Posted by vinny on 10/12/48 11:23

"^reaper^" <knocking@deaths.door> wrote in message
news:1ge0ku1f5l8vi$.dlg@fallen.angel...
> While sipping absinthe, Onideus Mad Hatter heard a loud sucking noise
> coming from alt.2600, and hastily inscribed the following unintelligible
> Sanskrit in <news:63mbf1l3sdp0acmifrku4783f5hq1bbara@4ax.com>:
>
> > On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 02:38:51 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
> > <usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 02:06:57 -0700, "^reaper^" <knocking@deaths.door>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>While sipping absinthe, Onideus Mad Hatter heard a loud sucking noise
> >>>coming from alt.2600, and hastily inscribed the following
unintelligible
> >>>Sanskrit in <news:cqd5f1l9hg975qghcrk4i46ui7nli9gp1f@4ax.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> Hatter Blog, yo! Version 1.0!
> >>>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/
> >>>
> >>>fix0red yore code furrier.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.spyderware.net/source/fix0red.css
> >>> http://www.spyderware.net/source/hattercss.inc
> >>>
> >>> http://www.spyderware.net/source/fix0red.js
> >>> http://www.spyderware.net/source/hatterobjs.inc
> >>>
> >>> http://www.spyderware.net/source/hatterdb.inc
> >>>
> >>>Total lines of code: 127
> >>>Size: 5K
> >>
> >>Yeah but how much of a slow down does it cause for the end user? If
> >>it's even a second on dialup then your implimentation is actually 1 to
> >>2 K larger in effect. *shrugs*
>
> It shouldn't cause any slowdown bc it's all created serverside. And from
> the server pov, it's fairly simplistic code (e.g., no computation, jumping
> through hoops, etc).
>
> >>Perfect code...doesn't make for perfect sites. See that other post in
> >>which I pinged you.
>
> Pffft. I wouldn't say the above examples are perfect. Far from it, in
fact.
> Just another approach for you to consider. The primary reason I decided to
> throw it together is bc I noticed you are in-lining your styles and
jumping
> through a lot of hoops to determine your layout. In fact, that's where
most
> of your code bloat comes from. You can take care of all of this server
side
> bc you already know what browser your user is using (simply gen the css
> file contain the correct styles).
>
> > Slight correction, teh current version is 30K, so if it's 6 seconds
> > slower than the current version then there's no real difference,
> > anything more than that and there's no reason to switch. I'll test
> > your implementation tomorrow evening to see how well it fares. In my
> > experience however it's better to saturate the connection end than the
> > end users system...especially since the ratio of high speed
> > connections is greater than the ratio of high speed systems...not to
> > mention that code which relies too heavily on teh end users resources
> > can lead to a lot of problems if they're not using high grade memory
> > and processors. Teh code might look pretty, but it'll just be CRASH,
> > CRASH, CRASH for most end users.
>
> Sure. That's the major problem with going fully js. That's why the
examples
> I provided do everything serverside (e.g., gen the js/css on the server).
> The only thing they do not do atm is to create static files to reduce the
> need for gen'ing code by checking created dates (e.g., they just spit the
> code over to the user).
>
> The obvious thing (if you want to stay w/js) is to use those to create
> files on your server, and simply have your htm file include the static
> files (or call the autogen based upon file created dates and last updated
> dates in the db).
>
> Oh and. Yes, I fully agree. Smaller is not always better, for a number of
> reasons, the least being compute overhead and added complexity. Even so,
> bulky code can quickly become cumbersome. Just wait until you decide you
> want to add some new neat feature... or you want to change the layout.
From
> what I can tell, the direction you're going will guarantee a rewrite in
the
> future. And sure, that might be easy, but why not let the puter do your
> work for you? Again, that's where the whole serverside db bit comes in.
> Ymmv, of course.
>
> --

nice reply.

[Back to original message]