Posted by Jon Slaughter on 04/17/07 22:12

"al jones" <alfredmjones@shotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e5jpu6h6o67d$.v66qsgdnbos3.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:34:56 GMT, Jon Slaughter wrote:
>
>> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message
>> news:58jtjrF2gvgppU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>>> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:FFTUh.17144$Um6.16224@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bergamot" <bergamot@visi.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:58ian2F2go2d2U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.jonslaughter.com/Test2.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you use border properties for the bars across the
>>>>>> top/bottom
>>>>>> and down the sides? It would be much simpler than using all those
>>>>>> divs.
>>>>>> They're only pretending to be borders anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes but it doesn't look as good.
>>>
>>> Your test page has been removed, but I remember what it looked like.
>>> http://www.bergamotus.ws/samples/4corners.html
>>> So how does this not look "as good" as your attempt?
>>>
>>
>> It does but that is not what I want for my home page.
>>
>>>> OK, nevermind. I got it. CSS is a fucking mess.
>>>
>>> No doubt a lot of your problem relates to misconceptions about how
>>> things are supposed to work. If you took the time to actually learn
>>> about the properties and positioning methods you are attempting to use
>>> instead of hacking away at things, you might be less frustrated.
>>>
>>
>> I've programming in assembly 15 years ago for about 5 years, C/C++ for
>> last
>> 15 years, and C# for last 2 years. I'm not the best programmer but I like
>> consistancy. CSS is not consistant. Its not made to do what it should.
>> Its markup and transformational abilities are amazing for what they do
>> but
>> they are severly limited. I program on and off though and the last few
>> years
>> I have not programming much except learning C# and .NET.
>>
>>> CSS takes time, practice and patience to learn. It's unrealistic to
>>> think you'll get it overnight, and just whining that it is a mess says
>>> something about your willingness to put in the necessary effort. And it
>>> does take effort.
>>>
>>
>> Sure. But thats not something I want to do. I have more important things
>> to
>> do than learn every new super duper programming language that comes a
>> long.
>> I want to get my web site done and be over with it. I'm not a web
>> designer
>> or programming and I don't want to be. Sure I want to put together pages
>> when I need to do but its way to much trouble to do simple stuff(mainly
>> the
>> browser differences).
>>
>> What pisses me off about web design and turns me off from it is the total
>> lack of unification. This is a big deal when your developing cross system
>> compatibility. Its just a mess IMO. CSS was suppose to fix that and be
>> leveraged to increase the visual transformations of pre-existing html
>> without interfering with incapable browsers... but when you have 20
>> different browsers(including the same brower but different versions) and
>> they all implement the specs differentialy or partially and one is
>> expected
>> to conform to them all then its total nuts.
>>
>>>> I don't know why I have to
>>>> nest divs of different position types just to get a relative addressing
>>>> in
>>>> absolute mode off the current content block.
>>>
>>> Because that's what the specs say is supposed to happen. Get over it.
>>
>> Well, I guess I haven't got that far in the spec(at the start of
>> positioning). I'm sure the semantics of positioning for css could have
>> been
>> designed a bit better. .NET has an excellent methodology for positioning
>> that CSS could take a few lessons from.
>>
>>>
>>>> crap... in IE the shifting screws it up.
>>>
>>> Welcome to the wonderful world of IE bugs.
>>> http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html
>>
>> Which is a complete turn off. I'm suppose to write code that is
>> compatible
>> for some browser that is a piece of crap... and not only that, theres
>> about
>> 6 of them(IE 3 - IE7). IE7 looks pretty good for the most part and if
>> thats
>> all I had to deal with then it wouldn't be so bad.
>>
>> What I'm actually going to do is just use php to strip all the css code
>> from
>> the html if its IE 6 or lower and be done with it. If the user really
>> wants
>> to see the graphics then can upgrade to better browser.
>>
>> Jon
>
> Jon me again. As an old programmer who's written so many different
> version
> of COBOL *any* discusssion about standardization of languages us a real
> joke. ((BTW, I also write in several version of BASIC, FORTRAN, C and
> have
> had some very enjoyable eperiences copnverting from one to the other, but
> that's an aside.))
>
> First: and I really think this has been pointed out endlessly in this
> newsgroup HTML / CSS are not languages - not in the sense that you and I
> would think of a programming language at all. I'll get called down for my
> loose terms, but they describe a web page and then suggest how the browser
> is to implement it - *NO* language I know of reaches to this level of
> 'suggestion'. In any language it's easy enough to say 'turn on the pixel
> at xx,yy and when intrpreted or compiled the result will be (if the
> computer gods are willing) that the pixel at xx,yy is lit up in some
> fashion. That, though, makes several assumptions that we cannot make on
> the web - is the screen wide/long enough to have a pixel at that location,
> is there a screen (remember we define for 'read' systems here as well), is
> there a pixel to turn on?
>

Well, the are not programming languages. They are languages. They have a
grammar, a syntax, and semantics. But they are a messy language.

> Secondly, given that you can program - this is *NOT* programming! When I
> write a business system I have *all* the constraints in place before I set
> pen to coding pad (or at least hope I do) which is something no one can do
> here - none of know definitively how our 'page' is going to be interpreted
> because there are just way too many possible pieces of equipment on which
> it can be displayed.

Yes, I see that it is not programming. This is what, I suppose, makes it so
difficult. I'm used to programming constructs such as variables,
evaulations, assignments, etc... css has none of this to any real extent.

>
> Lastly, I know the learning curve for almost any language can be
> extreme -
> if you're not willing to extend that same intenseness to learning how to
> 'code' a web page then my suggestion would be to let someone else do it
> for
> you.

Well, My issue is not learning it so much but I guess I get pissed when I
run into trouble and they do it in such a contorted way. Languages are
suppose to be about making things easier and not more difficult.

As far as I'm concerned I'd rather use JS as atleast it is a programming
language. But ofcourse then it limits my user base. Why not just use a lite
version of JS that removes all the main issues with it that people don't
like instead of comming up with an entirely new way(and then another and
another). I'm tired of a new language comming out every 3.4 days just
because someone thinks they can do it better.

Instead of being productive one ends up spending there time learning the new
language. CSS looks good from the outside but not having basic programming
constructs severly limits its ability. I only use it because it is
standard. I'd rather use JS because atleast with that I know whats going on.
CSS seems fine for simple transformative applications but anything beyond
that seems to be hell and counterproductive. Maybe they will fix the issues
in later versions.

I'm just here to learn enough to get me through my site. Maybe I should do
less bitching though and just learn it. Just really peeves me off when I
have to deal with so many incongruities between implementations. It happens
with programming languages too but the difference is that ultimately in the
end that code gets translated in same thing(ok, maybe not exactly but
doesn't matter) and there is only one hardware set. Ok, thats not entirely
true but one could target one specific set of functionality(such as
protected mode, flat mode, Vesa, VGA, etc..) and not have to worry to much
about supporting every different combination. But with web browsing it
seems like you have to please everyone no matter what browser there using.
It gets ridiculous and someone just needs to say "UPGRADE YOUR FUCKING
BROWSER!!!!!!".


Thanks,
Jon

[Back to original message]