5 ms·
(2) Maybe it was faster for him to build that way, due to experience, etc.. (3) strawman argument, perhaps he chose his technologies for other reasons besides p
by joshribakoff 12y ago
(2) Maybe it was faster for him to build that way, due to experience, etc..
(3) strawman argument, perhaps he chose his technologies for other reasons besides premature optimization. You're essentially accusing him of making a design mistake IMO.
(4) The fact that right click is disabled doesn't tell us anything about the software architecture, your statement reads as if its a critique.
- boomskats 12y agoI didn't think he was criticising anything.
- diminish 12y agoI was indeed praising him. 2) he used html/js, and i'm glad flash isn't needed to make such a tool 3) i was happy it's fast enough. 4)no u misunderstood; i pressed ctrl+u and have seen the source code, indeed. it's an empty body with few JS files. I find it remarkable as HTML's document centric approach with viewable document structure disappeared from view and moved into the JS files.
- andrea_s 12y agoWhat does right click have to do with anything? The HTML source code for the page is 25 lines long and contains no markup at all. Which is not a critique, of course :)
- ChrisClark 12y agoWow, everything he said was actually praise or just neutral comments. You are trying to argue about something that doesn't exist.