mkmcdonald

10 ms·

31.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
Backwards compatibility isn't a proper way of describing what I do. Graceful degradation is the proper description. In short, scripts can degrade by testing for the existence of a property (e.g. `Array.prototype.push`) and ignoring the prop
32.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
Spend some weekends reading up on feature detection[0] and documented "bugs" (read: expected behavior) on MSDN. The time I've spent on both has transformed my perspective as a developer. We really don't work hard enough because we decry the
33.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
The objective of testing on older browsers is to break feature testing logic. For example, Opera 6 has no DOM Core implementation. Ergo, I use it to test code that uses the DOM Core to observe graceful degradation. This enables the code to
34.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
I don't write a single line of code that caters to one browser. This is where so many people miss the mark on understanding how I develop. I test browsers in my spare time to discover how to degrade for them. I don't "bend them to my will";
35.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
I realize that a certain line must be drawn. However, a large subset of browsers can still be supported. I've found that I can support scripted pages until IE 4, wherein `throw` and `try/catch` are not supported. Niceties such as `Object.pr
36.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
The "development time" metric is superfluous nonsense perpetrated by lazy, loud-mouthed developers. Here's a baseless graph that John Resig of jQuery fame included years ago in a speaking session: http://i.imgur.com/1OOcg.png . Developers
37.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
Ah; browser elitism continues to pervade the web platform. Perhaps one day developers will realize how to develop working pages for static, decade-old browsers. It's not as hard as bloggers evangelize it to be. HTML and CSS gracefully degra
38.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> [on placing a script before the end tag of the body element] what's the point [...]? Neither much better than just waiting for dom loaded. I'll take sane, library-agnostic script without event listeners for $500, Alex.
39.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
Because loading 50+ kB of code when you probably only need 10 kB of it is really stupid. This is compounded by underpowered mobile devices that can't digest a single-page ExtJS "app" with 2 MB of script. Simple is best.
40.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
The project "rationale" has a lot of holes in it. > Instead of forcing your users to scroll through a giant list of items, they can just start typing the name of the item they were looking for. Who's forcing? Modern browsers allow a use
41.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
Client-side UA sniffing in 2012? Ugh. Flagging a browser because "something doesn't work" is just lazy.
42.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
Your site isn't loading. Is there anything you have for visitors to look at?
43.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
As a developer, I'll outline why I rationally have great contempt for advertising. Television, print and radio advertisements have irrevocably caused me to gag at most advertisements. I can see right though the lies and half-truths that m
44.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> 2. Force opt-out over opt-in notions of content distribution. > Engineers dislike advertising because we know details of how our privacy is being violated. We don't have the bliss of ignorance. Nailed it.
45.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
"there is business value to usable apps" didn't fit into the tone of your post, so I hope you can forgive a bit of unintentional creative interpretation (one word). I made no attempt to play tricks. The rest of the post was simply a point-b
46.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> - basically everyone has JS enabled Nope; don't forget that scripts don't always load. Opera on Mint kills bloated scripts (a.k.a. jQuery). This usually results in a white page. > - they were too hard to do Perhaps lazy developers
47.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> despite the name, CoffeeScript is not required; So think of an original name instead of latching onto the cachet of another project. > it just makes writing objects (as well as everything else) easier. I actually find the CSS exam
48.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> I hope this doesn't mean I have to start testing with yet another browser. Can't FB use Webkit like everyone else? If you're not testing in more than 2-3 browsers, I seriously have to question your acumen as a "web developer". Browser
49.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> We value general computer science more highly than specific Java[S]cript (for example) experience. Perhaps this is why Google's JavaScript is so notoriously poor.
50.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> Nobody rationally torrents a CD rip and then goes to the store to buy the real version. I do. As a music collector, I prefer to sample the music online before buying it. If the music is sufficient, I eventually buy a physical copy and
51.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
"cross-browser" is a misnomer that seems to have been invented by DOM library authors as a marketing tool. If we're talking about the en vogue subset of browsers, then QSA has support. If we're talking about a set of browsers where a usab
52.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> Chrome and Firefox now how have rolling releases and are closely tied with the developer community, so new features and rendering uniformity is what you gain. Because they employ more evangelists? The IE team has spent a tremendous am
53.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
This is interesting because I use a pseudo-grid system with plenty of floats and clears. For some reason (research), it seems to look perfectly fine in IE 6+ and Quirks Mode.
54.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> We don't spend hours debugging obscure IE bugs IE "bugs" are rarely obscure. Most "bugs" are actually as-intended behavior, which is documented on MSDN. Do your homework. > Sensible browsers can do amazing things (canvas, SVG anim
55.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> This is a funny limitation, since JSON came from Javascript and {a:1} is perfectly legal in Javascript. That's only legal when the key is not a reserved word. I never use that form, as it's error-prone.
56.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
I'm referring specifically to the state before the pane is activated. It feels awkward to have so few options to activate it. The transition/animation also toys a bit with scrolling up/down.
57.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
Nice idea. I have but one problem, and it's with the site (DuckDuckHack) itself. Could the author just make the tutorial section scrollable with the rest of the page? The current functionality is quite awkward. It's also ignorant of (most o
58.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
> A better idea is for developers not to rely solely on vendor prefixes. Use them, but don't rely on them. Sure. However, many of us know how "temporary" code can mold into permanent code. > One of the use-cases that led Opera to su
59.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
"bad" is quite relative here. Have you taken a glance at Chrome, Firefox or Opera recently? They're very innovative programs. The salient point is for the developer to use discretion before toying with bleeding-edge features.
60.
by mkmcdonald 14y ago
The problem also lies with the vendors themselves. By operating in a fashion that's too open, we as developers are made aware of features before they're properly implemented. Yes, it's wonderful that pages can be translated in a three-dim

More ›