|
In the eight years since its initial release, jQuery has become the foundation of the modern Web. $(document).almostReady()
|
|
|
|
|
'almostReady' is not defined.
How can you even say document is almostReady? Wouldn't that part be,
$.almostReady();
jQuery.almostReady();
That would have made a lot more sense! :P
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Dang JavaScript pedants!  OK, fixing (for the newsletter, not bothering here).
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I love Visual C#, I just wanted you to know that these mistakes of you, I can C# 
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
He didn't say document.almostReady(), he said $(document).almostReady() making it a jquery object.
And you don't get humor, do you?
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Ah humor!
Nope, I don't like horror movies.
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, JS can seem like a horror movie at times...
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
hehe, agree!
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Pair programming is a powerful technique that can fix many development team issues, so why aren’t more teams pairing? "Take your baby by the hand, and make her do a high hand stand."
|
|
|
|
|
What if they have to po-po ca-ca?
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
You should have done that before we left.
|
|
|
|
|
I was involved in pair-programming years ago (think we referred to it then as buddying up - terminology has changed in the last 20 years). It was certainly very effective in short bursts, but, yes - it was very tiring, and it only worked where good, strong, working relationships already existed.
|
|
|
|
|
In my (limited) experience, pair debugging works much better than pair programming.
|
|
|
|
|
InfoQ wrote: can fix many development team issues
by cutting the number of active developers in half. Half as much code, half as many bugs. Twice as much time to find the problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: so why aren’t more teams pairing?
To paraphrase an old saying, twice incompetence is still incompetence.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: twice incompetence is still incompetence.
I am not a big fan of pairing but I haven't done it much and want to give it a chance before denigrating it thoroughly (as is my style). 
I have seen however that it tends to increase the competence of 2 lesser competent individuals... so the incompetence still exists but it is subtracted or divided, not added or multiplied.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
H.Brydon wrote: I am not a big fan of pairing but I haven't done it much and want to give it a chance before denigrating it thoroughly (as is my style).
Mine too. I've done it, and it tends to be exhausting unless there's a good match between the two people and their familiarity with the code and their thinking styles and skills. I've done it where I'm on the receiving end of not knowing the code base and watching the other programmer flip through code screens faster than a film projector's frame rate. Not much learning happens there. It's also important that there's some compatibility in the "depth vs. breadth" view of coding (they were "breadth" people, and I tend to be a "depth" person) which created some unnecessary tensions, especially when I felt that their "breadth" approach was too biased -- you should have seen some of the amusing (and buggy) code that was in the code base, left for some future sprint because they wanted to focus on features rather than correctness.
So, as the worn out expression goes, it's a tool, and you have to know when to use it and how to use it. Typically, few people do.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Pairing works fine in spurts
Less so for introverts
If you ask me
I do agree
It's great for extroverts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pair programming works best with two experienced developers doing an emergency debug and fix! For regular programming it is too much pressure to maintain for long and you will get a lot of burn-out (and occasional fist fights).
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft’s most current web browser Internet Explorer 11 is now the most popular web-surfing tool out there. Yay for progress
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but only on the newly installed Windows 8.1 devices. After ~3 hours, users install Chrome!
I do the same.
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
|
StatCounter and NetApplications don't even try to measure the same thing. Anyone trying to use one to argue the others numbers are wrong is an idiot.
As raw input, both monitor traffic on a number of major western websites/cdns. Neither have good coverage of the rest of the world. The difference is that StatCounter just publishes its raw numbers (possibly adjusted for Chrome's pre-fetching pages in the background - not sure initially they didn't but IIRC they eventually changed their minds). NetApplications normalizes its data by weighting it to adjust for seeing some countries a lot more than others (eg if the US is 20% of net traffic and China 25% but their data is 30% US and 5% Chinese they'd scale one by 0.67x and the other by 5x) to generate a global number.
Whose numbers are better depends on what you want to do. IF you're looking at the overall state of the net or launching a new site that you expect to have heavy traffic world wide, NetApplications is probably the best bet; if you're launching a site that you expect to have san overwhelmingly western userbase, StatCounter is better. If you've already launched your site, you should be looking at your server logs and ignoring both of them.
As a final observation; when NetApplications reports abrupt shifts in relative values (like they are below for Windows versions); it's most likely that what is actually being shown is a shift in relative weights not that 4 or 5% of the internet got new computers or upgraded OSes in the last month.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: What is country level weighting, and why do you do it?
The Net Market Share data is weighted by country. We compare our traffic to the CIA Internet Traffic by Country table, and weight our data accordingly. For example, if our global data shows that Brazil represents 2% of our traffic, and the CIA table shows Brazil to represent 4% of global Internet traffic, we will count each unique visitor from Brazil twice. This is done to balance out our global data. All regions have differing markets, and if our traffic were concentrated in one or more regions, our global data would be inappropriately affected by those regions. Country level weighting removes any bias by region.
As I see it does not change the relation between different browsers as the method will multiple all the data regardless of IE, Chrome or Firefox...
So how that explains that NetApplication data is the complete opposite of all other site's (not only StatCounter) results...Maybe CIA have no reliable data on all countries?
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
תפסיק לספר לה' כמה הצרות שלך גדולות, תספר לצרות שלך כמה ה' גדול!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
