3 ms·

Well, you're participating... :-p But seriously, what do you mean degenerate case of tables? CSS? I suppose my biggest gripe is a statement like that; once un

Well, you're participating... :-p But seriously, what do you mean degenerate case of tables? CSS? I suppose my biggest gripe is a statement like that; once understood and learned, HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use. It's easier to code, re-code, fix, format, and just generally muck around with. Aside from that though, inconsequential.

pg 19y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_%28mathematics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_%28mathematics%29 HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use You just don't seem to get that I don't use html. I generate it. Your argument is like saying it's easier to write programs in old-style instruction sets than RISC ones. Sure, but the best approach of all is to write in neither, and instead have a program generate it. Then it doesn't matter which you use. Complaining that the html source of a software-generated site is ugly is like complaining that the code generated by the compiler of a high level language is ugly. Of course it's ugly; that's the whole point of high level languages.
- run4yourlives 19y ago
  Fair point. My counter to it would be two-fold: 1. Your generated code is fast becoming obsolete, even IE passed Acid 2 the other week. That might be a concern. 2. What do you do to fix it when things go wrong, especially given number 1?
  - michaelr 19y ago
    What do you mean obsolete? Do you expect tables to stop rendering some time soon?
- dcurtis 19y ago
  I don't get it. Just because it's generated by Arc doesn't mean it has to: 1. Ignore web standards, 2. Forgo readability, or 3. Make bloated code. I mean, look at the source of hacker news. Its just not elegant. Whether or not you believe it should be, HTML/CSS was designed to be coded a certain way and browsers expect that format. Why change it and suggedt that you're turning HTML into something it isn't ?
  - pg 19y ago
    1. How is using tables ignoring web standards? 2. Html is object code. What matters is the readability of the source code that generates it. Worrying about the readability of the output of a compiler is akin to premature optimization. 3. The front page of News.YC is 30k. If you think that's bloated, I hope you don't visit sites that contain images. Do you understand what I mean about the distinction between source and object code? Saying that html ought to be elegant implies that you don't. As a rule, the more elegant the language, the less elegant its object code is, because the further removed its concepts are from the primitive concepts used by a compiler.
    - run4yourlives 19y ago
      1. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#structure http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#structure It most certainly ignores accessibility standards; also the spirit of all the other W3C standards. 2. I guess we know where you stand on the semantic web, don't we! :-) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web) 3. It's your bandwidth money. I'm not paying for it. (Of course, I would disagree with the GP that HN is bloated)
      - dcurtis 19y ago
        You're right, bloated was a bad word to use.
      - pg 19y ago
        That document you link to isn't part of the HTML standard. It seems to be an additional document from the W3C outlining how they'd like people to behave. Conforming to software standards is one thing; you have to do that to make programs work together. But complying with the W3C's wishes on how the web ought to be used is a very different matter. I feel like doing exactly what the W3C says on broader questions is not merely optional, but probably a mistake, considering the people who make it up. It would be like running your company according to a list of "best practices" compiled by a committee at General Motors.
    - dcurtis 19y ago

pg 19y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_%28mathematics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_%28mathematics%29 HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use You just don't seem to get that I don't use html. I generate it. Your argument is like saying it's easier to write programs in old-style instruction sets than RISC ones. Sure, but the best approach of all is to write in neither, and instead have a program generate it. Then it doesn't matter which you use. Complaining that the html source of a software-generated site is ugly is like complaining that the code generated by the compiler of a high level language is ugly. Of course it's ugly; that's the whole point of high level languages.

run4yourlives 19y ago
Fair point. My counter to it would be two-fold: 1. Your generated code is fast becoming obsolete, even IE passed Acid 2 the other week. That might be a concern. 2. What do you do to fix it when things go wrong, especially given number 1?
- michaelr 19y ago
  What do you mean obsolete? Do you expect tables to stop rendering some time soon?
dcurtis 19y ago
I don't get it. Just because it's generated by Arc doesn't mean it has to: 1. Ignore web standards, 2. Forgo readability, or 3. Make bloated code. I mean, look at the source of hacker news. Its just not elegant. Whether or not you believe it should be, HTML/CSS was designed to be coded a certain way and browsers expect that format. Why change it and suggedt that you're turning HTML into something it isn't ?
- pg 19y ago
  1. How is using tables ignoring web standards? 2. Html is object code. What matters is the readability of the source code that generates it. Worrying about the readability of the output of a compiler is akin to premature optimization. 3. The front page of News.YC is 30k. If you think that's bloated, I hope you don't visit sites that contain images. Do you understand what I mean about the distinction between source and object code? Saying that html ought to be elegant implies that you don't. As a rule, the more elegant the language, the less elegant its object code is, because the further removed its concepts are from the primitive concepts used by a compiler.
  - run4yourlives 19y ago
    1. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#structure http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#structure It most certainly ignores accessibility standards; also the spirit of all the other W3C standards. 2. I guess we know where you stand on the semantic web, don't we! :-) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web) 3. It's your bandwidth money. I'm not paying for it. (Of course, I would disagree with the GP that HN is bloated)
    - dcurtis 19y ago
      You're right, bloated was a bad word to use.
    - pg 19y ago
      That document you link to isn't part of the HTML standard. It seems to be an additional document from the W3C outlining how they'd like people to behave. Conforming to software standards is one thing; you have to do that to make programs work together. But complying with the W3C's wishes on how the web ought to be used is a very different matter. I feel like doing exactly what the W3C says on broader questions is not merely optional, but probably a mistake, considering the people who make it up. It would be like running your company according to a list of "best practices" compiled by a committee at General Motors.
  - dcurtis 19y ago