|
Have a merry, peaceful and safe Christmas to you and all my other CP chums 
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the kids can't decide if they want a Play Station 4 or an Xbox One. The bot is leaning towards the Play Station 4 but not heavily enough to order one before Christmas.
So if it was up to you to get one or the other, which one would it be and why?
Trying to get this cleared up so I can get it during the Boxing Day sales.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
In terms of hardware and performance, there is very little to differentiate. Naked eye will probably not be able to figure out differences in terms of graphics too. Game wise, there are few new ones lined up for XBox for next year. Not really sure about PS4 on that front.
I would personally go for XBox with Kinect since Kinect is just too cool to miss.
If it interests you, you may play around with XDK and build your own games.
|
|
|
|
|
I currently have PS3, Wii and XBox360, based on the user experience, the kinect makes the Xbox the winner in my views.
Based on that, I think I would go with the new XBox if I was upgrading.
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, given Sony's now well-established incompetence when it comes to security, if you're going to use your console online and link it to any kind of important data, I'd avoid the PlayStation like the plague.
|
|
|
|
|
Courtesy of jqwidgets[^]. This is a fantastic library. Well documented, tons of examples, no quirky UI artifacts.
The other half of why I'm enjoying web development is I've rolled my own server -- all that cruft that "the big guys" come with... GONE. It's a pleasure to actually see pages loading instantly and not have to deal with arcane ORM configurations, arcane routing configurations, yadayadayada.
I didn't realize this stuff was actually simple!. Getting the damn "server framework" out of the way makes it a lot easier to focus on the UI and the supporting Javascript.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I didn't realize this stuff was actually simple!. Getting the damn "server framework" out of the way makes it a lot easier to focus on the UI and the supporting Javascript.
Agreed. I wrote my own framework in PHP to handle an SPA I'm working on, and it's very, very minimal. In fact all it really does is ensure some base consistencies across different PHP configurations, handle output caching, URL routing, and script minimization and consolidation. Most of the real work lands in the hands of database design and the client development.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I wrote my own framework in PHP
The funny thing is, while I'm writing this in C#, I'm for some reason getting an understanding of why PHP is popular -- the little that I dabbled in it, it was really easy to set up a web service, I imagine handling a browser would be pretty straight-forward too.
Looked at your site -- nice clean login. I was amused that the right-click mouse is disabled.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I'm for some reason getting an understanding of why PHP is popular -- the little that I dabbled in it, it was really easy to set up a web service, I imagine handling a browser would be pretty straight-forward too.
One of its main benefits for me is that it runs on Unix / Linux, everything else is secondary to that. My first job in tech was for an ISP running their network on FreeBSD. Was a *nix fanboy ever since. There's just too much I can do to tweak the hell out of *nix for me to use a Windows server for the web.
Marc Clifton wrote: I was amused that the right-click mouse is disabled
That's because I wanted to give it more of a desktop feel being an SPA and all. You just point it to the URL to load the "app" so to speak. You'll be able to use custom context menus once logged in (after I code that bit).
So sorry man, you'll just have to view source the old fashioned way.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: So sorry man, you'll just have to view source the old fashioned way.
Well, the "developer" mode in FireFox worked great.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I was amused that the right-click mouse is disabled.
Oh I will say it's selective, you can still right click on input boxes to copy and paste, etc. It's just disabled everywhere else.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
To give you an idea, my SPA works a bit like .NET jitting code. I can't give you a login of course, but...
http://servicecenter.software/[^]
Once someone visits the site the first time, it gets bytecode compiled and cached. Then it's all dumped to the client over http compression. After that, the server-side goes bye-bye except for service calls via JavaScript. If you revisit it, then the site shows the cached version. Pretty cool stuff. Eventually, I want to also add more HTML 5 caching features, but at the end of the day, there's a lot of JavaScript making this sucker work.
Oh, and keep in mind I'm developing it in Chrome. Still haven't bothered with IE compatibility yet.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Really looking forward to reading an article about your work in the future ! thanks, Bill
«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. » Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like, Ruby is well off the rails now then.............
Are you going to release your "server framework", maybe pop it up on github?
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I didn't realize this stuff was actually simple!.
Everything is simple once you know how it's done
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
And this is why we're using Node now. The cruft and heft has gone - setting up the web server and scaling it out is incredibly simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: And this is why we're using Node now. The cruft and heft has gone - setting up the web server and scaling it out is incredibly simple.
OK, I will look at node.js. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 24-Dec-14 21:14pm.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: if you only have installed Entity FrameWork 6 in VS 2013, you can't re-create the ".NET Integration" ASP.NET MVC sample on the JQWidgets web-site: >[^].
Wait! I said less cruft, not more! 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, okay Marc, fair dinkum as my Oz friend would say; you are, after all, flying your own dirigible here.
But, some of use mere mortals ... well, we need to go to the playground and use safety-swings
Merry Xmas, Bill
p.s. I got a quick response from someone at JQWidgets ... a good sign ... and will remove my message if it turns out I did the wrong thing, which I'll figure out tomorrow (GMT+7).
«OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. » Alan Kay's clarification on what he meant by the term "Object" in "Object-Oriented Programming."
|
|
|
|
|
How much does it cost Santa to park his sleigh?
Nothing - it's on the house!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well there was me thinking it was easy - evidently not!
TRANSISTOR was the answer
Anyone work out the clue now?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
