7 ms·

> Congrats Javascript--on almost being as good at data-binding and layout as VB6! That's total garbage. The browser does awesome presentation and layout with t

> Congrats Javascript--on almost being as good at data-binding and layout as VB6! That's total garbage. The browser does awesome presentation and layout with the markup you give it and you can control what happens via declarative CSS. VB6 couldn't even make a dialog look nice when you changed the system to Large Fonts. Silent failure? You must have forgotten `on error goto 0`.

chris_mahan 13y ago
on error resume next
millstone 13y ago
I wouldn't characterize web layout as "awesome." Look at the contortions required for basic tasks like equal height columns.
- akmiller 13y ago
  I wouldn't characterize web layout as "awesome." I would. I've been doing web development for a long time, along with many other types of development, and although there are quirks (as there are with anything), you can do nearly anything via web layouts. The flexibility of the system, and things people have accomplished with it, is really amazing when you stand back and look at it as a whole.
  - millstone 13y ago
    I don't mean to offend, but it sounds to me like you've just internalized the limitations of web layout. For example, look at email clients. The native mail apps on my Mac and iPad can show me all of my inbox in one big list. I can scroll through tens of thousands of messages naturally, easily jump to the bottom or top of the list, etc. Web pages cannot support this. Yahoo mail attempts to present the messages in one big list, but the experience is pretty bad. The scroll bar looks fake and feels wrong, find doesn't work like you'd expect, the scroll thumb changes size and jumps around as you scroll, scrolling to the bottom is Sisyphean, etc. And Yahoo mail is one of the better webmail clients. Gmail didn't even try. Instead it refuses to show more than 100 messages at a time, with buttons to paginate. When I work on web pages, I don't get a feeling of freedom or flexibility. Instead I find myself forced to compromise on the user experience over and over again, just like Google and Yahoo did with their webmail clients.
    - CmonDev 13y ago
      Good examples.
    - akmiller 13y ago
      Your examples don't strike me as limitations of the tools for designing a UI in the web...the limitations you mention are just due to the nature of it being on the web. Frankly, a list of tens of thousands of messages sounds completely worthless to me. The first email application I've ever really liked and use all the time is Gmail. I think Google helped to redefine what the email interface should be, so much so that other desktop apps sought to imitate many of their features. I believe that some of the limitations on performance actually force developers to build better interfaces than what you'd get if a desktop application was built in its place. I have to focus on what is most important and determine the best way to deliver that functionality to you. I suppose that's why I find myself anymore using web applications far more than desktop apps. The only native desktop apps I use anymore are things that I have to have the performance for (IDE's, Photoshop, etc...)
  - CmonDev 13y ago
    In WPF you have a grid layout out of the box. It just works. It takes minutes to setup. In HTML you are forbidden from using table and divs require all sort of third-party crap that doesn't really work with scaling windows and such. Tried using Twitter BootStrap fluid. Had to tweak the thing for days. Still not happy.
    - akmiller 13y ago
      Why is it important that it's "in the box". You can have a html page started with a link to foundation and be doing a progressive grid layout in less than a minute. If you don't like their grid implementation use one of a dozen others. I'm guessing you used pre 3.0 twitter bootstrap. The latest bootstrap (I don't know how good it is, I have mainly used Zurb Foundation) is supposed to be much better at supporting progressive grids.
      - _random_ 13y ago
        Grid layouts should be built using some sort of <grid> - not a bunch of hacky nested <div>s. HTML is a mess.
catnaroek 13y ago
When making Web UIs, I miss the ability to think of screen space in the simplest terms possible: as (a portion of) a Cartesian plane, with the Y axis rotated 180 degrees so that the Y coordinate increases downwards. None of those contrived CSS constructs seems to offer the same degree of simplicity.
- zevyoura 13y ago
  Absolute positioning is exactly what you describe: http://css-tricks.com/absolute-positioning-inside-relative-positioning/ http://css-tricks.com/absolute-positioning-inside-relative-p...
  - woah 13y ago
    And I'm really glad that we don't have to use it, except for special cases!
- marshray 13y ago
  You might like <canvas> or SVG then.

chris_mahan 13y ago

on error resume next

millstone 13y ago

I wouldn't characterize web layout as "awesome." Look at the contortions required for basic tasks like equal height columns.

akmiller 13y ago
I wouldn't characterize web layout as "awesome." I would. I've been doing web development for a long time, along with many other types of development, and although there are quirks (as there are with anything), you can do nearly anything via web layouts. The flexibility of the system, and things people have accomplished with it, is really amazing when you stand back and look at it as a whole.
- millstone 13y ago
  I don't mean to offend, but it sounds to me like you've just internalized the limitations of web layout. For example, look at email clients. The native mail apps on my Mac and iPad can show me all of my inbox in one big list. I can scroll through tens of thousands of messages naturally, easily jump to the bottom or top of the list, etc. Web pages cannot support this. Yahoo mail attempts to present the messages in one big list, but the experience is pretty bad. The scroll bar looks fake and feels wrong, find doesn't work like you'd expect, the scroll thumb changes size and jumps around as you scroll, scrolling to the bottom is Sisyphean, etc. And Yahoo mail is one of the better webmail clients. Gmail didn't even try. Instead it refuses to show more than 100 messages at a time, with buttons to paginate. When I work on web pages, I don't get a feeling of freedom or flexibility. Instead I find myself forced to compromise on the user experience over and over again, just like Google and Yahoo did with their webmail clients.
  - CmonDev 13y ago
    Good examples.
  - akmiller 13y ago
    Your examples don't strike me as limitations of the tools for designing a UI in the web...the limitations you mention are just due to the nature of it being on the web. Frankly, a list of tens of thousands of messages sounds completely worthless to me. The first email application I've ever really liked and use all the time is Gmail. I think Google helped to redefine what the email interface should be, so much so that other desktop apps sought to imitate many of their features. I believe that some of the limitations on performance actually force developers to build better interfaces than what you'd get if a desktop application was built in its place. I have to focus on what is most important and determine the best way to deliver that functionality to you. I suppose that's why I find myself anymore using web applications far more than desktop apps. The only native desktop apps I use anymore are things that I have to have the performance for (IDE's, Photoshop, etc...)
- CmonDev 13y ago
  In WPF you have a grid layout out of the box. It just works. It takes minutes to setup. In HTML you are forbidden from using table and divs require all sort of third-party crap that doesn't really work with scaling windows and such. Tried using Twitter BootStrap fluid. Had to tweak the thing for days. Still not happy.
  - akmiller 13y ago
    Why is it important that it's "in the box". You can have a html page started with a link to foundation and be doing a progressive grid layout in less than a minute. If you don't like their grid implementation use one of a dozen others. I'm guessing you used pre 3.0 twitter bootstrap. The latest bootstrap (I don't know how good it is, I have mainly used Zurb Foundation) is supposed to be much better at supporting progressive grids.
    - _random_ 13y ago
      Grid layouts should be built using some sort of <grid> - not a bunch of hacky nested <div>s. HTML is a mess.

catnaroek 13y ago

When making Web UIs, I miss the ability to think of screen space in the simplest terms possible: as (a portion of) a Cartesian plane, with the Y axis rotated 180 degrees so that the Y coordinate increases downwards. None of those contrived CSS constructs seems to offer the same degree of simplicity.

zevyoura 13y ago
Absolute positioning is exactly what you describe: http://css-tricks.com/absolute-positioning-inside-relative-positioning/ http://css-tricks.com/absolute-positioning-inside-relative-p...
- woah 13y ago
  And I'm really glad that we don't have to use it, except for special cases!
marshray 13y ago
You might like <canvas> or SVG then.