bloated as all the others. Lightweight my ass! But programmable with Lua, woo! Not like Selenium, Chrome headless, ... does that for any browser. And that's it for the unique features as far as I'm concerned. One is slow, single-threaded and lightweight-ish (Midori) and another has vim keybindings in an application that shouldn't (Luakit).

Pretty much all of them use webkit2gtk as their engine, and pretty much all of them launch a separate process for each tab. People say this is more secure, but I have serious doubts about that. You're still running all these processes as the same user, and they all have full access to the X server they run under (this is also a criticism against user separation on a single X session in general). The only thing it protects against is a website crashing the browser, where only that tab and its process would go down. Which.. you know.. should a webpage even be able to do that?

But what annoys me the most is the sheer amount of memory that all of these take. With all due respect all of you browsers, I am not quite prepared to give 8 fucking gigabytes - half the memory in this whole box! - just for a dozen or so tabs. I shouldn't have to move my web browser to another lesser used 16GB box, just to prevent this one from going into fucking swap from a dozen tabs. And before someone has a go at the add-ons, there's 4 installed and that's it. None of them are even close to this complete and utter memory clusterfuck. It's the process separation. Each process consumes half a GB of memory, and there's around a dozen of them in a usual browsing session. THAT is the real problem. And I want to get rid of it.

Browsers are at their pinnacle of fucked up in my opinion, literally to the point where I'm seriously considering elinks. Being a sysadmin, I already live my daily life in terminals anyway. As such I also do have resources. But because of that I also associate every process with its cost to run it, in terms of resources required. Web browsers are easily at the top of the list.

I want to put 8GB into perspective. You can store nearly 2 entire DVD movies in that memory. However media players used to play them (such as SMPlayer) obviously don't do that. They use 60-80MB on average to play the whole movie. They also require far less processing power than YouTube in a web browser does, even when you download that exact same video with youtube-dl (either streamed within the media player or externally). That is what an application should be.

Let's talk a bit about these "complicated" websites as well. I hate to break it to you framework web devs, but you're a dime a dozen. The competition is high between web devs for that exact reason. And websites are not complicated. The document itself is plain old HTML, yes even if your framework converts to it in the background. That's the skeleton of your document, where I would draw a parallel with documents in office suites that are more or less written in XML. CSS.. oh yes, markup. Embolden that shit, yes please! And JavaScript.. oh yes, that pile of shit that's been designed in half a day, and has a framework called fucking isEven (which does exactly what it says on the tin, modulo 2 be damned). Fancy some macros in your text editor? Yes, same shit, different pile.

Imagine your text editor being as bloated as a web browser. Imagine it being prone to crashing tabs like a web browser. Imagine it being so ridiculously slow to get anything done in your productivity suite. But it's just the usual with web browsers, isn't it? Maybe Gopher wasn't such a bad idea after all... Oh and give me another update where I have to restart the browser when I commit the heinous act of opening another tab, just because you had to update your fucking CA certs again. Yes please!

Fuck this, fuck that, fuck the buffer, fuck AES, fuck crypto, fuck node-forge, fuck IV and browsers, once I am done with this fucking cryptographic wrapper on both client and server, the first person to say decrypt and Javascript in the same sentence in front of me will get their own dick in their ass. The guy that said mixing computer and crypto was a bad idea was fucking right

Me as a mobile app developer trying to add a button to a page of a .Net website:
So, what do i need to do?

Web developer:
Oh that's easy. You need to edit that template which produces html, add an event in there that will call a javascript function, which is in a .js file, which is generated from a typescript file. Than you should give that button a style. Simply by opening up that .less file here and adding a class which will be translated to css later. In that c# file over there you add a bundle reference which contains the css and js files, but before that, they must be minified. In that other c# file, you add a controller that handles your button.
Aaand... take care of new js features and css features. Most browsers don't support them. Those cool C#7 features you love so much... not in this project. Our build servers don't support C#7. Those new features are evil anyway.

😭

There seems to be a lot of hatret for JavaScript. I fully understand and endorse that.

So how can we get another language supported in web browsers and which language should it be?

Two of my team members were trying to make a website responsive for over an hour. They tested everything. They checked the JavaScript, checked their CSS media queries, tried everything but it just wouldn't work on mobile browsers.

So as usual they decided it was "impossible" due to "WordPress constraints" and told me that it would work on the browser but not desktop.

I just added the meta viewport tag. It literally took 10 seconds. It worked.

I hate people who give up easily. Just hate it.

Static HTML pages are better than "web apps".

Static HTML pages are more lightweight and destroy "web apps" in performance, and also have superior compatibility. I see pretty much no benefit in a "web app" over a static HTML page. "Web apps" appear like an overhyped trend that is empty inside.

During my web browsing experience, static HTML pages have consistently loaded faster and more reliably, since the browser is immediately served with content useful for consumption, whereas on JavaScript-based web "apps", the useful content comes in **last**, after the browser has worked its way through a pile of script.

For example, an average-sized Wikipedia article (30 KB wikitext) appears on screen in roughly two seconds, since MediaWiki uses static HTML. Everipedia, in comparison, is a ReactJS app. Guess how long that one needs. Upwards of three times as long!

Making a page JavaScript-based also makes it fragile. If an exception occurs in the JavaScript, the user might end up with a blank page or an endless splash screen, whereas static HTML-based pages still show useful content.

The legacy (2014-2020) HTML-based Twitter.com loaded a user profile in under four seconds. The new react-based web app not only takes twice as long, but sometimes fails to load at all, showing the error "Oops something went wrong! But don't fret – it's not your fault." to be displayed. This could not happen on a static HTML page.

The new JavaScript-based "polymer" YouTube front end that is default since August 2017 also loads slower. While the earlier HTML-based one was already playing the video, the new one has just reached its oh-so-fancy skeleton screen.

It would once have been unthinkable to have a website that does not work at all without JavaScript, but now, pretty much all popular social media sites are JavaScript-dependent. The last time one could view Twitter without JavaScript and tweet from devices with non-sophisticated browsers like Nintendo 3DS was December 2020, when they got rid of the lightweight "M2" mobile website.

Sometimes, web developers break a site in older browser versions by using a JavaScript feature that they do not support, or using a dependency (like Plyr.js) that breaks the site. Static HTML is immune against this failure.

Static HTML pages also let users maximize speed and battery life by deactivating JavaScript. This obviously will disable more sophisticated site features, but the core part, the text, is ready for consumption.

Not to mention, single-page sites and fancy animations can be implemented with JavaScript on top of static HTML, as GitHub.com and the 2018 Reddit redesign do, and Twitter's 2014-2020 desktop front end did.

From the beginning, JavaScript was intended as a tool to complement, not to replace HTML and CSS. It appears to me that the sole "benefit" of having a "web app" is that it appears slightly more "modern" and distinguished from classic web sites due to use of splash screens and lack of the browser's loading animation when navigating, while having oh-so-fancy loading animations and skeleton screens inside the website. Sorry, I prefer seeing content quickly over the app-like appearance of fancy loading screens.

Arguably, another supposed benefit of "web apps" is that there is no blank page when navigating between pages, but in pretty much all major browsers of the last five years, the last page observably remains on screen until the next navigated page is rendered sufficiently for viewing. This is also known as "paint holding".

On any site, whenever I am greeted with content, I feel pleased. Whenever I am greeted with a loading animation, splash screen, or skeleton screen, be it ever so fancy (e.g. fading in an out, moving gradient waves), I think "do they really believe they make me like their site more due to their fancy loading screens?! I am not here for the loading screens!".

To make a page dependent on JavaScript and sacrifice lots of performance for a slight visual benefit does not seem worthed it.

Quote:

> "Yeah, but I'm building a webapp, not a website" - I hear this a lot and it isn't an excuse. I challenge you to define the difference between a webapp and a website that isn't just a vague list of best practices that "apps" are for some reason allowed to disregard. Jeremy Keith makes this point brilliantly.
>
> For example, is Wikipedia an app? What about when I edit an article? What about when I search for an article?
>
> Whether you label your web page as a "site", "app", "microsite", whatever, it doesn't make it exempt from accessibility, performance, browser support and so on.
>
> If you need to excuse yourself from progressive enhancement, you need a better excuse.

– Jake Archibald, 2013

Please bug test your websites heavily. Don't be like this.
Should be mentioned, under normal circumstances this never hits more than 500 MB (still way too much for what it is). However, I somehow got the website to absolutely shit itself and cause this amazing sight to behold (2.6GB/4GB used by the website alone.)

I believe this was caused by some poorly coded JavaScript, subsequently causing a memory leak.

(Yeah I have 2 browsers open so what?)
(Also taken with a shitty camera then also edited. Lost the original because I'm an idiot.)

CSS "scroll-behavior: smooth" implements smooth scrolling with CSS only. That's pretty awesome, even though JavaScript had a similar implementation, which has, equal to "scroll-behavior: smooth", bad browser support. I hope browsers implement it fast and it performs good.

!rant
Who in their right mind puts an id on the head tag.

Css? Don't need it.
JavaScript ? Can directly access it anyway

It fucking breaks old browsers your not even giving them a chance to look at least average !

This is for a huge site as well that he got to work on because he is related to the owner .. he's an arrogant prick as well ... Don't know shit bout programming anything

As I already said on devrant, I'm a freelance web developer and I also often sell my services for teaching, loving that. Currently I'm teaching PHP with 30 students and it's going very well.

But yesterday, I received an offer for giving another course next month, this time on HTML and CSS, for a company I don't know yet. Almost every line of this email is wrong, outdated by 20 years, or just basically meaningless...

So I thought I could do my best to translate this as close as possible to the original, preserving the wrong formulations too, just for you devranters fellas.

"Hello,

I have an offer for a 2 days course for 5 people (level 1+ and/or 2), on HTML5 and CSS3. Below, the program :

1. XHTML AND CSS2 INTRODUCTION

Advantages and benefits of change

Understanding compatibility for different versions of browsers

HTML, XHTML, CSS edition tools : presentation of the different tools

The CSS language : different types of selectors : class of selector, identifier of selector, contextual selectors, grouped selectors

Blocks of text, boxes of text

The CSS1, CSSP, CSS2 properties

Relative and absolute measures units

2. LAYOUT TECHNIQUES

Full CSS, XHTML websites demo

Positioning with the position property, positioning with the float property

Columns creation

Layout for forms

Layout for data tables

Layout for menus

3. INTRODUCTION TO SVG (SCALABLE VECTOR GRAPHICS)

Role and importance of SVG

Using SVG on client side : basic shapes

SVG structure of document, tags examples

Using CSS styles with SVG

Different integration methods for SVG in a XHTML document

4. OPTIMISATION OF JAVASCRIPT CODE

Introduction to DOM and Javascript

Access to document objects : different access techniques, using this keyword, create elements dynamically

Positioning elements with the help of Javascript : positionning elements relatively to the mouse, move elements

Show/hide elements for creating hierarchical menus

Code optimisation techniques : using objects, objects litterals, loops optimisation

Can you please give me your availability ?"

Seriously...

CSS-fucking-1 ! Is it a course for dinosaurs ?

...And if only my rant was just about the program...

It's totally impossible to cover all these subjects in only 2 days with people of different levels and experience.

The guy exactly said to me : "don't worry about the program, it's an old text but they agreed to it anyway. They just want to learn HTML and CSS, some of them already know it but want to learn more, and the others are total beginers.".

And here is the meaning for the "(level 1+ and/or 2)" part in the email.

So... Surprizingly, I accepted the offer, but asked for at least a 3rd day. I'm waiting for their answer, but I'll do it anyway, adapting the course content to the actual students knowledge. I need the money, after all.

Wish me luck...

It's just sad that these formation companies are selling bullshit to clients that just want to learn something useful. It's too often like that, they sell shitty/useless programs and we have to catch up in real time with students that don't understand why they don't learn what was told to them.

Since I've started writing in clojurescript a 1.5 yrs ago, I can barely look at JavaScript.
I started to realise how ugly it is.
Seriously waiting to the day browsers will work with clojurescript out of the box, without the need to compile.

The language is so clean, clear, easy and data oriented, I find it hard to go back to js.
Also, the docs are much better.

Long live concurrency !

So we released to production today (Friday), not my decision.
All pages work fine expect for the one page which I added a new feature.
It worked fine in Chrome and Edge. But after release a customer who requested the feature said it doesn't work for him. Screenshot showed he was using IE.
Horror time.. it was evident that it has to be the changes to the JavaScript I did, but why does the whole page doesn't work.

So I started debugging. Nothing works on that page in IE11, it doesn't even load the fucking script file. Then I dared to change mode to IE10, it actually gave me an error in my script file. The bad IE has actually picked a mistake that other browsers didn't.

So, the mistake is fun part too.
I had the following jQuery (or Jake Weary) call
$.getJSON(
'/url',
{
argA: a, argB, b, argC:c
},
function (){
// did something
}
);

In second argument, I accidentally typed comma instead of colon. Chrome and Edge ran the script perfectly passing all the arguments.IE 11 failed to load script without giving any error and only IE 10 gave an error of expecting a colon.
I do not know which browser to blame.

PS I didn't try in Firefox, safari, etc.

My boss has been working in web development for roughly 10 years now.

Today he learned about the existence of try/catch in JavaScript and asked me in which browsers it's
supported in 😢

In case the kiddos ask if you can hack Facebook or whatever, here's a nice little JS code. Copy paste it into the URL, hit enter and select + edit whatever you like!

javascript: document.body.contentEditable = 'true'; document.designMode = 'on'; void 0

ps: in chrome the 'javascript:' at the beginning gets removed so you'll have to manually add it. not sure about other browsers

I think Chromium is definitely one of the best and most useful Open Source Projects, because so many modern technologies are based on it:

- Chrome + Chromium Browser
- Electron (Which is in my opinion the future of software development, as long as Web Apps don't have that many possibilities)
- Android WebViews
- Chrome OS (and Chromium OS)
- Many other Browsers like Opera, Samsung Mobile Browser, Vivaldi…

I think without Chromium the Internet wouldn't be the same today. It helped to popularize WebApps and helped to set many modern web Standards. Also, in addition with V8 it paved the way for modern JavaScript, as it provided (and still provides) developers and so also users with massive performance boosts.

Safari is slowly becoming the new Internet Explorer.

I'm loosing count over how many javascript workarounds i need to make for that abomination.

Debugging WebRTC is pure hell.

For starters, it's JavaScript, so you know this isn't gonna end well. Second, it's still in kinda beta phase for some browsers so you gotta add polyfills. Let's talk compatibility now. During normal days, yeah, I could ask for a couple of computers in the office, each using a different browser. But, covid. One browser mishbehaves and doesn't wanna share the camera with the other browser, so I can't really test a connection with the only 1 computer I have. I can't take my partner's computer all day to debug.

Solution: ask the marketing department or even the execs to video chat with you to test it on a staging server. So I push my changes to the server, wait for them to build, call my lab rat, check all the bugs, clean the code, push the changes back up. No fancy breakpoints. I'm doing the old style like my great uncle did. Oh wait no, he was pretty intelligent, but my lab rat isn't. They probably don't know what a console is. So no baby I'm not only talking about console logging the problems, I'm talking `alert` the heck out of the bugs - okay no, I'll just display the objects in the middle of the screen. The screen is my console.

CORS is shit
Stupid useless shit that protects from nothing. It is harmful mechanism that does nothing but randomly blocks browser from accessing resources - nothing more.

Main idea of CORS is that if server does not send proper header to OPTIONS request, browser will block other requests to that server.

What does stupid cocksuckers that invented CORS, think their retarded shit can protect from?
- If server is malicious, it will send any header required to let you access it.
- If client has malicious intents - he will never use your shit browser to make requests, he will use curl or any ther tool available. Also if server security bases on something as unreliable as http headers it sends to the client - its a shit server, and CORS will not save it.

Can anyone give REAL examples when CORS can really protect from anything?

Browsers are really terrible with printing.

This is annoying when building web apps for internal use in businesses.

There should be a JavaScript way to select (or at least ask the user to confirm) what is printed on the borders of the page instead of the standard date, time, url, page x of x.

Question to all JS Frontend Devs: What light and performant library can you recommend me today?
I'm a C++ dev who is a bit anxious about performance, load times etc. and before I stuck my nose into vanilla js, maybe there is something better/faster. I'm a total frontend noob, e.g. I heard that html tables aren't a thing anymore and that I should use divs?
My task is quite simple, I want to give the users the ability to press some buttons and drag and drop stuff around instead of modifying the URL per hand :/
So if someone could point me in the right direction, that would be awesome!

I am some Kind of angry right now.
Some of you may know the App "Jodel" (for those who don't: it is an app which lets you talk to strangers at in your city/near your location)

I am in an informatics-Channel and I feel a bit annoyed.

There is a groundless hate against JavaScript or Java, it seems because... People feel cool? It remembers me of the PHP-Hate. Clueless people are talking shit, even if the web is not even their programming-field of activity.

Someone just said that in js you can do any shit and it works.
- you can leave out semicolons. wow.

Another one meant that one problem is the unlogical backwards-conpatibility. "You have to look if the script is running on the browsers and on your engine."
- Isn't that part of any programming language? To see if it works?

I don't know what to say right now.
#ilovejs

Uhm btw.: Can someone explain me, what he meant with "engine"? I mean there is an interpreter, but "engine"?!

If you do not push something (language, education, people, cars, design, medicine ...etc etc) how the hell do you expect to mature, surpass expectations and become better. Java didn't start off as good or as bad as it is today. It was through testing, abuse, use and pushing it harder do more and more amazing things that it wasn't built for. PHP has changed alot since I started using and it's through people efforts that it gets better. Before the javascript wave came it was a nuisance to use and sucked as most browsers had it switched off by default but it's become more secure, fluent and able to do more amazing things and people are loving it right now.

I really wish people would stop with half arsed and uneducated comments.

"Guys best idea to fuc... help the javascript developers. We make a framework with its own events/states and it will not change inputs or anything unless specified in state. Clearly easier to test... I mean how hard can it be?

Even better our framework will be so fuc... Helpfull that they will put an plugin so they can make it work... I mean improve...

Did i say we just throw the html and put everything in our own butchered way? Even better remember that easy
, Style= ? Hahaha we will make it an object...

O yeah and the state must be immutable objects... What immutable means? Who the fu... I mean its easy...

And we make our own virtual dom because... Fu browsers"
-Facebook developer who hates javascript probably

P.S: thanks vue for keeping the double binding.

JavaScript engine trolling: input field in html defined as a number but JavaScript insisted it was a string! But only that one field. That is same as the rest.

Reminds me childhood days 🤣

I really need to appreciate IE in so many ways. It let us to install other browsers, test crap JavaScript code and finally recommending customers to use IE to support their app.

I need to figure out a way uniquely identify each computer which visits the web site I am creating. Does anybody have any advice on how to achieve this?

Because i want the solution to work on all machines and all browsers (within reason) I am trying to create a solution using javascript.

I appreciate the help. Thanks.

EDIT:

Cookies will not do.

That feeling when you're applying for your first programming job.

And the knife stabs of nerves in your gut fearfully remind the coiled muscles in your sweaty brow of the singular possibility: what if I bullshit my way by the HR filter into this job and it turns out I was completely wrong, and I encounter a bug that my meager coding abilities really can't fix?

"Writing an interpreter in some community college you dropped out of ten years ago" doesn't mean you're a programmer.

"Figuring out where the bug was in a broken bat file that was pages long, for a language and framework you've never used, for a library nobody uses anymore", doesn't count as debugging.

"Writing a tweening library in an obscure tool" doesn't mean you're an expert. This is childs play.

What if they ask about big O? Do you admit that logarithms confuse the fuck out of you because you dropped out in 8th grade and got your GED later on due to being kicked out by your meth head dad?

What if being able to write a few measly cobbled together half-arsed estimate tools in python doesn't really mean you're qualified to do anything?

What if being able to look at code in languages you've never seen and grok it doesn't mean shit?

What if you've used more languages than you can remember?

What if you once lost a job offer casually given because the guy you built rapport with over months made a joke about browsers, and you joked about using internet explorer?

What if you got a job offer from a consultant friend one time and he asked you to write validation and testing code in javascript for amazon's cloud, and you completely screwed the pooch because you spent the entire time thinking you had to make it *work* and not just *look* correct, when all along he just wanted what amounted to *correct looking* code, and your gut had told you the same, but you ignored it, because the world can't possibly work like that, where people give anyone a chance or the benefit of the doubt, and any slip up or shortcoming means you were never really worthy to begin with.

What if you thought you could, but you'd been raised your entire life to *believe* you couldn't?

(how) is it possible to run a shell command from a websites javascript? i am aware of the well known security issue but have a use case where i can assume it less critical. currently using ie11 activex which is fine but not supported on other browsers and hell i want not to be dependent on ie! tried to find it myself of course but without success.
in detail i want to print several pdf files with one click based on a javascript array using plain vanilla js.
am i missing something or am i out of luck?

So... Here it is
I am working in a web application thay only works on IE (I know, it is not my fault), and I asked the programmers that started this project, if we can start using it in another browsers but they told me that it is not possible because 'some javascript may not work in other browsers'.

Is this really possible or they just don't want to code for compatibility with other browsers?

Just heard a Microsoft Developer say it's ok to build sites that don't work without JavaScript but keep in mind they think it's ok to build browsers that don't work at all.