|
Well - for a start - you could get rid of the various frameworks and add-ons that are in style (for the present) and use real javaScript and php.
Once you get loose to not having strong typing, sensible in world that really sees everything as text, you can have fun with the whole lot.
You just need to learn to do what you need to do (duh!).
Cookies are not for security. There's all sorts of methods to impose security (hence we have a growing fad which is called e-commerce). You only need to do it.
Is C++ better*, more secure, faster? Yes. Do you have access to client and server side from a single application - that actually natively has a state? Yup.
Embrace the Dark Side!
* I've not dropped down to C# or VB.Net, either, for that matter.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Vouksh wrote: I don't like blindly relying on an API to just work.
Then I think you are missing the entire point of APIs, IMHO.
Advice? -- Keep plugging away at it; if you are a true developer/programmer/engineer, your passion for the craft will take you to great places and you will get more proficient and feel less "stupid", as you put it. If you are not, then you will fail miserably and be depressed, and look for work elsewhere.
Good luck!! 
|
|
|
|
|
I plan on keeping at it. Programming is just a hobby for me, fortunately, so I have plenty of time to slam my head against it till I've learned it. I don't actually plan on making a career of programming. I don't think I could sit in a cubicle all day, I prefer being physically active when I work.
But plugging away at code keeps my brain just as active as my body, even if it does cause me a fair amount of frustration.
|
|
|
|
|
Vouksh wrote: I just can NOT get my head around ASP.NET MVC
Then you are going to have problems with Angular, since it's a client side MVC framework that works very similarly to ASP.NET MVC.
Try Knockout. No-nonsense databinding in javascript without all the MVC noise.
|
|
|
|
|
So I took a look at Knockout, and I can actually read their examples! From the bit that I've seen, I should be able to work with it. Thank you!
I have to rewrite all the the javascript I have so far, but maybe this time I'll understand what I'm writing 
|
|
|
|
|
Vouksh wrote: everything just feels so... hacky
Yup.
Try something simpler, like Knockout (as suggested) or even Backbone. Both have source which is fairly easy to wrap one's head around.
Like you, I come from the happy world of C# (and before that, C++ and Pascal), and it's been quite painful to discover how pathetic HTML is, how pathetic most third party HTML controls are, and how bizarre the hacks are in Javascript to supposedly make web development easier for the programmer.
When I work with other people's code, the DRY principle seems to be thrown out the window and good architecture doesn't exist except possibly what's foisted upon you by the Backbone/Angular/et al "framework", meaning the framework's implementation of a client-side MVC pattern. And debugging Javascript in a browser window can be a frustrating experience, yet I'm actually grateful that debugging is possible, I cringe whenever I put in an "alert" or console.log statement to either check on a variable or test whether the code is even being executed!
It's a mess, and the only way that I've figured out how to deal with it is to simplify, simplify, simplify.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Is writing good software hard?
(This should've been posted last Friday, so you will see another in four days.)
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
There are two ways to do anything:- do it right, or do it again.
|
|
|
|
|
That implies the intention to get it right eventually, something which I'm not convinced every software producer has 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, it's usually do it now as best you can and never get time to make it right
|
|
|
|
|
"software hard" is an oxymoron.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
But Soft Hardware[^] isn't! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
There are too many intrinsic assumptions in that question. What is good software? Without a baseline, complete definition this is an impossible question to answer properly.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
You are right, what is good? The whole question is loaded by the viewpoint. The coder sees good as bug free, the team leader wants it understandable and easy to maintain, operations want a solution they can support, the users needs it to deliver functionality and the bosses want to maximise ROI.
Pick any viewpoint and 'good software' is a very different beast.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
I was told that the British are superior at creating and recognizing wordplay. Have I been misled?
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
We also like being contrary. Guess which role I have been filling today.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Good software provides/implements the easiest possible solution.
Paradoxically, the easiest solution is the hardest to come up with... 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Good software provides/implements the easiest possible solution.
But what if the easiest possible solution is also far too slow? Is it still good?
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
If it's far too slow it's not a(n acceptable) solution 
|
|
|
|
|
But is it unacceptable? The original question has no acceptance criteria to define what good software is - it surprises me how often people miss out acceptance criteria.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
It goes without saying that good software at least solves the customer's problem given the available resources (mostly time and money) 
If the software does everything the customer asked for within time and budget it's acceptable.
If, for some reason, that's no do-able, a new state of acceptable should be discussed.
But given that the software is acceptable the code should be as easy as possible.
What "as easy as possible" is depends on your knowledge and experience. Assuming that's plenty software should be good if you keep it as simple as possible
*Realizes that's a lot of assumptions*
|
|
|
|
|
Easiest for who? As a case in point, all these lovely single-page-scrolly-animatronic-doodah-websites may be easy to use for someone, but not for others and they certainly aren't the easiest to implement or support.
There's a lovely theory in systems practice [nothing to do with computing] about what is the best solution. It does not necessarily delivery what was requested, but it provides the greatest transition to the required situation with all stakeholders benefitting the most they possibly can. Now put that into your software solution. If it's peas easy to use but a dog's breakfast to support, the solution is less than optimum. How about delivering slightly less functionality in a bid to build up the infrastructure to help ops, this is more evenly balanced and both users and operations benefit. But gad! What about the cost? If it costs too much the bean-counters will be sad and no-one likes sad beanies. So maybe we have to curb some of the costs while pushing use and ops. We could throw in some more stakeholders, marketing or owners, and see how the solution morphs the more we consider different viewpoints.
It sucks to look at things from another persons perspective.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
To me, a solution is an answer to a problem taking into account all variables like time, cost, usability, etc.
From a programming perspective the code should be as easy as possible, but still support the requested features in the allotted time and in the given budget.
If the customer requests a single-page-scrolly-animatronic-doodah-website than implement it in the easiest way possible.
If that seems to be impossible, again, go for the easiest solution, whether that's stretching the budget, deadline, getting more programmers, or dropping features.
As long as each step is the easiest step possible towards getting to the required goal using the available resources.
Unfortunately, most of the time, everybody but the programmer agrees that making "quick and dirty" code is the easiest solution.
We all know it's probably fast and cheap in the short run, but slow, expensive, and frustrating in the long run 
|
|
|
|
|
You're moving in the right direction, but you need to consider as many perspectives as possible. The quick & cheap brigade do get undone more than you'd expect.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: as many perspectives as possible
Too bad the programmers perspective is rarely one of them 
I think we're saying the same, but in other words 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
