qooxlisp live
Kenneth Tilton
site name):
For additional laughs, the server is running on a $2/day Amazon EC2
Fedora Core 8. So it might disappear spontaneously.
Unfortunately I am intermittently having FireFox/IE* not want to
acknowledge when I hit Enter, in which case you won't be able to play
much. I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
thing into submission.
kt
* I just got a report of a Chrome user having the same problem, so I am
starting to think I am sometimes** sending the JS over such that it runs
in the wrong order.
** Cells by default orders non-deterministically. There is a mechanism
for corralling the beast where this pisses off an external library, but
these cases have to be identified and coded for. Methinks I have such a
case -- browsers that generally do not work have been observed to work.
Then not again.
kt
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
"The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
Macworld
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
> site name):
>
> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>
> For additional laughs, the server is running on a $2/day Amazon EC2
> Fedora Core 8. So it might disappear spontaneously.
>
> Unfortunately I am intermittently having FireFox/IE* not want to
> acknowledge when I hit Enter, in which case you won't be able to play
> much. I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
> thing into submission.
A ca. 3 MiB(!) download thanks to 344 HTTP requests (including 333(!)
requests for script resources, which amount to ca. 3 MiB) that takes 1 min
48 s(!) to load on a very broad Internet connection and a considerably fast
system. And when it has finally loaded it shows only a simple form that
stalls Iceweasel (Firefox): "A script on this page may be busy, or it may
have stopped respnding ...". And you are saying this is but an *example*?
Either you are not serious or you are completely nuts.
In any case, thanks for showing us why not to use qooxdoo and code based on
it.
PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
Gregor Kofler
> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
> site name):
>
> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>
> For additional laughs, the server is running on a $2/day Amazon EC2
> Fedora Core 8. So it might disappear spontaneously.
>
> Unfortunately I am intermittently having FireFox/IE* not want to
> acknowledge when I hit Enter, in which case you won't be able to play
> much. I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
> thing into submission.
>
> kt
>
> * I just got a report of a Chrome user having the same problem, so I am
> starting to think I am sometimes** sending the JS over such that it runs
> in the wrong order.
>
> ** Cells by default orders non-deterministically. There is a mechanism
> for corralling the beast where this pisses off an external library, but
> these cases have to be identified and coded for. Methinks I have such a
> case -- browsers that generally do not work have been observed to work.
> Then not again.
*Now* I get the picture. This is some large scale proof by you, that
qooxdoo is the usual library crap and cannot be recommended. Smart. You
are putting a lot of effort into that. I'm sorry that I can't admire
your work, but loading the page just takes too long...
Gregor
Kenneth Tilton
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>
>> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
>> site name):
>>
>> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>>
>> For additional laughs, the server is running on a $2/day Amazon EC2
>> Fedora Core 8. So it might disappear spontaneously.
>>
>> Unfortunately I am intermittently having FireFox/IE* not want to
>> acknowledge when I hit Enter, in which case you won't be able to play
>> much. I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
>> thing into submission.
>
> A ca. 3 MiB(!) download
Wow, I better do a "release build" after all. Stay tuned.
> thanks to 344 HTTP requests (including 333(!)
> requests for script resources, which amount to ca. 3 MiB) that takes 1 min
> 48 s(!) to load on a very broad Internet connection and a considerably fast
> system.
I can load in 4-5s. Sometimes a browser and my (lisp) server do not get
along and the server feeds files in a trickle, like 3/sec. Have not
figured out what that is all about, but resetting the browser works (at
least for Safari).
> And when it has finally loaded it shows only a simple form that
> stalls Iceweasel (Firefox): "A script on this page may be busy, or it may
> have stopped respnding ...". And you are saying this is but an *example*?
>
> Either you are not serious or you are completely nuts.
>
> In any case, thanks for showing us why not to use qooxdoo and code based on
> it.
It's what I live for, confirming your unthinking prejudices.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>>> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
>>> site name):
>>>
>>> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>>> [...]
>>
>> A ca. 3 MiB(!) download
>
> Wow, I better do a "release build" after all. Stay tuned.
That wouldn't increase the overall code quality, would it?
>> thanks to 344 HTTP requests (including 333(!)
>> requests for script resources, which amount to ca. 3 MiB) that takes 1
>> min 48 s(!) to load on a very broad Internet connection and a
>> considerably fast system.
>
> I can load in 4-5s. [...]
I hate to break this to you, stupid, but you are really not alone on the Net
or on client systems. Loading 3 MiB in 4 to 5 seconds requires a constant
transfer rate of 614.5 to 768 KiB/s (not kbps; you may want to look up
common transfer rates, especially on mobiles). Good luck finding someone to
save all their bandwidth for your crappy scripts (you're going to need it).
RobG
> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
> site name):
>
> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
With javascript disabled, it shows a blank page.
Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load.
Downloading 335 files totalling 3MB is going to take a very long time
on any system.
Once viewed, the page is dysfunctional in both Firefox 3.6 and IE 6. I
can't get it to do anything, are there instructions?
[...]
> Unfortunately I am intermittently having FireFox/IE* not want to
> acknowledge when I hit Enter, in which case you won't be able to play
> much.
"Intermittent" is an understatement, it doesn't work at all.
> I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
> thing into submission.
You knew it was dysfunctional but posted a link anyway. Thanks.
[...]
> --http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
Presumably you have some relationship with that site. Even though it
is HTML 4.01 Transitional, the W3C validator finds 27 errors.
> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
> Macworld
Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious.
According to the "stuckonalgebra" site, there is no Mac version, which
left me wondering what was reviwed and when, given that Macworld is a
Mac-specific magazine. A search revealed that the quote is from a
superficial review[1] of "Algebra I Homework Tutor from Missing Link
Software" in April 1991.
There seems to be a pattern here that does not leave a good
impression.
1. <URL: http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/macworld.html >
--
Rob
Kenneth Tilton
> On Jun 8, 6:26 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
>> site name):
>>
>> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>
> With javascript disabled, it shows a blank page.
Possibly related to this being a javascript library? The next version
has a noscript chunk to help you out.
>
> Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load.
I get that, too, sometimes. Not sure what's going on. Possibly the
server is being silly, because other times it loads in 4-5s.
What browser/OS?
> Downloading 335 files totalling 3MB is going to take a very long time
> on any system.
No, I normally get 4-5s. Any time it hangs I reset the browser (not that
that should be necessary) and then I get 4-5s.
Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it's one file, 989kb. Not
nothing, but should be even better.
>
> Once viewed, the page is dysfunctional in both Firefox 3.6 and IE 6. I
> can't get it to do anything, are there instructions?
I am starting to think it's my bug. The next release will have a
"Search" button I suspect will work so you can at least have some fun.
I'll try adding some instructions to the page itself.
>
>
> [...]
>> Unfortunately I am intermittently having FireFox/IE* not want to
>> acknowledge when I hit Enter, in which case you won't be able to play
>> much.
>
> "Intermittent" is an understatement, it doesn't work at all.
I know the feeling, but messing around at one point it did start working
in both.
>
>
>> I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
>> thing into submission.
>
> You knew it was dysfunctional but posted a link anyway. Thanks.
I try.
>
>
> [...]
>> --http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
>
> Presumably you have some relationship with that site. Even though it
> is HTML 4.01 Transitional, the W3C validator finds 27 errors.
Go flame Yahoo SiteBuilder.
>
>
>> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
>> Macworld
>
> Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious.
You never heard of Macworld?
>
> According to the "stuckonalgebra" site, there is no Mac version,
The Mac does not have Web browsers? You have a scoop.
> which
> left me wondering what was reviwed and when, given that Macworld is a
> Mac-specific magazine. A search revealed that the quote is from a
> superficial review[1] of "Algebra I Homework Tutor from Missing Link
> Software" in April 1991.
If "in a class by itself" is superficial, I'll take it.
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
Kenneth Tilton
I am so surprised to discover you are drawing conclusions that align
with what you believed before.
Scott Sauyet
> RobG wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 6:26 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
>>> site name):
>
>>> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>
>> With javascript disabled, it shows a blank page.
>
> Possibly related to this being a javascript library? The next version
> has a noscript chunk to help you out.
>
>> Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load.
>
> I get that, too, sometimes. Not sure what's going on. Possibly the
> server is being silly, because other times it loads in 4-5s.
I tested with a very fast connection and fast computer, and it never
loaded in less than 8 seconds. Testing now at home over a mediocre
DSL, it's around 100 seconds on an empty cache.
>> Downloading 335 files totalling 3MB is going to take a very long time
>> on any system.
>
> No, I normally get 4-5s. Any time it hangs I reset the browser (not that
> that should be necessary) and then I get 4-5s.
>
> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it's one file, 989kb. Not
> nothing, but should be even better.
There are regular complaints on this group about the size of a 70KB
(unzipped) file. Is all that really necessary for this relatively
simple page?
>>> I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
>>> thing into submission.
>
>> You knew it was dysfunctional but posted a link anyway. Thanks.
>
> I try.
You try to what, annoy the hell out of everyone here?
>> [...]
>>> --http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
>
>> Presumably you have some relationship with that site. Even though it
>> is HTML 4.01 Transitional, the W3C validator finds 27 errors.
>
> Go flame Yahoo SiteBuilder.
Or better yet, the person who posted it as an example...
>>> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
>>> Macworld
>
>> Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious.
>
> You never heard of Macworld?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+best+Algebra+tutorial+program+I+have+seen%22+site:macworld.com
returns no results... Do you have a more detailed reference?
>> According to the "stuckonalgebra" site, there is no Mac version,
>
> The Mac does not have Web browsers? You have a scoop.
>> which
>> left me wondering what was reviwed and when, given that Macworld is a
>> Mac-specific magazine. A search revealed that the quote is from a
>> superficial review[1] of "Algebra I Homework Tutor from Missing Link
>> Software" in April 1991.
>
> If "in a class by itself" is superficial, I'll take it.
Are you telling us that this ran on a Mac web browser in 1991?
--
Scott
Andrew Poulos
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>>
>>> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
>>> site name):
>>>
>>> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>>>
>>> For additional laughs, the server is running on a $2/day Amazon EC2
>>> Fedora Core 8. So it might disappear spontaneously.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I am intermittently having FireFox/IE* not want to
>>> acknowledge when I hit Enter, in which case you won't be able to play
>>> much. I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
>>> thing into submission.
>>
>> A ca. 3 MiB(!) download
>
> Wow, I better do a "release build" after all. Stay tuned.
>
>> thanks to 344 HTTP requests (including 333(!) requests for script
>> resources, which amount to ca. 3 MiB) that takes 1 min 48 s(!) to load
>> on a very broad Internet connection and a considerably fast system.
>
> I can load in 4-5s. Sometimes a browser and my (lisp) server do not get
> along and the server feeds files in a trickle, like 3/sec. Have not
> figured out what that is all about, but resetting the browser works (at
> least for Safari).
I'm on ADSL 2+ and it took 1 minute and 21 seconds and when it finally
loaded nothing would responded. A "spontaneous" disappearance may not be
such a bad thing for it.
Andrew Poulos
Andrew Poulos
> Gregor Kofler wrote:
>> Am 2010-06-07 22:26, Kenneth Tilton meinte:
>>> ** Cells by default orders non-deterministically. There is a mechanism
>>> for corralling the beast where this pisses off an external library, but
>>> these cases have to be identified and coded for. Methinks I have such a
>>> case -- browsers that generally do not work have been observed to work.
>>> Then not again.
>>
>> *Now* I get the picture. This is some large scale proof by you, that
>> qooxdoo is the usual library crap and cannot be recommended. Smart.
>> You are putting a lot of effort into that. I'm sorry that I can't
>> admire your work, but loading the page just takes too long...
>
> I am so surprised to discover you are drawing conclusions that align
> with what you believed before.
Which, by coincidence, matches the evidence you yourself provided.
Andrew Poulos
RobG
> RobG wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 6:26 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
> >> site name):
>
> >> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>
> > With javascript disabled, it shows a blank page.
>
> Possibly related to this being a javascript library? The next version
> has a noscript chunk to help you out.
Good, but even better would be to have a plain HTML page that at least
has some information about what the site is about, what it is supposed
to demonstrate and some examples of its use.
> > Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load.
>
> I get that, too, sometimes. Not sure what's going on. Possibly the
> server is being silly, because other times it loads in 4-5s.
As Thomas said, if you think 3MB will take 5 seconds to load, you want
approximately 25Mb to download at about 5mb/s. That's not including
the 355 HTTP requests, intermediate browser processing, dropped
packets, headers, etc. You are depending on caching quite a bit. Your
(missing) introduction page could explain some of that so at least
users are aware of the possible lengthy delay before making a decision
about proceeding.
> What browser/OS?
The browsers are below, the OS is Windows XP.
> > Downloading 335 files totalling 3MB is going to take a very long time
> > on any system.
>
> No, I normally get 4-5s. Any time it hangs I reset the browser (not that
> that should be necessary) and then I get 4-5s.
What do you mean by "reset"? Restart? Close a tab and re-open? Clear
the cache?
> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it's one file, 989kb. Not
> nothing, but should be even better.
That should help, but will still require quite a bit of time and users
should be warned so they can make their own decision about whether or
not to proceed.
> > Once viewed, the page is dysfunctional in both Firefox 3.6 and IE 6. I
> > can't get it to do anything, are there instructions?
>
> I am starting to think it's my bug. The next release will have a
> "Search" button I suspect will work so you can at least have some fun.
> I'll try adding some instructions to the page itself.
Or to an introduction page that can be left open in another tab or
window at the user's discretion.
[...]
> >> --http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
[...]
> >> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
> >> Macworld
>
> > Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious.
>
> You never heard of Macworld?
Yes, but the attribution is incomplete (and the reader is left
wondering why).
> > According to the "stuckonalgebra" site, there is no Mac version,
>
> The Mac does not have Web browsers? You have a scoop.
Whether or not there are browsers for Mac OS is irrelevant. I can't
find a link to a web version on that site, all links eventually lead
to a download page that states:
| Pick your operating system:
| 1. Windows XP
| 2. Windows Vista or Windows 7
| 3. Mac OS X (coming soon!)
The site does not offer a browser version and *states* that there is
no Mac version. Whether there are browsers for Mac OS is irrelevant at
this point.
> > which
> > left me wondering what was reviwed and when, given that Macworld is a
> > Mac-specific magazine. A search revealed that the quote is from a
> > superficial review[1] of "Algebra I Homework Tutor from Missing Link
> > Software" in April 1991.
>
> If "in a class by itself" is superficial, I'll take it.
The *review* is superficial and nearly 20 years old, before the WWW
was invented. Even if there is a web-based version available now, the
review is of an entirely different product from an eon ago and
therefore irrelevant.
It's like IBM claiming technical competence based on a 1930s review of
their electric accounting machine[1].
1. <URL: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV9012.html
>
--
Rob
Adam Harvey
> On Jun 8, 6:26 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
>> site name):
>>
>> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>
> With javascript disabled, it shows a blank page.
>
> Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load. Downloading
> 335 files totalling 3MB is going to take a very long time on any system.
For an additional data point (and example of exactly why having 350+
dependencies for a single page is a problem): it took 3 minutes, 12
seconds here. I have a rather fast Internet connection, but since I'm
geographically a long way from the server, each request has a latency in
the 275 millisecond range before anything useful is transferred. That
adds up rather quickly with that many requests.
> Once viewed, the page is dysfunctional in both Firefox 3.6 and IE 6. I
> can't get it to do anything, are there instructions?
It seems to work for me in Firefox 3.6, although I don't have a clue what
it's actually supposed to do.
Adam
Kenneth Tilton
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>> RobG wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 6:26 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
>>>> site name):
>>>> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>>> With javascript disabled, it shows a blank page.
>> Possibly related to this being a javascript library? The next version
>> has a noscript chunk to help you out.
>
>>> Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load.
>> I get that, too, sometimes. Not sure what's going on. Possibly the
>> server is being silly, because other times it loads in 4-5s.
>
>
> I tested with a very fast connection and fast computer, and it never
> loaded in less than 8 seconds.
Yeah, I lied. I get 11s or so. The 4-5s was what I remembered from
loading from localhost.
> Testing now at home over a mediocre
> DSL, it's around 100 seconds on an empty cache.
I sometimes see it loading the 300+ files 4/s, never wait around to see
it finish. I think the Lisp server I use might be doing that.
For me, resetting the browser gets it back to loading in 10+s.
Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it makes one file, 989kb.
Trying to get that working for a release 2.0.
>
>>> Downloading 335 files totalling 3MB is going to take a very long time
>>> on any system.
>> No, I normally get 4-5s. Any time it hangs I reset the browser (not that
>> that should be necessary) and then I get 4-5s.
>>
>> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it's one file, 989kb. Not
>> nothing, but should be even better.
>
> There are regular complaints on this group about the size of a 70KB
> (unzipped) file. Is all that really necessary for this relatively
> simple page?
I think it's like Lisp applications: even "Hello World" will end up with
most of Lisp in there. One could go crazy trying to have a build
procedure take out uneccessary code, but then (a) how much would one
save and (b) why bother? These frameworks are for RIAs, which will
indeed use many components of a framework. The only beneficiary would be
small demos, which I suspect is not worth the trouble. And libraries are
pyramids -- that "simple" demo uses a nice variety of widgets, including
a remote table with scrolling, movable and hidable columns, one column
data renderer, and probably reaches down into a lot of code.
>
>
>>>> I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
>>>> thing into submission.
>>> You knew it was dysfunctional but posted a link anyway. Thanks.
>> I try.
>
> You try to what, annoy the hell out of everyone here?
I believe the people annoyed are the ones who hope to be both annoyed
and annoying, aka, mindlessly abusive of anyone not using raw HTML. Yes,
it gives me great pleasure to annoy them, since they are the ones being
bullies and they totally need to be laughed at, not listened to.
You have a sick little cult in this NG, self-important and posturing,
utterly convinced of themselves while the silent majority just rolls
their eyes at them and gets on with their work. Speaking of which...
>
>
>>> [...]
>>>> --http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
>>> Presumably you have some relationship with that site. Even though it
>>> is HTML 4.01 Transitional, the W3C validator finds 27 errors.
>> Go flame Yahoo SiteBuilder.
>
> Or better yet, the person who posted it as an example...
>
>
>>>> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
>>>> Macworld
>>> Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious.
>> You never heard of Macworld?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+best+Algebra+tutorial+program+I+have+seen%22+site:macworld.com
>
> returns no results... Do you have a more detailed reference?
I have the whole review somewhere, but a digital version could be tough
to dig up. If you are seriously interested I'll look for it.
>
>
>>> According to the "stuckonalgebra" site, there is no Mac version,
>> The Mac does not have Web browsers? You have a scoop.
>
>>> which
>>> left me wondering what was reviwed and when, given that Macworld is a
>>> Mac-specific magazine. A search revealed that the quote is from a
>>> superficial review[1] of "Algebra I Homework Tutor from Missing Link
>>> Software" in April 1991.
>> If "in a class by itself" is superficial, I'll take it.
>
> Are you telling us that this ran on a Mac web browser in 1991?
No, it was written originally for the Mac, in C. The defter of the
intellects in this group might be able to figure out I have decided to
release it as a web app, hence qooxlisp. ie, plaintiff was confusing the
present with the past.
kt
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Testing now at home over a mediocre
>> DSL, it's around 100 seconds on an empty cache.
>
> I sometimes see it loading the 300+ files 4/s, never wait around to see
> it finish. I think the Lisp server I use might be doing that.
>
> For me, resetting the browser gets it back to loading in 10+s.
>
> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it makes one file, 989kb.
> Trying to get that working for a release 2.0.
"kb" means "kilobit" to you too, yes? If no, forget it, you are not ready
for serious Web development.
PointedEars
--
Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
(This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
will want to steal it.)
-- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm> (404-comp.)
David Mark
Yes. Like the repeating background image. But I suppose that's the
least of the worries.
Quite a flair for self-promotion, but folds on interrogation.
David Mark
> RobG wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 6:26 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
> >> site name):
>
> >> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>
> > With javascript disabled, it shows a blank page.
>
> Possibly related to this being a javascript library? The next version
> has a noscript chunk to help you out.
The page is a Javascript library?!
>
>
>
> > Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load.
>
> I get that, too, sometimes. Not sure what's going on. Possibly the
> server is being silly, because other times it loads in 4-5s.
>
> What browser/OS?
As if that matters. 3MB is 3MB (and about 2.95MB too much).
>
> > Downloading 335 files totalling 3MB is going to take a very long time
> > on any system.
>
> No, I normally get 4-5s. Any time it hangs I reset the browser (not that
> that should be necessary) and then I get 4-5s.
>
> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it's one file, 989kb. Not
> nothing, but should be even better.
You could fit 8 or 9 copies of My Library (the full build) in that
file, plus all of the add-ons. And you'd actually have a shot at
decent community support (as opposed to commiseration) as well. I
tried to warn you.
Those bloated widgets and OO syntactic sugar are bad for you. Like
junk food, they'll give you a quick rush. Then you come back down to
earth and realize you haven't budged from ground zero.
>
>
>
> > Once viewed, the page is dysfunctional in both Firefox 3.6 and IE 6. I
> > can't get it to do anything, are there instructions?
>
> I am starting to think it's my bug. The next release will have a
> "Search" button I suspect will work so you can at least have some fun.
> I'll try adding some instructions to the page itself.
>
>
>
> > [...]
> >> Unfortunately I am intermittently having FireFox/IE* not want to
> >> acknowledge when I hit Enter, in which case you won't be able to play
> >> much.
>
> > "Intermittent" is an understatement, it doesn't work at all.
>
> I know the feeling, but messing around at one point it did start working
> in both.
>
>
>
> >> I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
> >> thing into submission.
>
> > You knew it was dysfunctional but posted a link anyway. Thanks.
>
> I try.
>
>
>
> > [...]
> >> --http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
>
> > Presumably you have some relationship with that site. Even though it
> > is HTML 4.01 Transitional, the W3C validator finds 27 errors.
>
> Go flame Yahoo SiteBuilder.
Technical criticism is not flaming. Go validate your markup.
>
>
>
> >> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
> >> Macworld
>
> > Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious.
>
> You never heard of Macworld?
Nope. Okay, perhaps vaguely.
>
>
>
> > According to the "stuckonalgebra" site, there is no Mac version,
>
> The Mac does not have Web browsers? You have a scoop.
They sure didn't have Web browsers in 1991.
>
> > which
> > left me wondering what was reviwed and when, given that Macworld is a
> > Mac-specific magazine. A search revealed that the quote is from a
> > superficial review[1] of "Algebra I Homework Tutor from Missing Link
> > Software" in April 1991.
>
> If "in a class by itself" is superficial, I'll take it.
You are welcome to it. Just don't toss it around without proper
attribution.
David Mark
And I'm unsurprised that you are clinging to your delusions in the
face of overwhelming evidence.
David Mark
Oh. How lame. :(
> One could go crazy trying to have a build
> procedure take out uneccessary code, but then (a) how much would one
> save and (b) why bother? These frameworks are for RIAs, which will
> indeed use many components of a framework.
Get real. If components cannot be separated, they aren't components.
And even the most involved RIA's should require no more than 100K
worth of widgets and such. Total.
> The only beneficiary would be
> small demos, which I suspect is not worth the trouble.
You just have no experience with RIA's.
> And libraries are
> pyramids -- that "simple" demo uses a nice variety of widgets, including
> a remote table with scrolling, movable and hidable columns, one column
> data renderer, and probably reaches down into a lot of code.
That's all piffle. There's no such thing as a (sound) UI widget that
takes more than a day to implement. If you have a sound DOM scripting
foundation (you don't), they are all about the same. And if you have
any real experience at all (and you don't), you have most of the basic
ones in stock.
>
>
>
> >>>> I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
> >>>> thing into submission.
> >>> You knew it was dysfunctional but posted a link anyway. Thanks.
> >> I try.
>
> > You try to what, annoy the hell out of everyone here?
>
> I believe the people annoyed are the ones who hope to be both annoyed
> and annoying, aka, mindlessly abusive of anyone not using raw HTML.
Lemon curry?
> Yes,
> it gives me great pleasure to annoy them, since they are the ones being
> bullies and they totally need to be laughed at, not listened to.
And you are doing a hell of a job. :)
>
> You have a sick little cult in this NG, self-important and posturing,
> utterly convinced of themselves while the silent majority just rolls
> their eyes at them and gets on with their work. Speaking of which...
>
All this because you posted a link to a bloated and broken "RIA"?
>
>
>
>
> >>> [...]
> >>>> --http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
> >>> Presumably you have some relationship with that site. Even though it
> >>> is HTML 4.01 Transitional, the W3C validator finds 27 errors.
> >> Go flame Yahoo SiteBuilder.
>
> > Or better yet, the person who posted it as an example...
>
> >>>> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
> >>>> Macworld
> >>> Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious.
> >> You never heard of Macworld?
>
> >http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+best+Algebra+tutorial+program+I...
>
> > returns no results... Do you have a more detailed reference?
>
> I have the whole review somewhere, but a digital version could be tough
> to dig up. If you are seriously interested I'll look for it.
The check's in the mail?
Kenneth Tilton
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:27:49 -0700, RobG wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 6:26 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
>>> site name):
>>>
>>> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>> With javascript disabled, it shows a blank page.
>>
>> Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load. Downloading
>> 335 files totalling 3MB is going to take a very long time on any system.
Normally, eleven seconds. Sometimes in some browsers the server (I think
the server is doing this) decides to give up only 2-4 files/second. Yes,
that slows things down a bit.
The good news is that I almost have the "release build" version working,
and that is ~900kb in one file. Should help.
>
> For an additional data point (and example of exactly why having 350+
> dependencies for a single page is a problem): it took 3 minutes, 12
> seconds here. I have a rather fast Internet connection, but since I'm
> geographically a long way from the server, each request has a latency in
> the 275 millisecond range before anything useful is transferred. That
> adds up rather quickly with that many requests.
>
>> Once viewed, the page is dysfunctional in both Firefox 3.6 and IE 6. I
>> can't get it to do anything, are there instructions?
>
> It seems to work for me in Firefox 3.6, although I don't have a clue what
> it's actually supposed to do.
Search the lisp server for any source code name containing the supplied
search string. Try "qx" or "qxl" to see names used in presenting the
interface you are using.
I'll sneak in a label to that effect now that I am spamming outside the
lisp community.
kt
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
Kenneth Tilton
Dude, I am sharing a new Javascript framework, not promoting the Algebra
software. Someone decided to go OT and root around in my sig for further
opportunities to be a Usenet jerk.
Meanwhile, fifteen years after the fact two educators separately and
independently dug me up and asked if there is any way they could get the
old version running since even now there is nothing like it and since it
really helped their students significantly.
Why are you guys so negative?
Just to help the autistics out there, that is a rhetorical question.
kt
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
Kenneth Tilton
> Those bloated widgets and OO syntactic sugar are bad for you. Like
> junk food, they'll give you a quick rush. Then you come back down to
> earth and realize you haven't budged from ground zero.
You sound like me talking about 4GLs. ie, I know the issue and fully
considered it. The balance is in favor of having a great library that
takes a bit longer to load. We can continue this after I install the
"build" version which has the thing down to anywhere between 850-1059kb
in one file, depending on the optimizations I turn on.
btw, the Amazon AWS UI uses YUI. I guess they do not know anything about
web programming either.
kt
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
David Mark
>
> Dude, I am sharing a new Javascript framework, not promoting the Algebra
> software.
And, as noted, it appears to be a colossal failure. And, of course,
you were warned about your choice of tools (and attitude) long before,
so have nobody to blame but yourself. It's odd that you consider some
"silent majority" that ostensibly agreed (and was proven wrong along)
with you to be your friends and everyone else out to get you.
> Someone decided to go OT and root around in my sig for further
> opportunities to be a Usenet jerk.
Rooted around? The URI is the first line of three (and the two that
follow refer back to it).
>
> Meanwhile, fifteen years after the fact two educators separately and
> independently dug me up and asked if there is any way they could get the
> old version running since even now there is nothing like it and since it
> really helped their students significantly.
Members of the silent majority I suppose.
>
> Why are you guys so negative?
>
> Just to help the autistics out there, that is a rhetorical question.
Not a very good one given the circumstances. I might ask why you are
so intolerant of autism.
Gregor Kofler
> David Mark wrote:
>> Those bloated widgets and OO syntactic sugar are bad for you. Like
>> junk food, they'll give you a quick rush. Then you come back down to
>> earth and realize you haven't budged from ground zero.
>
> You sound like me talking about 4GLs. ie, I know the issue and fully
> considered it. The balance is in favor of having a great library that
> takes a bit longer to load. We can continue this after I install the
> "build" version which has the thing down to anywhere between 850-1059kb
> in one file, depending on the optimizations I turn on.
>
> btw, the Amazon AWS UI uses YUI. I guess they do not know anything about
> web programming either.
They know definitely nothing about client-side scripting. And nothing
about web authoring.
Can't say anything about their server-side expertise, though.
Gregor
Helbrax
> The qooxlisp apropos example can now actually be run here (ignore the
> site name):
>
> http://www.teamalgebra.com/
>
> For additional laughs, the server is running on a $2/day Amazon EC2
> Fedora Core 8. So it might disappear spontaneously.
>
> Unfortunately I am intermittently having FireFox/IE* not want to
> acknowledge when I hit Enter, in which case you won't be able to play
> much. I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
> thing into submission.
>
> kt
>
> * I just got a report of a Chrome user having the same problem, so I am
> starting to think I am sometimes** sending the JS over such that it runs
> in the wrong order.
>
> ** Cells by default orders non-deterministically. There is a mechanism
> for corralling the beast where this pisses off an external library, but
> these cases have to be identified and coded for. Methinks I have such a
> case -- browsers that generally do not work have been observed to work.
> Then not again.
>
> kt
>
> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
> Macworld
Ok after about a million tries in a few different browsers, I finally
got it to load. Have no idea what it's supposed to do, but I don't
understand why it would take so long to load from a visual
perspective.
From the .js
>if (!window.qx) window.qx = {};
Wouldn't the following better?
var qx;
if(!qx) {
qx = {};
}
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>> [<http://www.stuckonalgebra.com>]
>
> Ok after about a million tries in a few different browsers, I finally
> got it to load. Have no idea what it's supposed to do, but I don't
> understand why it would take so long to load from a visual
> perspective.
Scanning through the 3 MiB of source code, I am sure the browser sniffing
constitutes a large portion of it.
> From the .js
>> if (!window.qx) window.qx = {};
>
> Wouldn't the following better?
> var qx;
> if(!qx) {
> qx = {};
> }
Of course it would. Only a neophyte or fool would risk augmenting a host
object like that referred to by `window'.
If you are not concerned about statement order reflecting execution order,
you could even do
if (!qx)
{
var qx = {};
}
and save one maintenance step (see ES3, section 10.1.3, and ES5, section
10.5).
F'up2 cljs (please only crosspost when necessary)
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>
David Mark
Yes. Much better. It's a somewhat minor detail, but a good indicator
of bad things to come.
Kenneth Tilton
> On Jun 8, 8:47 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> All this because you posted a link to a bloated and broken "RIA"?
Broken? Version 2.0 now installed: http://teamalgebra.com/
Looks fine to me. On FireFox, Chrome, and Safari. Not IE. FireFox at
first refused to show anything, while showing no errors. Then I looked
away and looked back and it worked. Lovely.
Quite fast now that I am doing the release build of the JS, and it now
includes instructions for you heathens not using Lisp. Unaddressed as of
yet is the non-functioning Enter key (prolly my fault) but (a) there is
a new button to kick off a search which may work as a last resort and
(b) the Enter key seems to be working now, lord knows why.
Enjoy.
>> I have the whole review somewhere, but a digital version could be tough
>> to dig up. If you are seriously interested I'll look for it.
>
> The check's in the mail?
"Copyright Macworld, Apr, '91: Algebra I Homework Tutor from Missing
Link Software is the best algebra tutorial program I have seen. First,
it works with algebra problems that the student types in from his or her
own textbook. Second, it can generate an unlimited number of random
algebraic problems.The software includes an editor for entering
algebraic notations. After a student enters an algebra problem and
begins typing the steps leading to a solution, the program automatically
evaluates each step. The tutor enters a single check if the step is
correct; an x if the step is incorrect; a check and a question mark if
the step could eventually lead to the correct solution; and a double
check for the correct solution. The student can request a series of
hints to help find the solution at any time. To create random problems
(for use without a textbook), the student first selects the type of
problem (Laws of Exponents, Monomial Operations, Multiplying Binomials,
and so on), then chooses from a number of options (With Integers, With
Decimals, Inequalities), and finally clicks on a difficulty level (Easy,
Medium, or Hard). The ability to generate an unlimited number of
problems puts Algebra I Homework Tutor in a class by itself."
And here is one of the teachers who dug me up to ask for the old software:
"Dear Ken,
Back in the 90's, I had used your Homework Tutor program successfully
with my Algebra I students who were behind. I was excited about the
efficient progress they made and how quickly they got to the same level
as my better students after using the program.
Now I have some new teachers in my department who are struggling with
their poor algebra students. you know where I could purchase this
software? Thank you for your help.
Of all of the software I have used in the evolution of school math and
computers, your Algebra I Homework Tutor was the most elegant and practical.
Sincerely,
<name withheld from you clowns>"
kt
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
Kenneth Tilton
> David Mark wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 8:47 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>
>> All this because you posted a link to a bloated and broken "RIA"?
>
> Broken? Version 2.0 now installed: http://teamalgebra.com/
>
> Looks fine to me. On FireFox, Chrome, and Safari. Not IE. FireFox at
> first refused to show anything, while showing no errors. Then I looked
> away and looked back and it worked. Lovely.
That just happened again, on FF on Ubuntu. This time I tried twice,
cleared the cache, tried again, nothing. Started at the thing a minute,
did it again and shazam. Let's try a Mac....
Kenneth Tilton
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> Testing now at home over a mediocre
>>> DSL, it's around 100 seconds on an empty cache.
>> I sometimes see it loading the 300+ files 4/s, never wait around to see
>> it finish. I think the Lisp server I use might be doing that.
>>
>> For me, resetting the browser gets it back to loading in 10+s.
>>
>> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it makes one file, 989kb.
>> Trying to get that working for a release 2.0.
>
> "kb" means "kilobit" to you too, yes? If no, forget it, you are not ready
> for serious Web development.
I think I'll forget you. I already did serious web development with
qooxdoo a couple of years ago, but not with Cells. Client loved me for
it. Then switched to some gentlemen in Viet Nam who were a tad cheaper.
They used ExtJS, btw.
Kenneth Tilton
Thx for your persistence. The new version works off a so-called build
release of the app, puts everything in one file (1050kb). Loads in 1-2s
for me lotsa places. Trying the Mac next.
kt
--
David Mark
> David Mark wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 8:47 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> > All this because you posted a link to a bloated and broken "RIA"?
>
> Broken? Version 2.0 now installed:http://teamalgebra.com/
Let's see. You posted a Version 1.0 a day or so ago. It was broken.
On being told it was broken, you proceeded to snarl about "silent
majorities" and "cults" and whatnot. I'm not interested in commenting
on "Version 2.0".
[...]
>
> Quite fast now that I am doing the release build of the JS, and it now
> includes instructions for you heathens not using Lisp.
Fast is relative and "heathens" sounds like the rhetoric of a cult-
member to me. Must be a very odd cult too.
> Unaddressed as of
> yet is the non-functioning Enter key (prolly my fault)
That was the chief complaint from before!
> but (a) there is
> a new button to kick off a search which may work as a last resort and
> (b) the Enter key seems to be working now, lord knows why.
Keep praying. Does any of this ring a bell?
>
> Enjoy.
I doubt it. It doesn't even sound like you can enjoy it at this
point.
>
> >> I have the whole review somewhere, but a digital version could be tough
> >> to dig up. If you are seriously interested I'll look for it.
>
> > The check's in the mail?
>
> "Copyright Macworld, Apr, '91: Algebra I Homework Tutor from Missing
> Link Software is the best algebra tutorial program I have seen. First,
> it works with algebra problems that the student types in from his or her
> own textbook. Second, it can generate an unlimited number of random
> algebraic problems.The software includes an editor for entering
> algebraic notations. After a student enters an algebra problem and
> begins typing the steps leading to a solution, the program automatically
> evaluates each step. The tutor enters a single check if the step is
> correct; an x if the step is incorrect; a check and a question mark if
> the step could eventually lead to the correct solution; and a double
> check for the correct solution. The student can request a series of
> hints to help find the solution at any time. To create random problems
> (for use without a textbook), the student first selects the type of
> problem (Laws of Exponents, Monomial Operations, Multiplying Binomials,
> and so on), then chooses from a number of options (With Integers, With
> Decimals, Inequalities), and finally clicks on a difficulty level (Easy,
> Medium, or Hard). The ability to generate an unlimited number of
> problems puts Algebra I Homework Tutor in a class by itself."
Why, in 2010, would anyone care what one guy said about some software
you wrote in 1991?
>
> And here is one of the teachers who dug me up to ask for the old software:
>
The note from your teacher is disallowed.
Kenneth Tilton
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 8:47 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>>
>>> All this because you posted a link to a bloated and broken "RIA"?
>>
>> Broken? Version 2.0 now installed: http://teamalgebra.com/
>>
>> Looks fine to me. On FireFox, Chrome, and Safari. Not IE. FireFox at
>> first refused to show anything, while showing no errors. Then I looked
>> away and looked back and it worked. Lovely.
>
> That just happened again, on FF on Ubuntu. This time I tried twice,
> cleared the cache, tried again, nothing. Started at the thing a minute,
> did it again and shazam. Let's try a Mac....
Works great, except then I decided it was time to have AWS save my image
as a template and it decided to reboot me. :(
Scott Sauyet
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>>> RobG wrote:
(RE: http://www.teamalgebra.com/)
>>>> Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load.
>>> I get that, too, sometimes. Not sure what's going on. Possibly the
>>> server is being silly, because other times it loads in 4-5s.
>
>> I tested with a very fast connection and fast computer, and it never
>> loaded in less than 8 seconds.
>
> Yeah, I lied. I get 11s or so. The 4-5s was what I remembered from
> loading from localhost.
As others have pointed out, you need to look at overall size and see
if the download time for that amount of data is likely to be
acceptable to your target audience and their infrastructures.
>> Testing now at home over a mediocre
>> DSL, it's around 100 seconds on an empty cache.
>
> I sometimes see it loading the 300+ files 4/s, never wait around to see
> it finish. I think the Lisp server I use might be doing that.
If you can't wait around for your own demo to load, you might want to
reconsider the demo.
> For me, resetting the browser gets it back to loading in 10+s.
What do you mean by "resetting the browser"?
>>> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it's one file, 989kb. Not
>>> nothing, but should be even better.
>
>> There are regular complaints on this group about the size of a 70KB
>> (unzipped) file. Is all that really necessary for this relatively
>> simple page?
>
> I think it's like Lisp applications: even "Hello World" will end up with
> most of Lisp in there. One could go crazy trying to have a build
> procedure take out uneccessary code, but then (a) how much would one
> save and (b) why bother? These frameworks are for RIAs, which will
> indeed use many components of a framework. The only beneficiary would be
> small demos, which I suspect is not worth the trouble. And libraries are
> pyramids -- that "simple" demo uses a nice variety of widgets, including
> a remote table with scrolling, movable and hidable columns, one column
> data renderer, and probably reaches down into a lot of code.
It's your call, of course. But it's commonly said that for web
applications, smaller is better. I think there are good reasons for
that. We all know that many websites have so many more bytes wrapped
up in their images than in the JS, but every bit of savings that can
be squeezed out is useful.
And I didn't mean to dismiss the complexity of your demo. It wasn't
until today when I tried it in Safari and Chrome that I really even
saw the extent of it. 989K still sounds like a lot, but not nearly as
badly so as what I saw not really doing anything in FF and IE.
>>>>> I'll investigate and/or put the search button back in to beat the
>>>>> thing into submission.
>>>> You knew it was dysfunctional but posted a link anyway. Thanks.
>>> I try.
>
>> You try to what, annoy the hell out of everyone here?
>
> I believe the people annoyed are the ones who hope to be both annoyed
> and annoying, aka, mindlessly abusive of anyone not using raw HTML. Yes,
> it gives me great pleasure to annoy them, since they are the ones being
> bullies and they totally need to be laughed at, not listened to.
Come on, posting a demo that doesn't work properly and then prickling
at criticisms of it is not going to win you a Good Netizen award.
Imagine this instead:
|>>>> You knew it was dysfunctional but posted a link anyway. Thanks.
|>>> Yeah, I'm sorry. I *thought* I'd checked it in all major recent
|>>> browsers. I'll post a new version as soon as I work out this
bug.
That would not earn you particularly many rebukes.
> You have a sick little cult in this NG, self-important and posturing,
s/You/We.
You're posting here too.
> utterly convinced of themselves while the silent majority just rolls
> their eyes at them and gets on with their work. Speaking of which...
There is plenty of ego in this group, and it certainly has more than
its share of pedantic nonsense. But you are posting your demo here
for some reason. Is it just ego-gratification, do you simply want to
show the world how smart you are? Or do you think there is
pedagogical value in sharing this with other people interested in
Javascript? Or are you here like most people asking for discussion,
critiques, suggestions for your code?
If it's the latter, then I think you need to be a little less
defensive and to listen a little more carefully.
>>>>> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
>>>>> Macworld
>>>> Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious.
>>> You never heard of Macworld?
>
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+best+Algebra+tutorial+program+I+have+seen%22+site:macworld.com
>
>> returns no results... Do you have a more detailed reference?
>
> I have the whole review somewhere, but a digital version could be tough
> to dig up. If you are seriously interested I'll look for it.
I'm not.
I am getting confused though between your demo, the software you say
received such high praise and the software that -- is it web software
that you're currently developing? Your quote, in this context,
sounded like it was supposed to be related to the software relevant
for this group.
>> Are you telling us that this ran on a Mac web browser in 1991?
>
> No, it was written originally for the Mac, in C. The defter of the
> intellects in this group might be able to figure out I have decided to
> release it as a web app, hence qooxlisp. ie, plaintiff was confusing the
> present with the past.
The confusion is not surprising. You're here discussing some software
that you're releasing, but seem to be promoting it with a quote that
long predates this new software.
--
Scott
Kenneth Tilton
See what the teacher wrote in 2007-8 or so...oh, you nipped that.
>
>> And here is one of the teachers who dug me up to ask for the old software:
>>
>
> The note from your teacher is disallowed.
On the basis of "inconvenient truth"?
I understand.
kt
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
"The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
Macworld
David Mark
On the basis of "who cares?"
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>>> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it makes one file, 989kb.
>>> Trying to get that working for a release 2.0.
>> "kb" means "kilobit" to you too, yes? If no, forget it, you are not
>> ready for serious Web development.
>
> I think I'll forget you. I already did serious web development with
> qooxdoo a couple of years ago, but not with Cells. Client loved me
> for it.
That must have been around 2008 (CE), when qooxdoo -1.0 was released.¹
(Impossible as it may seem, you are even a lousier liar than you are a
developer.)
> Then switched to some gentlemen in Viet Nam who were a tad cheaper.
Yeah, sure. Must be great living in fairytale land. Ignorance is bliss,
yes?
> They used ExtJS, btw.
Yet another piece of junk, reviewed here before.
PointedEars
___________
¹ First mention of qooxdoo was in c't Magazin 1/2009,
version 1.0 was released on 2009-12-17.
David Mark
wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> >>> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it makes one file, 989kb.
> >>> Trying to get that working for a release 2.0.
> >> "kb" means "kilobit" to you too, yes? If no, forget it, you are not
> >> ready for serious Web development.
>
> > I think I'll forget you. I already did serious web development with
> > qooxdoo a couple of years ago, but not with Cells. Client loved me
> > for it.
>
> That must have been around 2008 (CE), when qooxdoo -1.0 was released.¹
> (Impossible as it may seem, you are even a lousier liar than you are a
> developer.)
>
> > Then switched to some gentlemen in Viet Nam who were a tad cheaper.
>
> Yeah, sure. Must be great living in fairytale land. Ignorance is bliss,
> yes?
>
He must be living in some sort of fantasy world as his "2.0" version
(second one in two days) is a gray screen of death in the latest FF.
Viewing the source yields an invalid XHTML 1.1 pretender. XHTML 1.1
on the Web. Go figure.
NOSCRIPT element as well. It's a clinic on how not to write a Web
page (as are so many sites these days).
Kenneth Tilton
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>>>> RobG wrote:
>
> (RE: http://www.teamalgebra.com/)
>
>>>>> Enabling javascript, the page took nearly 4 minutes to load.
>>>> I get that, too, sometimes. Not sure what's going on. Possibly the
>>>> server is being silly, because other times it loads in 4-5s.
>>> I tested with a very fast connection and fast computer, and it never
>>> loaded in less than 8 seconds.
>> Yeah, I lied. I get 11s or so. The 4-5s was what I remembered from
>> loading from localhost.
>
> As others have pointed out, you need to look at overall size and see
> if the download time for that amount of data is likely to be
> acceptable to your target audience and their infrastructures.
Sure. Right now she loads for me in a couple of seconds. My audience is
students or tutors sitting down to learn/teach Algebra for 30-60min
depending on how much fun they are having with who else is on line. I
think a couple of seconds wait will be bearable. I had a spinning wheel
animated gif going earlier but decided it was not worth it.
>
>>> Testing now at home over a mediocre
>>> DSL, it's around 100 seconds on an empty cache.
>> I sometimes see it loading the 300+ files 4/s, never wait around to see
>> it finish. I think the Lisp server I use might be doing that.
>
> If you can't wait around for your own demo to load, you might want to
> reconsider the demo.
No, I am too smart to wait around for something obviously pathological
(I can see the server feeding files one by one instead of in a blur).
>
>
>> For me, resetting the browser gets it back to loading in 10+s.
>
> What do you mean by "resetting the browser"?
>
>
>>>> Anyway, I just did a "release build" and it's one file, 989kb. Not
>>>> nothing, but should be even better.
>>> There are regular complaints on this group about the size of a 70KB
>>> (unzipped) file. Is all that really necessary for this relatively
>>> simple page?
>> I think it's like Lisp applications: even "Hello World" will end up with
>> most of Lisp in there. One could go crazy trying to have a build
>> procedure take out uneccessary code, but then (a) how much would one
>> save and (b) why bother? These frameworks are for RIAs, which will
>> indeed use many components of a framework. The only beneficiary would be
>> small demos, which I suspect is not worth the trouble. And libraries are
>> pyramids -- that "simple" demo uses a nice variety of widgets, including
>> a remote table with scrolling, movable and hidable columns, one column
>> data renderer, and probably reaches down into a lot of code.
>
> It's your call, of course. But it's commonly said that for web
> applications, smaller is better. I think there are good reasons for
> that. We all know that many websites have so many more bytes wrapped
> up in their images than in the JS, but every bit of savings that can
> be squeezed out is useful.
Sure, but considering the application I think I can get away with a few
second load. To be honest, they'll be waiting longer for the ads if I go
that route.
>
> And I didn't mean to dismiss the complexity of your demo. It wasn't
> until today when I tried it in Safari and Chrome that I really even
> saw the extent of it. 989K still sounds like a lot, but not nearly as
> badly so as what I saw not really doing anything in FF and IE.
David did not like my point, but I think it valid: with big frameworks
the first bite is ineluctably huge. Libraries are pyramidal, and a
simple button can pull in a lot of the library code. The good news is
they grow slowly thereafter, so I know now pretty much how big my full
rollout will be.
No, I am incredibly busy with real work and just taking a moment to
share something with other people excited about technology. The
anti-library crowd in here is just how I get the publicity.
I like sharing cool technology, and qooxlisp is that. I know well,
however, that doing o/s increases the effort of developing something by
a factor of 27, possibly 81. Me not go there, got Algebra to do.
>
>
>
>>>>>> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
>>>>>> Macworld
>>>>> Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious.
>>>> You never heard of Macworld?
>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+best+Algebra+tutorial+program+I+have+seen%22+site:macworld.com
>>> returns no results... Do you have a more detailed reference?
>> I have the whole review somewhere, but a digital version could be tough
>> to dig up. If you are seriously interested I'll look for it.
>
> I'm not.
>
> I am getting confused though between your demo, the software you say
> received such high praise and the software that -- is it web software
> that you're currently developing? Your quote, in this context,
> sounded like it was supposed to be related to the software relevant
> for this group.
It was in my sig. It mentioned Algebra clearly both times. I have been
talking about and demoing a Lisp+qooxdoo framework, and did not say a
word about Algebra until one of the hyenas started chewing on it for no
reason other than to have an opportunity for more abuse.
I owe the hyena a beer for the excuse to spam that, tho.
>
>
>>> Are you telling us that this ran on a Mac web browser in 1991?
>> No, it was written originally for the Mac, in C. The defter of the
>> intellects in this group might be able to figure out I have decided to
>> release it as a web app, hence qooxlisp. ie, plaintiff was confusing the
>> present with the past.
>
> The confusion is not surprising. You're here discussing some software
> that you're releasing, but seem to be promoting it with a quote that
> long predates this new software.
See above. My other sig quotes Elwood P. Dowd about the importance of
being pleasant. Does anyone think I am selling DVDs of Harvey when I
post about JS above that sig?
kt
Gregor Kofler
[snip]
> Yeah, sure. Must be great living in fairytale land. Ignorance is bliss,
> yes?
"Actually, I've been thinking it ever since I got here: Why oh why
didn't I take the BLUE pill?" [1]
Gregor
Garrett Smith
> On Jun 8, 2:15 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn<PointedE...@web.de>
> wrote:
>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
[...]
> NOSCRIPT element as well. It's a clinic on how not to write a Web
> page (as are so many sites these days).
Can you elaborate on the problems with the NOSCRIPT element?
Garrett
Steve Graham
Kenny,
Why does it load so much faster in Chrome? I've yet to see it load in
FF or IE.
Steve
David Mark
How soon we forget. For about the gazillionth time, it's almost
completely useless.
You replace static content with enhancements. So you don't need a
special "Your browser does not support Javascript" message, which are
now found on virtually every document on the Web, rendering most JS-
related searches useless.
Furthermore, the message may not be accurate. My browser may support
Javascript, but perhaps I disabled it. You can't change the message
to "Please enable Javascript" either as my agent may not support
scripting at all (and many users don't know what JS is anyway).
Anything else you might consider putting in there would do just as
well outside of a NOSCRIPT element. If scripting is missing, lacking
or disabled, it remains. If not, it is replaced.
HTH and add a FAQ entry if this question is not already covered. It's
certainly been asked and answered here ad nauseam.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> On Jun 8, 2:00 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [snip full quote]
>
> Kenny,
>
> Why does it load so much faster in Chrome? I've yet to see it load in
> FF or IE.
Crosspost: 2 newsgroups
Followup-To: 0 newsgroups
Attribution: 1 line
Quotation: 202 lines
New text: 8 - " -
Total: 211 - " -
You can't be serious.
<http://jibbering.com/faq/#posting>
Score adjusted
--
PointedEars
David Mark
It seems you fail to realize that some users do not have blazing fast
broadband connections. For them the wait to download a document
measured in MB's will be interminable. Face it, despite numerous
warnings, you went ahead with an impossible plan and are now paying
the price.
And I tried the thing on a blazing fast broadband connection and it
took an infinite amount of time to load (gray screen of death).
>
>
>
> > And I didn't mean to dismiss the complexity of your demo. It wasn't
> > until today when I tried it in Safari and Chrome that I really even
> > saw the extent of it. 989K still sounds like a lot, but not nearly as
> > badly so as what I saw not really doing anything in FF and IE.
>
> David did not like my point, but I think it valid: with big frameworks
> the first bite is ineluctably huge.
You have certainly bitten off more than you can chew.
> Libraries are pyramidal, and a
> simple button can pull in a lot of the library code.
What sort of simple button requires a lot of code? Well, usually
those that attempt to mimic built-in buttons but fail even at
replicating the basic functionality and accessibility.
> The good news is
> they grow slowly thereafter, so I know now pretty much how big my full
> rollout will be.
900K+. That's roughly nine times the maximum you should need, even
for an advanced RIA. Why don't you try listening to people who do
this stuff for a living instead of anonymous nut-cases (like the guy
who told you not to worry on the Qooxdoo mailing list). Who turned
out to be right? ;)
Being "incredibly busy" is not an excuse for wasting other people's
time with half-ass demos (see also Dojo).
> The
> anti-library crowd in here is just how I get the publicity.
LOL. You misspelled humiliation. And define "library". It could
mean anything from a simple set of widgets to a massive and ill-
advised attempt to implement an OS in a browser. Nobody here is
against scripts in general. Many decry the use of scripts that are
obviously abysmal and written by neophytes. What rational and
responsible person wouldn't (assuming the have the experience to make
the call?) How you (and similarly logic-challenged kooks) manage to
characterize that as "anti-library" is beyond me.
>
> I like sharing cool technology, and qooxlisp is that.
If I want to stare at a gray wall, I can go stand in my basement. But
thanks anyway.
> I know well,
> however, that doing o/s increases the effort of developing something by
> a factor of 27, possibly 81.
Making broad (and incomprehsible in this case) generalizations
decreases the liklihood of being taken seriously. Of course, that
ship has long since sailed.
> Me not go there, got Algebra to do.
Good thing it isn't English. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself."
> >>>>>> Macworld
> >>>>> Quotes without meaningful attribution make me suspicious.
> >>>> You never heard of Macworld?
> >>>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+best+Algebra+tutorial+program+I...
> >>> returns no results... Do you have a more detailed reference?
> >> I have the whole review somewhere, but a digital version could be tough
> >> to dig up. If you are seriously interested I'll look for it.
>
> > I'm not.
>
> > I am getting confused though between your demo, the software you say
> > received such high praise and the software that -- is it web software
> > that you're currently developing? Your quote, in this context,
> > sounded like it was supposed to be related to the software relevant
> > for this group.
>
> It was in my sig. It mentioned Algebra clearly both times. I have been
> talking about and demoing a Lisp+qooxdoo framework, and did not say a
> word about Algebra until one of the hyenas started chewing on it for no
> reason other than to have an opportunity for more abuse.
I suppose all of the warnings of your inevitable failure (dating back
years) and the subsequent feedback constitute "abuse" to you, despite
the obvious validation your demos have provided. If you prefer
mindless praise, go back to the qooxdoo list.
>
> I owe the hyena a beer for the excuse to spam that, tho.
That reads like a very weak rationalization for your recent string of
nosedives. Seems about time to cut your losses and get back to your
math homework. You might want to brush up on your English as well.
>
>
>
> >>> Are you telling us that this ran on a Mac web browser in 1991?
> >> No, it was written originally for the Mac, in C. The defter of the
> >> intellects in this group might be able to figure out I have decided to
> >> release it as a web app, hence qooxlisp. ie, plaintiff was confusing the
> >> present with the past.
>
> > The confusion is not surprising. You're here discussing some software
> > that you're releasing, but seem to be promoting it with a quote that
> > long predates this new software.
>
> See above. My other sig quotes Elwood P. Dowd about the importance of
> being pleasant. Does anyone think I am selling DVDs of Harvey when I
> post about JS above that sig?
>
Yes. I was just thinking that.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>> >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> >>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > NOSCRIPT element as well. It's a clinic on how not to write a Web
>> > page (as are so many sites these days).
>>
>> Can you elaborate on the problems with the NOSCRIPT element?
>
> How soon we forget. For about the gazillionth time, it's almost
> completely useless.
>
> You replace static content with enhancements. So you don't need a
> special "Your browser does not support Javascript" message, which are
> now found on virtually every document on the Web, rendering most JS-
> related searches useless.
This reasoning assumes that the DOM support is sufficient, so IMHO it is a
solution for many cases, perhaps most, but not all. For example, I am much
more confident to use DOM Level 0-compliant document.write() and a NOSCRIPT
element as alternative at than relying on DOM Level 2+ modifying the
document afterwards at <http://pointedears.de/ufpdb/celestia/?file=acamar3>.
YMMV.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Steve Graham
wrote:
My apologies. Do you have an answer to my question?
Steve
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> > It's your call, of course. But it's commonly said that for web
>> > applications, smaller is better. I think there are good reasons for
>> > that. We all know that many websites have so many more bytes wrapped
>> > up in their images than in the JS, but every bit of savings that can
>> > be squeezed out is useful.
>>
>> Sure, but considering the application I think I can get away with a few
>> second load. To be honest, they'll be waiting longer for the ads if I go
>> that route.
>
> It seems you fail to realize that some users do not have blazing fast
> broadband connections. For them the wait to download a document
> measured in MB's will be interminable. Face it, despite numerous
> warnings, you went ahead with an impossible plan and are now paying
> the price.
>
> And I tried the thing on a blazing fast broadband connection and it
> took an infinite amount of time to load (gray screen of death).
I find that interesting. Did you try that with the 900K+ version ("2.0")
with one script request or the 3M+ one ("1.0") with 200+ script requests?
In which browser?
As for the rest, I agree for the most part. But will you *please* trim
your quotes to the relevant minimum as widely recommended, including the
cljs FAQ. (No, I'm not really *asking* you anymore.) I am quite certain
that nobody in either newsgroup wants to pick the possible pearls from your
267 lines core dump. As a regular, you should set a *good* example, and if
you don't post so that your postings can be easily read, you might as well
use a blog instead.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
David Mark
wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > Garrett Smith wrote:
> >> David Mark wrote:
> >> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> >> >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> >>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > NOSCRIPT element as well. It's a clinic on how not to write a Web
> >> > page (as are so many sites these days).
>
> >> Can you elaborate on the problems with the NOSCRIPT element?
>
> > How soon we forget. For about the gazillionth time, it's almost
> > completely useless.
>
> > You replace static content with enhancements. So you don't need a
> > special "Your browser does not support Javascript" message, which are
> > now found on virtually every document on the Web, rendering most JS-
> > related searches useless.
>
> This reasoning assumes that the DOM support is sufficient, so IMHO it is a
> solution for many cases, perhaps most, but not all.
But it doesn't assume that at all. Your static content will remain if
scripting is insufficient, disabled or missing.
> For example, I am much
> more confident to use DOM Level 0-compliant document.write() and a NOSCRIPT
> element as alternative at than relying on DOM Level 2+ modifying the
> document afterwards at <http://pointedears.de/ufpdb/celestia/?file=acamar3>.
The document.write method can certainly be useful. For example, if
that method is present, along with whatever other features your
enhancements require, you can write a STYLE element to prevent FoUC.
Then you replace the hidden static content on load. In all other
cases, you do nothing and the visitor sees the same content as the
search engines (which hopefully does not include a "your browser does
not support Javascript" message).
David Mark
Also, it is perfectly fine to augment static content with
document.write, as in adding a link to a document that will not
function without scripting (e.g. a game). But there is still no need
for a NOSCRIPT element.
RobG
[...]
> Dude, I am sharing a new Javascript framework, not promoting the Algebra
> software.
Which one? You "shared" Qooxdoo and relevant criticism was dismissed
out of hand. You also "shared" jsMath, however given the dismissive
response to criticism of Qooxdoo, I doubt anyone is going to bother
attempting to review it. jsMath seems to be specially targeted at the
display of precisely formatted characters and images, so you need
specialist advice about both scripting and CSS to get information
about the best way to get the required layout and appearance (I'll
assumed you know what that should be).
I suggest you ask in a group specialising in CSS and probably HTML if
you want opinions about those technologies.
> Someone decided to go OT and root around in my sig for further
> opportunities to be a Usenet jerk.
You posted it in your sig, presumably to promote a product. I was
interested in it, perhaps it really is a good product. I was curious
why software that apparently doesn't have a Mac or browser version was
reviewed by a Mac magazine.
> Meanwhile, fifteen years after the fact two educators separately and
> independently dug me up and asked if there is any way they could get the
> old version running since even now there is nothing like it and since it
> really helped their students significantly.
Is that a plea for help to create a browser version of the software?
If that's what you want, just ask, you may be surprised at the help
you get.
> Why are you guys so negative?
Why so defensive? Why not just say:
"Hey, this thing used to have a highly regarded Mac version before the
web, now I'm creating a browser version and I could really do with
some help with <whatever>."
You've been given advice that Qooxdoo is not a good choice of library,
even the guys at Ajaxian have got the message about browser sniffing.
You've been offered help and an alternative (free) library that you
dismissed out of hand because you didn't like the attitude of those
who suggested it. You even received quite a number of responses about
your demo site, so a number of posters here took the time to visit,
wait for the download possibly a number of times in various browsers
and report back their issues.
If you want naive back-slapping and cheery congratulations, ask the
Ajaxian guys to post a puff-piece, I'm sure they'll oblige.
--
Rob
--
Rob
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> David Mark wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> > For example, I am much
>> > more confident to use DOM Level 0-compliant document.write() and a
>> > NOSCRIPT element as alternative at than relying on DOM Level 2+
>> > modifying the document afterwards at
>> > <http://pointedears.de/ufpdb/celestia/?file=acamar3>.
>>
>> The document.write method can certainly be useful. For example, if
>> that method is present, along with whatever other features your
>> enhancements require, you can write a STYLE element to prevent FoUC.
>
> Also, it is perfectly fine to augment static content with
> document.write, as in adding a link to a document that will not
> function without scripting (e.g. a game). But there is still no need
> for a NOSCRIPT element.
Yes, there is. I do not want two blocks of heading, but I want that one
block that way only if the document is not displayed within a frameset,
which is, unfortunately, an information only client-side scripting can
provide. And I want it so without a need for W3C DOM support. So I need
that NOSCRIPT element there.
PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
Kenneth Tilton
Sorry, is that a typo? Did you mean "yet to see it load /as fast/ in FF
or IE"? If not a typo: what I have indeed seen is a bizarro gray screen
of nothing in a browser that had loaded the prior version and then after
me doing absolutely nothing more than wait a couple of minutes the same
browser loads OK.
My sense is of the browser having something cached, tho I have tried
resetting these recalcitrant browsers sans effect -- and then the same
ones suddenly work. What I have not seen is a browser go backwards, so
with luck I'll never have to track this down. Nor have I seen a
browser/OS combo fail the first time tried, not counting IE (and it's
hard to count that POS).
kt
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
Kenneth Tilton
> Kenny,
>
> Why does it load so much faster in Chrome? I've yet to see it load in
> FF or IE.
Try it now. I just updated the thing /not/ to use console.log. Slipped
my mind to get those out of there before releasing, but one of the
qooxdoo guys guessed what I was doing, enabled Firebug on the
recalcitrant browsers and reports that fixed it....ah, IE was the only
one not working for me and with those calls out of there it now works.
The anti-library guys must be feeling the walls closing in.
Anyway, check it out fast: http://teamalgebra.com/ because she'll be
coming down in a few days: I just realized I grabbed a 64-bit Amazon
instance cuz the Lisp I had was 64-bit and those instances are $7/day,
not the low-end $2. That's a bit much for just the pleasure of torturing
the Anti-Sniffers.
kt
--
http://www.stuckonalgebra.com
Pascal Costanza
> On Jun 8, 8:47 am, Kenneth Tilton<kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> There are regular complaints on this group about the size of a 70KB
>>> (unzipped) file. Is all that really necessary for this relatively
>>> simple page?
>>
>> I think it's like Lisp applications: even "Hello World" will end up with
>> most of Lisp in there.
>
This is not representative of all Lisp dialects. Different Lisp dialects
offer different deployment opportunities, and thus provide different
characteristics in that regard. Not that it matters that much in this
discussion, just trying to make sure that you don't get a wrong idea here.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/