|
I disagree totally with "<table>s for tabular data; <div>s for layout." This paradigm has been invalid since it was first uttered. It is semantics - a play on words. I use <table>s for layout and for tabular data. My experience with using <div>s has been that they are far more costly than are <table>s for layout.
I'm reminded of a student of mine who claimed that a binary search was always the most efficient search technique for a table. Unfortunately, he neglected the cost of sorting the table and maintaining the sorted order during CRUD operations.
In the past, I've suggested that the "table" tag should have been named "grid". Then this foolish non-argument would never had arisen.
The <table> versus <div> arguments were raised by proponents of a strict interpretation of the separation of structure from presentation from behavior. With the advent of the CSS grid, that separation no longer holds.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
gggustafson wrote: I use <table>s for layout
And obviously don't give a stuff about users on tablets or phones! 
gggustafson wrote: My experience with using <div>s has been that they are far more costly than are <table>s for layout.
That was true 18 years ago. It may even have been true 5 years ago. But between Flexbox and Grid, it's now almost trivial to create flexible and responsive layouts without resorting to tables.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I am not impressed by ad hominum arguments.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
And I am not impressed by someone crying "ad hominum argument!" in response to perfectly valid criticism of their design decisions.
In future, I suggest you learn the meaning of "ad hominum" before trying to hide your technical debt behind it.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
You have terminated our discussion. Have a good life.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
As Richard told. Do not let the specification override your professional judgment... TABLE is designed for tabular data - use it that way...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
As I replied to Richard, I disagree with his position.
Now my problem is simply to decide if W3.CSS is worth the trouble.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
HTML have a group of elements called semantic elements (like TABLE) that by their name define for what they are there. DIV and SPAN are the anti-semantic elements and for that are perfect candidates for layout, especially if you are in need for responsive layout.
It is true that you can redefine the behavior of every element - if you are go deep enough - but even than you can't break the expected parent-child hierarchy of certain semantic elements, like TABLE.
While it is absolutely true, that building a TABLE based layout is very quick and clean, but it won't hold the moment you are moving to small screens (responsiveness)...
I have over 15 years of experience with these things, and tried every option - DIVs are the best for layout...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your thoughts.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Come on. Table can easily be made responsive through clever CSS classes on its rows and columns. If you were to move say a column in next row, all you need is a not so little JS function which can basically rewrite HTML based on screen size.
See how easy it is.
Now where is "let me write a senseless solution while pretending to be serious and genius" icon?
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Is speaking ill of the dead a grave mistake?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Of corpse it is!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Wait - I thought this argument was dead and buried?
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Whatcadaver gave you that idea?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
You're killing me!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Only among those with no musical talent. It's a major bone of contention among the de-composers.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I hope not; I've never been a fan of their music myself.
|
|
|
|
|
That question is coffin brought up. If we dig into it, you can be bury sure about what the various replies internment to this question.
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Not interested
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
A few weeks ago, manager asks me to set up a job to run daily in QLTY. After various forms and conversation, job is set up.
QA says this project is "out of scope" for them, so they don't need to test it.
I submit a "cancel daily job run"
Manager is now out of town and is the only person that can approve the cancellation.
Job fails (missing DB tables) but I don't get notified because I'm not part of the job fail notification group.
There are three other jobs waiting after my failed job that won't kick off.
Another email from someone else about my failed, pending cancellation, job holding off other jobs.
Email goes out asking why production jobs are being held up by a QLTY job.
Email goes out that the person setting up my job created it as a predecessor to a PROD job.
I get blamed, since I apparently requested my QA job run before the PROD job. Actually, it was the IT person who suggested it, and I agreed, not realizing I was mixing apples and oranges.
Email goes out asking if there's someone else that can approve the cancellation because the manager is OOO.
Email goes out saying you have to email "ESD Leadership" to get an approval change.
That email includes a wrist slap (but oddly not at me) that jobs shouldn't be created if they're not ready to be run. Well, it was ready to run, but the I realized some DB tables hadn't been created (I can take the blame for that), so it failed.
Email goes out that the "ESD Leadership" is also OOO, so it'll have to wait until Monday.
Email goes out that the approval can be escalated to the VP or set the job to "normal" so the successor jobs can run.
Manager emails that there weren't any dependencies on the job when it was approved. But manager had berated me for not filling out the form correctly with predecessors / successors.
That's what was sitting in my inbox this morning. What were we talking about regarding "ideology"? Basically, all someone had to do was tell the job to ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) off, problem solved. But nooooo....
Not sure whether to  or 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow!! Maybe the people who created the process at Marc's workplace read that Dilbert and created the policy. 
|
|
|
|
|
Nowadays we would call Dilbert an "influencer" 
|
|
|
|
|
I feel your pain -- have felt it in the past.
It is interesting that professionals must have process & methodology in their work.
And yet, process and methodology often descends into the pits of bureaucracy.
This makes a lot of devs believe that :
Process == Bureaucracy and/or Methodology == Bureaucracy
But, real process is not bureaucracy. A real process is the next step to repeatable processes and deliverables.
It's too bad because things could get better with a solid process.
Often times it is because the people managing the process (and the ones who institute it) have no idea why or what or how. 
|
|
|
|
|
Bureaucracy is being eliminated here. They just hired a bureaucrat to get it done. 
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
