|
|
Posted by Andrι Gillibert on 11/10/07 18:20
Ed Jensen wrote:
> I call this the "Bjarne Stroustrup Excuse". He always argued that
> it's not C++ that's too complex, but instead, developers not being
> properly educated.
>
> We all know how that turned out: C++ has little going for it these
> days, except simple inertia (i.e., it's not worth rewriting large
> bases of code in less complex/better languages). Developers continue
> to increasingly choose simpler/better languages these days, such as
> Java and C#.
I've programmed many tools, for personal use, with C++, and it works very
well. I wouldn't use Java (too heavy runtime inertia), C# or C. I find
that C++ fits my needs.
C++ isn't the "ultimate universal tool", but it's perfectly fine for many
application fields for people who master the language.
There's a difference between C++ and CSS.
Most C++ developers are somehow trained and produce quite correct
applications.
But, most CSS developers are highly ignorant, and have fundamentally wrong
design principles, such as "it should render identically eveywhere".
Bad news: I've to use many web sites that've been designed by ignorant web
designers.
If CSS didn't exist or was harder to use by bad web designers, I wouldn't
get all that bad stuff. That's true to a much larger extent for
JavaScript. 99% of the JavaScript of the web is harmful or at best useless.
I often disable author's CSS, but, unfortunately, there're more and more
pages that become hard to read without author's CSS.
> While there's some truth to that argument, at some point you need to
> be pragmatic. If 99% of the web developers out there are getting it
> wrong, maybe the tool needs to be more user friendly.
>
No, it's misused BECAUSE it's too friendly. You don't need to read any
spec to use it!
e.g. WISYWIG editors worsen the thing.
In the "CSS is a car" analogy, I would say that, you need a driver license
to drive a car (because it's powerful and dangerous) but you don't need a
license to use the powerful and dangerous CSS. Imagine if 3 years old
children were allowed to drive a car without license?
> It's my opinion that the underlying problem is somewhere closer to the
> tool being too complex. You may have a different opinion, and that's
> fine.
The tool is being too complex (because it's powerful), which implies:
1) That IE don't support it.
2) That most web developers don't use it correctly.
Note: Purely from a user point-of-view, user CSS (without author CSS) is
great. If CSS had to be removed from the web then, user CSS should have to
be kept.
--
If you've a question that doesn't belong to Usenet, contact me at
<tabkanDELETETHISnaz@yahoDELETETHATo.fr>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|