|
|
Posted by Richard Cornford on 07/02/05 05:28
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> Richard Cornford wrote:
> Tsch, tsch, tsch...boy you just went and stuck yer hand
> right into a hornets nest, Richie...I'm afraid I'm not
> going to make this very pleasant for you...I'd suggest
> you run away in order to try and save face...but you
> won't, you're not intelligent enough to know when to
> quit. `, )
Why do you think I would be worried? All you ever do is issue a stream
of pseudo-patronising comments. You can hardly expect that to be taken
seriously where you post inept code that you clearly don't understand
yourself and then claim that it demonstrates expertise. It is too late
to try to be patronising, I have seen your code.
<snip>
>>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/alt.2600/index.html
>>>
>>> All I have left to do is add in the content
>
>>All? You should try taking a look at what you have done form a variety
>>of remote locations:-
>
> REEELY?! OMG NO WAY!
>
>>http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/bw.gif
>>(144Kb: screenshot of the above URL screwing up royally)
>
> *looks at the image*
>
> ...was it that, Windows95 that you're using? Windows98?
> D00d, I have no time to deal with luddites who choose to
> use an OS that's nearly a decade out of date, seriously,
> get the fuck outta here. *shakes head* Yeesh, like the
> fuckin morons running around still using Netscape Navigator
> for Hells sake.
You mean you can't tell what OS I am using from looking at an image of
IE 6 in a Windows "Classic" GUI? Oh yes that right, you cannot tell.
But it is the shortfall in your understanding of HTTP that produced the
effect illustrated so the OS doesn't make much difference anyway.
>>> (and I'll probably modify the images
>>> a bit to give it a more 3D spatial feel).
>
>>A much better short-term plan would be to take some time
>>out to learn the technologies you purport to be such an
>>expert in.
>
> No, see, I already did that, which is why I am an expert.
No, you see I have read your code so I know you are a barely adequate
amateur with more to learn than you can currently conceive of.
>>Because, lets face it, you would never have written the
>>code that you posted at the head of this thread if you
>>understood any of the technologies involved.
>
> BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...ya see Junior,
> this is the part where you just start runnin at the
> fuckin mouth without anything to contribute. I mean
> if you think my technique is flawed, well by Satan you
> had best step it the fuck up and propose a better
> way...oh yeah, that's right YOU CAN'T.
Oh yes I can. And along the way I can remove the javascript dependency
(with at least acceptable results without client-side scripting
support), get the HTTP caching working for the system instead of against
it, eliminate the need to ever re-load the actual page, make the
re-loading of the images more efficient, double the performance of the
client-side code, make it truly cross-browser, and even remove the need
for the server to flog its guts out and so allow the process to scale to
a commercial level of web site usage.
Apart form the questionable worth of creating a good implementation of a
bad idea, correcting all of the manifestations of your ineptness in this
single instance would do you no good in the long run.
The reason is best illustrated by considering a single expression form
your client-side code:-
<URL: http://www.backwater-productions.net/alt.2600/internals.js >
(line 144)
Which is:-
eval(logot+logoc)
Now a real expert at javascript looks at that expression and sees the
AdditiveExpression forming a single argument to a built-in function
call. They know the implications of the AdditiveExpression and they know
the behaviour of the built in function being called. And as a result
they would _never_ write this expression.
The amateur, programming by coincidence, writes this code without
understanding what it does and then finds that it satisfies some value
of "works", and starts to use it extensively (there are another ten
examples in that single file). Its actions and implications are never
seen.
I can tell you why a (sane) javascript programmer would never write that
expression. But what benefit would that do you? You would just fall into
the next trap of programming by coincidence. The only real solution
would be for you to understand the language that you are trying to use,
so you can make actual informed decisions about what you write. But that
will take effort on your part rather than examples from me.
OK. In your little world you can probably get away with telling people
your are an expert when you are no such thing, but then it would be best
to stay in your world in order to be convincing.
> Coincidentally, a couple people...not in alt.html nor in
> alt.php have actually suggested alternate methods, like
> using GET variables rather than cookies...which is
> peachy, I could do it that,
Yes your could do that, indeed you should do that. But the significant
detail is that you didn't do that when you could have, which
demonstrates that you don't understand why you should have done that and
instantly betrayed you limited grasp of the issues.
The choice of a cookie as a vehicle for transmitting data to a server is
another example of programming by coincidence. You tried it and it
satisfied some limited value of "works", and so there it sits, with
harmful implications beyond your knowledge or apparently comprehension.
> I'll probably try it at least, see if it's any faster.
So you still don't know why you should have done that in the first
place. You see the way it doesn't really help you in the long run for
people to be pointing out individual aspects of your inept script for
improvement? You need to understand why you should have been using the
query string on the URL of a GET request to transfer information to the
server, else all you will achieve is fixing one fault in one single
script. You still won't know what you are doing next time your try.
> Someone
> mentioned security concerns using my current methodology
> but they never elaborated and the only thing I could think
> of is if you like spoofed a cookie at the PHP script...
Quite right! You can hardly expect to trumpet your "expertise" and then
be spoon fed the understanding you assert you already have.
> although that wouldn't actually
> do anything other than not make it generate an image for you...
Is an image still an image if it is zero pixels square? (Zen?)
<snip>
>><URL:
>>http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ppbook/extracts/coincidence.html >
>>
>>- and thus an amateurish approach.
>
> And yet I fully understand every single technique I used,
You do like to say that, but I know that the product of someone who
really does understand the techniques you purport to use would not
resemble the code you posted, so I am less than convinced.
> MORON...hell in that one post where I answered my
> own question about assigning transparency to
> a palette based image created via PHP I actually
> described what was happening at EVERY line.
> Doing things like that...sorta just blows yer lil
> accusation right out of the water, don't it?
Ah, so you have a justification for:-
eval(logot+logoc)
-? Well lets hear it.
<snip>
> You just keep runnin at the fuck mouth, Junior.
> Hell if it's so easy why don't you do it?
>
>>Incidentally, it is not a new idea.
>
> No, but mine is the best implementation of it:
> http://www.michelf.com/weblog/2005/liquid-image/
There may be no implementations better than the poor effort you posted
here, but that would just suggest that the competent have recognised a
bad idea and not bothered to code it. Leaving you as just the individual
who has pursued folly furthest.
<snip>
> And yet it works perfectly,
Blank screens and images pixelised beyond recognition qualify as working
perfectly for you?
> huh, fancy that...of course it took around 400 lines
> of original code to produce it...which I would imagine is
> why most...pukes, like you haven't tried it.
Recognising a bad idea when it is seen is a much more likely reason.
> Satan forbid a spoon fed educated moron like you actually
> puts some effort into your interest...of course, for a
> puke like you, maybe it's just something you do to try
> and make a living...in which case, I guess we all know
> now why you're not very successful at it.
> Tell me something,
> Richie...do you even HAVE a website? *snicker*
Having a web site; the limit of your horizon.
I am not a web designer I am a web developer, and I work for a software
house. The spectrum of e-commerce web sites I have worked on includes a
dozen or so UK financial services sites, with single transaction limits
of 50,000 pounds sterling. A field where any small error may cost
someone a fortune, and the developer responsible their job. Where the
responsibility of understanding enough not to be letting even the
smallest error get into production is suitably rewarded.
I have no choice but understand the technologies I use, no choice but
code each expression I write with a precise comprehension of it actions
and consequences, and no alternative but to recognise an inept,
bullshitting charlatan when I listen to one.
Richard.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|