|
Read, study and practice, practice, practice.
|
|
|
|
|
Web developers make web applications.
Web designers make web sites.
There is a fairly fundamental difference: developers make the web work and designers make it pretty.
If you're interested in site design, I would suggest looking more deeply into graphic design and specific tools, like DreamWeaver (is that still a thing?), Wix, and WordPress.
If you're interested in development, be prepared to become a subject matter expert on networking, security, web-stack architecture, database technologies, JavaScript, PHP/C#/Java, abstraction, and "The IT Crowd".
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Minier wrote: Web developers make web applications.
Web designers make web sites.
There is a fairly fundamental difference: developers make the web work and designers make it pretty.
This is well put, but perhaps not the whole story.
1. For a web site to work well, you would also need someone writing great content, have an understanding of information architecture, web usability, and more. I sometimes teach the Web Editor program at our university, which links text, image handling, usability/accessibility, structuring the site, and also some coding.
2. Even if you are more into the backend of a web site/web application, the level of expertise you would need varies. For example, ASP.NET WebForms is much easier (if you're not good at OO practices) and more similar to a traditional HTML web site than ASP.NET MVC.
To develop web sites, I usually say you need five skills:
1. HTML
2. CSS
3. Database logic (traditionally SQL Server or MySQL)
4. Server code (ASP.NET, PHP)
5. Javascript
Of these five, Javascript could perhaps be omitted, depending on the website's needs, but you can't live without the other four.
If you keep things simple you will find that web development is much easier than most other programming. It's also more rewarding, as you get results very quickly, and people from all over the world can watch your work. Thus, if you're new or relatively new to programming, then web development is a great way to expand on your knowledge.
Good luck!
Petter
|
|
|
|
|
I'm 100% on board with your points about designers. Perhaps a better way to put it is that designers are more invested in the UX while developers generally are more concerned with the plumbing. It's just not my world, so I don't have terribly much to say about it.
That said, I think there are some points of contention in the block that you wrote about developers (I do live in that world, so have a whole hell of a lot to say  ).
petter2012 wrote: For example, ASP.NET WebForms is much easier (if you're not good at OO practices) and more similar to a traditional HTML web site than ASP.NET MVC.
I'm sorry, but IMO this is terrible advice. WebForms obfuscate the dual nature of web applications and lead to confusion, not clarity. It was a bad stop-gap to try and make WinForm developers comfortable using a RAD tool for the web. At this juncture, I think advising learning it is an exceedingly bad idea, and I don't just say that because I'm getting tired of modernizing applications that were written using it. New devs (in the MS stack) should put in the time to learn MVC.NET; it will serve them far better and will improve the state of software overall.
I would also contend that MVC.NET is quite a bit closer to the DHTML pages that I worked on with PHP and CGI gateways in the last 20 years than WebForms. WebForms are much closer to that Adobe Cold Fusion garbage that is like some sort of torture from the very pits of hell.
petter2012 wrote: Of these five, Javascript could perhaps be omitted, depending on the website's needs, but you can't live without the other four.
I'm afraid that I need to argue this point as well.
The fact is that Java(ECMA)Script is the language of the web; modern stacks can even use it for the server-side. Realistically, it's the only item that you mentioned that is a programming element that absolutely needs to be learned for a modern web application. HTML and CSS are important, but those are ostensibly templates and configurations. SQL queries are nice and all, but a decent ORM can stand in. Even server logic can (depending on the application) potentially be ignored as DBMS have begun exposing http data endpoints to support the asychronous nature of the current web application (not to mention those goofy mobile apps).
petter2012 wrote: If you keep things simple you will find that web development is much easier than most other programming.
I would argue that this is true for amateurs using a WYSIWYG toolset to make a web page for their bowling league, not aspiring professional developers. It also serves the aforementioned designers well as a proof-of-concept for their designs. I think that learning code is very much a value-for-dollar item, with the dollar in this case being the time and effort spent on it.
Yes, a CRUD application using total bolierplate can be created and running within minutes if you have even nominal skill, but that's no different from a native application. Developing a robust and useful web application requires at least as much complexity, planning, and headache as a native app; effectively the user's browser is the UI thread.
I guess ultimately what I'm saying is that I don't want to see the people who are just starting out being soft-balled on this. If they want to be a graphic designer then hey, go the designer route. This isn't for everyone, a point on which I think we're all in agreement. But if a fresh face is not intimidated by the depth and breadth of knowledge needed to be a real developer, then they should do it and do it right.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Minier wrote: if a fresh face is not intimidated by the depth and breadth of knowledge needed to be a real developer, then they should do it and do it right.
Hi,
No need to apologise: please note that I never advised the OP to use WebForms - it's a matter of how far down the programming path one wants to go.
By the way, ASP.NET WebForms was created to differentiate between presentation (HTML) and logic (ASP.NET) as opposed to blurring them together (like in ASP and PHP), which it still does well. Quite many member portals (for example) have been written using WebForms, at a time when PHP was a competitor. I agree that WebForms is less adequate for a Web 2.0 scenario, but it's much easier to learn than MVC.NET for example, so once again, I think we are in agreement.
Skipping out on SQL? No, I dont think so...
So sure, if one wants to dig deep into coding, then he or she should by all means explore ASP.NET MVC, some advanced PHP, and many several newer and perhaps more exciting languages. It all depends on what one tries to achieve, and where in the path from design to code one wants to place oneself. As you said, the route you are suggesting "isn't for everyone", and Scott Gunthrie himself said some time ago that WebForms and MVC.NET are for different people but both have their merits (or something along those lines). I for one live happily with both approaches.
modified 31-Aug-16 19:55pm.
|
|
|
|
|
petter2012 wrote: Skipping out on SQL? No, I dont think so...
Well, one can dream.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
You should know how to handle problems, most of the companies want developers who can found solutions of a problem in the most efficient way,
for example you can write "hello world" 10 times or you can use a loop
that are the traits which a good developer should possess.
Now to become a web developer you should know.
1-HTML
2-CSS
3-one client side language
4-one Server side language
|
|
|
|
|
I am storing html string formatted in database. Now I want that string to be shown formatted but it's putting string as it is with tags. This is in C#. Good answer is appriciated
|
|
|
|
|
It depends how you display it. If you put it into a simple Textbox then it will be treated as such. If you want to display it formatted then you need to display it in a control that understands HTML.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to think about what it is you're working with. The contents of your database record is just simple text. There's no reason, when displaying it, that it will be anything but exactly what is stored.
If, on the other hand, that text is opened in a web browser (IE, FireFox, Chrome, etc.) then it will interpret the text (that is what browsers do) and display it with the context that you want. The browser does have to consider the text is coming from a website and isn't just a simple file that happens to have HTML in it by accident. It, too, will then just show the text.
As a hint, the text will have to be part of a web page that the browser can open or opened within a webpage that's already on the browser.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
You can use the HttpUtility.HtmlEncode method:
var htmlString = HttpUtility.HtmlEncode(user.Company);
It's a method called HtmlEncode in the HtmlUtility class which takes a string parameter and encodes it into a Html-safe string.
modified 5-Jan-17 10:54am.
|
|
|
|
|
we're loading all partials views to a common div.
$(divname).load(url);
on clicking a row in a table or clicking on an icon,or clicking on link, view changes. my requirement is, in a partial view, we have two text boxes which are free type. before this view clears, i need to save these data to db. what appropriate event is to be used before this view goes? i tried
$(document).unload
$(document).unbind
$(div).change
$(div).unload
etc. nothing worked.
please help me to resolve this issue
modified 11-Aug-16 5:46am.
|
|
|
|
|
Write a little intermediary function and call your div updates using it
var loadPartial = function(target, url, asyncPromise){
if(asyncPromise){
asyncPromise().done(function(){target.load(url)});
}else{
target.load(url);
}
}
You can then update your values via AJAX safely before the div is loaded, or not pass a callback if that's not appropriate for a particular navigation. Using $(button).click for the save of ease, I don't know what your navigation event looks like.
$(button).click(function(){
loadPartial($(div),this.url,$.ajax({.../update your database/}));
});
It's not the prettiest thing, but it's flexible.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
modified 11-Aug-16 8:32am.
|
|
|
|
|
I am trying to add background color to my page, and padding the paragraphs, and divisions. But its not working. I would appreciate it if you could go through the code and explain whats wrong. Any tips on how I should do it, or what I can learn from or follow will be appreciated too. Thanks
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>Jake's Coffee Shop</title>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<style>
<! CSS For Menu >
ul {
list-style-type: none;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
width: 50px;
background-color: #f1f1f1;
}
body{background-color: black;}
#UnorderedList li
{
display:inline-block;
}
li a {
display: block;
color: #000;
padding: 8px 16px;
text-decoration: none;
}
li a:hover
{
background-color: #555;
color: navajowhite;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Jake's Coffee Shop</h1>
<div id ="MenuBar">
<ul id = "UnorderedList">
<li> <a href= "https://www.google.com" > Home </a> </li>
<li> <a href= "https://www.yahoo.com" > Menu </a> </li>
<li> <a href= "https://www.music.com.bd" > Music </a> </li>
<li> <a href= "https://www.google.com" > Jobs </a> </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id = "content">
<p><div>Come In And Experience...</div>
<br>
<div><img src="images.jpeg" alt="Heartmelting Coffee Picture"></div>
<br>
<ul id="ItemMenu">
<li>Specialty Coffee And Tea</li>
<li>Freshly Made Sandwiches</li>
<li>Bagels, Muffins, And Organic Snacks</li>
<li>Music And Poetry Readings</li>
<li>Open Mic Nights</li>
<li>...</li>
</ul>
</div> </p>
<footer>
<address>
23 Pine Road <br>
Nottingham, NGI 5YU <br>
0115 9324567 <br>
</address>
<p>Copyright © 2011 Jake's Coffee House</p>
<p><a href="mailto:ratul_shams@yahoo.com"> yahoo@ratul_shams.com </a></p>
</footer>
</body>
</html>
|
|
|
|
|
Your code works for me in Firefox and IE - although it's difficult to read black text on a black background!
ScarletMcLearn wrote: <! CSS For Menu >
That's not a valid construct, although most browsers will ignore it. If you were trying to write a comment, you need to use the correct syntax depending on the context:
<!--
<style>
body { background-color: black; color: white; }
</style>
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
As an ad-on to the previous comment.
I've often found a typo in a style statement ends the implementation of that particular style at that point. By type, I mean a real syntax error, such as ; instead of :. An unrecognized style isn't usually so serious.
for example, the following would be a problem:
<div style='color:#400;background-color;#888;text-shadow:2px 2px 0px #444;'></div> because of the semicolon after background-color. As this has some browser dependency on how the error is handled, partial style implementation is possible and often puzzling.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I am confused which should I learn, Django/Python or NodeJS/ExpressJS. I am new to both of them. I am trying to create a back end for my android application but can't decide which language to choose.
|
|
|
|
|
So...Java then?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
My vote is for Python! It's the best for start learning I guess!
|
|
|
|
|
That's a thing that I hear, and I sort of believe, because people tell me it is so.
The Android API is derived from Java, though, so I would think that would be a good focus point.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Why do we need [ChildActionOnly] attribute in MVC??
|
|
|
|
|
It prevents direct calls to a given method, such as direct navigation.
So if you only want a particular partial view or data object to be accessible by navigating inside your web app, you would use this. Otherwise the data or partial could be used by an external application making requests to your controllers.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Was the documentation[^] not clear?
A child action method renders inline HTML markup for part of a view instead of rendering a whole view.
Any method that is marked with ChildActionOnlyAttribute can be called only with the Action[^] or RenderAction[^] HTML extension methods.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
This not really a dev question but more of a user question. When I am on a web page, there are times I will click a link to read something. If it doesn't interest me, I'll hit the back button. Some of the time, I return immediately to the previous location. At other times, nothing happens. When I right mouse click on the go back button, I'll usually find 10-40+ items listed. I then have to go back a page at a time until I find my origin.
What technology is causing this?
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
That usually happens when the URL you've requested redirects you to another URL, using an HTTP 3xx status code. It tends to be most noticeable on sites that use "live.com" for authentication - the original URL redirects to a "live.com" URL, which redirects to another URL, which eventually redirects you to the page you want.
The other time you might see it is if the site is using the history API[^] within a single page.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
