HN user
Last time I measured, on a largely firefox userbase, adBlock was used by about 6%. Not enough really to bother about.
I'd expect the number who use NoScript to be 1-2% if that.
Note this is out of a mainly firefox userbase. For the general web those %'s would be far lower.
<script>
oldalert = window.alert;
window.alert = function() {};
</script>
<script src="http://json.org/json.js"></script>
<script>
window.alert = oldalert;
</script>That's why you would use it where available, instead of targeting.
if (browser.supportsWebSocket) useWebSocket(); else useComet();
Sure. I was more meaning that they may not be easy to monetize once they click through to your website.
If you care about IE6 these days, and aren't selling to corporate users forced to use it, then you're doing something wrong.
Also, you can just enable it when it's available, and fallback to comet etc when it's not.
The bidding seems like a complete lottery. What may work well one day, may completely fail the next. You could be throwing money away.
It's a sort of interesting idea, but completely impossible to calculate ROI etc before you spend.
Also, WTH "only accepting US credit cards." Hate it when sites pull that one.
Also they all run adblock etc.
Does the WebSocket spec allow for gzip/deflating streams as well? I can't see anywhere if it does or not.
How is my above comment defending it? :/ I actually extremely rarely use any js libs. I'd rather just do it myself. And no I'm nothing to do with the project.
There's some pretty sluggish websites out there due to poor use of js libs. Browse them on a phone or netbook and it all adds up.
You'd certainly manipulate hundreds of DOM elements at a time, consider say a twitter stream, where each post has "10 seconds ago" marker, and they all need updating.
>> "The jQuery example, from the beginning, was creating DOM elements from HTML strings, while RightJS was wrapping the document.createElement API. This is not the same thing and you cannot learn anything from comparing apples to oranges."
What you can learn though, is that using the built in DOM methods, or wrapping createElement if you need to, is far faster than using some other abstraction from the DOM.
To see if it performs better for their particular use case?
You know, choosing something based on how well it fits the problem?
It depends on your use case. I don't think you should be against something just because you have a solution you assume is the best it can be.
Write your own specific tests if you suspect bias.
I doubt there is any real bias though, js libs have different aims. Some aim to have complete browser support at the expense of speed+size, some assume a certain level of browser, and so come in much faster.
The fastest lib though is always going to be no lib. It's far easier to optimize your own code.
It depends what your writing, and your target market. Most people using webapps/modern websites are doing so with good recent browsers.
So if everyone is to have access to 'firehose', why did ms+goog pay for it? :/
What is wrong with you HN? "Getting out of hand" relates to the rate of change. Not a single data point.
This may be a niche problem, but I found an interesting bug in chrome yesterday.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7357
Basically, if you do a redirect (30x) then the referrer isn't set. This means that a number of things are broken. The referrer should be set, and is set in all other browsers.
For example, if someone clicks on a tinyurl link, which redirects to your website, you won't get info on where they came from. The referrer will be empty.
Bug was reported in feb, I'm not sure why it's not been fixed, since it's a pretty big bug.
Cool, but you can't say "it's getting out of hand" from a single data point.
What startup mentality. Where? When did it start getting out of hand?
Some data needed there me thinks.
It's not the same. Beer has an effect on your liver, your general health, wallet etc.
Sure, everything in moderation, but if you enjoy something, do it. If you suddenly realize that you had neglected something/someone else, then that's another matter.
I don't know anyone who is 'addicted'. I know people who put in 14 hour days because they genuinely just enjoy it. I'm one of them.
You always have to try and get a good balance between work and family, but I don't think the article really considers the instance where people choose to work long hours because they enjoy what they do.
'Doing a startup' is surely enjoyable work. That's why people enjoy working more, and why they put in more hours.
I keep saying I'll get an early night, then at 1am or 2am there I am just finishing off some detail. That doesn't mean I'm addicted or have a problem, it means I'm enjoying myself and loose track of time.
Was Mozart 'addicted' to writing music? Or was he just a prolific composer?
We've heard this same blog post 100 times before from 37signals though :/ - "Listen to us and we'll show you our special system to allow you to work less!"
I don't quite understand why this recent trend has started, but things are showing up on HN that were on Reddit a few days ago.
3 days ago in this case.
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ab8jt/googles_ce...
It's like a very slow echo.
I would have thought though that 160 years when studying climate, is absolutely nothing.
'on record' is a pretty useless measure.
It's a way to make a story more sensational than it is. You see it in tabloid newspapers often:
Headline: "Man eats biggest fish ever recorded!!!"
Small print: 'records on biggest fish eaten by humans have been kept for the last 6 weeks'.
Is it just me that is extremely uneasy about taking a few years of data, out of the bajillion years the earth has been about, and drawing any conclusions from it?
That study, is absolute BS. Complete and utter BS.
Try and make an 'error' in the phrase 'public static void'. See how well it compiles if you mistype 'public' as 'pubic'.
If you're not able to read the code well, then that's one thing (Learn to read code better). But don't spread the misinformation about errors. And no. You're not writing 3 times as much code unless you're an idiot. LOC in Java is pretty much the same as LOC in python for example when written properly.
See I read those two code snippets exactly the same.
The 'verbose' one, I read as ...println("Hello, world!")...
Perhaps I'm not normal, but I 'see' those code snippets to be identical in terms of code.
Lets face it, we're never going to be bound by typing speed, and as I say, there's no chance of getting a bug into that 'verbosity' in java. So the only real issue is down to taste, which is up to the individual.
In the realm of programming, I consider 'word' to mean a unit of code.
I agree though, it's perhaps not the best word to use.
Use what you enjoy using though. But please don't buy the FUD about verbosity.
That's why I said "Agree to disagree".
If I'm looking at code, the "public static void" doesn't detract from readability at all. I would much rather see "public static void" than some new 'less verbose' &$%||foo|| stuff I have to look up. I find it much easier to read words than characters.
It's a wonder anything works in some of these new 'unverbose' languages, where a 'concept' is a single character, and a single char typo can mean you've suddenly got a bug you have to go find.
See my description below: