5 ms·

I guess it's really just a matter of personal preference. I switched to adding 'MDN' to my search queries out of gut frustration with having to parse through th

by state 13y ago

I guess it's really just a matter of personal preference. I switched to adding 'MDN' to my search queries out of gut frustration with having to parse through the W3 pages. I think the comment about 'hipsters' is a little shallow, but it's interesting that this is so divided. I really assumed that HN would be completely in the tank for MDN.

malyk 13y ago
I've never heard of mdn before this thread somehow. But w3schools is perfect for looking up the things I tend to look up (mostly CSS or HTML attributes) and it's really easy to parse. Plus it's always the first google result for me.
- riquito 13y ago
  What do you use then as "official" reference for Javascript?
- panzi 13y ago
  You never used MDN? How long are you developing web sites?
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    That's just not really needed, it's so elitist.
  - malyk 13y ago
    Since 2001. Stackoverflow seems to be the place where my JS searches lead me.
  - cpncrunch 13y ago
    I've been developing websites since 1996 myself, and MDN hasn't really been on my radar for an html reference. I did use it extensively back in 2009 when I was doing work with <canvas>, and back then MDN didn't really have a general html reference. I think it's only in the last couple of years that MDN has really developed their reference documentation. So, if you've always used MDN you really must be a young whippersnapper :) I think MDN has an advantage in that they've only really been around since HTML5 has become standardized, whereas w3schools has had to deal with the changing standards of html4/xhtml/html5.
    - davidbruant 13y ago
      "I think MDN has an advantage in that they've only really been around since HTML5 has become standardized" => HTML5 is not a standard. Nowhere near so. Whatever you mean by that, MDN is as old as Firefox anyway. "...whereas w3schools has had to deal with the changing standards of html4/xhtml/html5." => These differences are 99.99% additions, so don't impact documentation that much. In any case, documentations is more relevant is it documents implementations, not standards (which come after implementation most of the time, not the other way around until recently)
cpncrunch 13y ago
The hipster comment was related to the fact that the article is complaining about ASP, "tight layout" and "icky". I don't use ASP myself, but it really doesn't have any bearing on the content. I don't mind the ads myself (they're fairly unobtrusive), and the layout is acceptable. I like nice designs myself (I'm currently building a new site and I'm getting inspiration from roon.io and other beautifully designed sites), but I'm also quite content using sites that have less-than-ideal designs if they do the job that I'm looking for.

by state 13y ago

malyk 13y ago

I've never heard of mdn before this thread somehow. But w3schools is perfect for looking up the things I tend to look up (mostly CSS or HTML attributes) and it's really easy to parse. Plus it's always the first google result for me.

riquito 13y ago
What do you use then as "official" reference for Javascript?
panzi 13y ago
You never used MDN? How long are you developing web sites?
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  That's just not really needed, it's so elitist.
- malyk 13y ago
  Since 2001. Stackoverflow seems to be the place where my JS searches lead me.
- cpncrunch 13y ago
  I've been developing websites since 1996 myself, and MDN hasn't really been on my radar for an html reference. I did use it extensively back in 2009 when I was doing work with <canvas>, and back then MDN didn't really have a general html reference. I think it's only in the last couple of years that MDN has really developed their reference documentation. So, if you've always used MDN you really must be a young whippersnapper :) I think MDN has an advantage in that they've only really been around since HTML5 has become standardized, whereas w3schools has had to deal with the changing standards of html4/xhtml/html5.
  - davidbruant 13y ago
    "I think MDN has an advantage in that they've only really been around since HTML5 has become standardized" => HTML5 is not a standard. Nowhere near so. Whatever you mean by that, MDN is as old as Firefox anyway. "...whereas w3schools has had to deal with the changing standards of html4/xhtml/html5." => These differences are 99.99% additions, so don't impact documentation that much. In any case, documentations is more relevant is it documents implementations, not standards (which come after implementation most of the time, not the other way around until recently)

cpncrunch 13y ago

The hipster comment was related to the fact that the article is complaining about ASP, "tight layout" and "icky". I don't use ASP myself, but it really doesn't have any bearing on the content. I don't mind the ads myself (they're fairly unobtrusive), and the layout is acceptable. I like nice designs myself (I'm currently building a new site and I'm getting inspiration from roon.io and other beautifully designed sites), but I'm also quite content using sites that have less-than-ideal designs if they do the job that I'm looking for.