|
I couldn't agree more. It's ridiculous.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I felt the same too My strategy here is to have a deep knowledge and master plain Javascript before learning any of these libraries. Javascript is different than some other languages like C#, Java...at first I hated Javascript because I always felt like struggling, but now I love it. Once you master it and learn how things work under the hood (prototypal inheritance, first class functions, closures...) you probably can use plain Javascript for the most of your your code or even create your own JS libraries.
Just my two cents
|
|
|
|
|
and after going thru all of this, the end boss (browser compatibility) is waiting for you
pure madness, killing time and nerves, and no-one pays for this except for the devs
|
|
|
|
|
You are not the only one.. I feel the same. Maybe that's some kind of test..
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you use a simple JS? You don't even need jQuery! Nothing is better than a simple "document.getElementById".
|
|
|
|
|
It's all quite easy, really.
You simply start by installing the thing so you can calibrate the other thing.
After that it's simply a matter of starting the whatchamacallit so you can use the doohickey.
Of course you should think about updating the parameters so you can jingle the mumble.
You may need the yackity depending on your smackity.
Now start up the bibbity giving it a babbity and you will find it just works.
Any questions? 
|
|
|
|
|
You did not mention ECMAScript 6 so far. That's where the trouble starts finally. There are lots and lots of syntactic sugar where my favorite online book says: This is equivalent to... You don't have to use this yourself but if you read someone elses code and you meet things like ...myObject or ´${ROOT_URL}/foo' there is no workaround. You have to once again to look up this strange phrase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I, like many I suspect, have moved away from JS as there seems to be no direction to the ways of doing things.
I have been a corporate dev for the last 20+ years and have realized that when developing for a company (any middle sized to large company) the constancy and quality of the code matters. This relates to what devs are allowed to use and bringing in external libraries/code too.
I have worked in tightly regulated industries in the past (and probably the future too) when the only thing that is not regulated is the (re) use of other peoples code (which cannot be verified as bug free, consistency nor fir-for-purpose) and this has had me in fierce arguments with many technical and non-technical people.
<rant>
I get to the point that I cannot say that the software I deliver is bug free as I cannot (and will not) guarantee that dependencies are likewise.
Moving away from JS just means that there are (currently) fewer options, but that is rapidly changing.
Don't get me wrong, as like any dev worth their salt, I am inherently lazy. I don't want to reinvent the wheel (or MVC or EF or WPF or HTML_, but when the quality is compromised by use some else'es home project (which may or may not be flaky) in your 24/7 systems that's the end. I really don't have time to vet all the code that people bring in to the system, and the maintenance nightmare (and possibly regulatory constraints).
It gets worse when your build systems are designed to update external code (ie unverified) when a build is done.
You can write all the tests in the world to mitigate this behavior, but so long as an external dev doesn't break existing functionality (for good or bad) you will never know if those external modules are leaking (sensitive) data or not.
 
|
|
|
|
|
You are learning Grass-Hopper...
I have been writing about these issues in the Microsoft Community for years and everyone has seemingly gone their own way. Yet others have sounded the alarms over this very issue as well.
The industry has created a "Tower of Babel" for the sake of expediency and the illusion of productivity to satisfy insane deadlines created by incompetent management.
We have the Internet to blame also as it allows everyone to pile their own two-cents in without any restraint.
Now we have a community that is quite a mess... And the productivity yields are hardly any better than years ago when things were much simpler to create. Of course today the emphasis is on the coolest tools to use with the latest jargon and not the creation of quality applications. And how could anyone create quality applications with so many tools that have not really been tested thoroughly for their own levels of quality.
We should all simply go back to ASP.NT WebForms as the issues that MVC and JavaScript claimed to resolve have only created new ones...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
haha. good point. those owful days I had to help to my wife learn web development I felt exactly the same
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been hard drive shopping in over a year and I am curious when these little gems hit the market. I would also like to see if anybody has used them yet and hear what their thoughts are.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
I would say, try it In six month the next hipe is ready to retry 
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
If you have been using SATA SSD, you won't feel a lot of speedup with M.2 SSD, unless your workload consists of many sequential read/write which I highly doubt so. My home PC has 120GB SATA SSD(Primary) for OS and 500GB M.2 SSD(Secondary) for games and Visual Studio solutions/projects and a 1TB HDD to keep downloaded stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
I got one with my latest portable. They are faster than many (most?) SSDs, but if you already use an SSD, you won't notice a major performance increase. I don't know about the power requirements; perhaps the manufacturers' websites will have some information.
As far as I can see, their major advantage is to portable manufacturers - having a smaller form factor allows them to make slimmer devices.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
My systems drive is a Samsung 850 Pro, and really, I don't need anything faster!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
There is always room for improvement; as far as I'm concerned, if non-volatile storage is not as fast as volatile storage, it is too slow.
(And no, the solution isn't slowing down the volatile storage. )
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: the solution isn't slowing down the volatile storage
Rats! That is what I was going to suggest! 
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
I have a slightly different viewpoint: if volatile storage is not as big as non-volatile storage, it is too small.
I'll favour size over speed, any day.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If non-volatile storage were as fast as volatile storage, we could dispense completely with volatile storage. All computers would have a built-in "sleep mode" - all that would be needed would be to store the state of the CPU at the moment of shutdown, which is very fast. In fact, as the current CPU state is stored at every task switch, this implies that "sleep mode" would just be another task.
OTOH, given that the working set of all the programs that you run simultaneously is much smaller than the entire non-volatile storage, I see no good reason for volatile storage to be of the same size as non-volatile storage. Also, writing/reading a few TB of volatile storage when entering/leaving "sleep mode" would make a computer extremely slow to sleep/wake.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, but the amount of data I can store is more important to me than the few milliseconds of access time to be gained -- particularly on laptops, where there isn't always space for a second drive, so smaller drives cause lag, anyway.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I'll favour size over speed, any day.
That's what she said.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I finally got my system up and running.
I've got an Asus Z170 motherboard with an Intel i7-6700K CPU. The M.2 drive is a Samsung 960EVO 500GB PCIe NVMe. Holy sh*t this thing is elephanting fast! As far as sequential reads go, it really is 5x faster than a normal SSD. I'm getting read rates of 2.9GB/sec, compared to 511MG/sec for a SATA SSD, and 1.8GB/sec write. The 960 PRO version is even faster!
Do a little homework on the M.2, NVMe specifications and then get a motherboard with it's M.2 connectors on the PCIe bus and make sure they give you 4 PCIe lanes for transfers. That'll give you the fastest transfer rate possible today.
|
|
|
|
|
Almost 3 gigs a second!? That's fast. Is that with a single hard drive or a raid configuration?
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
That's a single drive.
You can RAID them together if you've got the capability of having more than one M.2 drive on the motherboard or in expansion slots. Keep in mind that each PCIe connected drive is going to use either 2 or 4 PCIe lanes and your motherboard chipset only gives you a limited number of extra lanes to play with. If you're going to add multiple video cards, those are going eat up the extra lanes before you get around to adding more M.2 drives.
modified 6-Feb-17 9:49am.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
