EPTI already linked a much better site, MDN. Please use it and stop recommending garbage content in this thread.
The Big Programming Thread - Page 284
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Thread Rules 1. This is not a "do my homework for me" thread. If you have specific questions, ask, but don't post an assignment or homework problem and expect an exact solution. 2. No recruiting for your cockamamie projects (you won't replace facebook with 3 dudes you found on the internet and $20) 3. If you can't articulate why a language is bad, don't start slinging shit about it. Just remember that nothing is worse than making CSS IE6 compatible. 4. Use [code] tags to format code blocks. | ||
|
tec27
United States3696 Posts
I already linked a much better site, MDN. Please use it and stop recommending garbage content in this thread. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On April 14 2013 19:43 Yoshi- wrote: The aforementioned site is w3fools.com btw. I'd say they are being quite anal about the issue. Sure, W3schools does contain a lot of misleading information, and even some downright errors, but some of the issues they bring up really don't matter to the people using the site: Complete newbies who are just trying to get into it. W3schools is good because the progression is very approachable, once you're done with their tutorials, you're ready for the more detailed and correct knowledge bases. I mean, you could probably take any page trying to teach HTML and find issues with it, using an argument like "Lol, this is so misleading compared to the official W3 docs", but the point is that the user is looking for a tutorial, not the exact information which can be looked up when you know what you're looking for. For example, w3fools.com whine about w3schools using "async: false" in a tutorial on jQuery ajax() usage. While I agree with their basic perspective that AJAX is MEANT to be asynchronous, I'd say it's quite valid to use it without async in a tutorial since it's easier to come up with non-asyncronous implementations for a newbie, and it's quite a lot easier to grasp for a beginner. Obviously, this should be clarified in the tutorial, which it isn't. My point though, is that you have to take a tutorial for what it is: A simplification made to make it easier for newbies. While factual errors have no place there, simplifications certainly do. | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On April 15 2013 06:11 Tobberoth wrote: I'd say they are being quite anal about the issue. Sure, W3schools does contain a lot of misleading information, and even some downright errors, but some of the issues they bring up really don't matter to the people using the site: Complete newbies who are just trying to get into it. W3schools is good because the progression is very approachable, once you're done with their tutorials, you're ready for the more detailed and correct knowledge bases. I mean, you could probably take any page trying to teach HTML and find issues with it, using an argument like "Lol, this is so misleading compared to the official W3 docs", but the point is that the user is looking for a tutorial, not the exact information which can be looked up when you know what you're looking for. For example, w3fools.com whine about w3schools using "async: false" in a tutorial on jQuery ajax() usage. While I agree with their basic perspective that AJAX is MEANT to be asynchronous, I'd say it's quite valid to use it without async in a tutorial since it's easier to come up with non-asyncronous implementations for a newbie, and it's quite a lot easier to grasp for a beginner. Obviously, this should be clarified in the tutorial, which it isn't. My point though, is that you have to take a tutorial for what it is: A simplification made to make it easier for newbies. While factual errors have no place there, simplifications certainly do. The problem is that it isn't being advertised as a simplified tutorial. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On April 15 2013 04:49 tec27 wrote: Guys, w3schools is awful, period. Its full of bad information, outdated information, bad recommendations, and it takes really scummy approaches to making sure its hard to block in searches. Anyone who knows their stuff will tell you that its awful and you shouldn't use it. I already linked a much better site, MDN. Please use it and stop recommending garbage content in this thread. +1 for MDN. As a computer engineering/computer science student, I'd like to say a few things though for fellow CE/CS people interested into getting into front-end web dev for a living. Front-end Web dev can be fun, but it's more of a thing you do for that. I'm about to graduate, and I can tell you that I cannot even fathom how people can do front-end web dev for a living. It's so simplistic and so dull, I'd get tired pretty quickly of doing HTML/CSS/JS on a full-time basis, and some people I know who work in that kinda thing say the same.. I actually rejected internship offers from a couple little-known web-based companies like Yahoo and Amazon because they wanted me to be a script kiddie. Last summer, I did a ton of back-end web dev, which is infinitely more enjoyable and productive than front-end, and yet it was still meh. Being a CE guy, I'd like to actually get some experience working with hardware and embedded systems. So of the offers, I accepted the one from Qualcomm since that's what they offered me. I'll be working there this summer and starting graduate school next year. Basically my point is, to CS/CE students, REALLY consider what you want to do in terms of software work. Yeah it may seem cool to be that guy who does the HTML stuff on Facebook's page because you use Facebook, but do you really want to do that 40 hours a week? | ||
|
tec27
United States3696 Posts
On April 15 2013 07:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: +1 for MDN. As a computer engineering/computer science student, I'd like to say a few things though for fellow CE/CS people interested into getting into front-end web dev for a living. Front-end Web dev can be fun, but it's more of a thing you do for that. I'm about to graduate, and I can tell you that I cannot even fathom how people can do front-end web dev for a living. It's so simplistic and so dull, I'd get tired pretty quickly of doing HTML/CSS/JS on a full-time basis, and some people I know who work in that kinda thing say the same.. I actually rejected internship offers from a couple little-known web-based companies like Yahoo and Amazon because they wanted me to be a script kiddie. Last summer, I did a ton of back-end web dev, which is infinitely more enjoyable and productive than front-end, and yet it was still meh. Being a CE guy, I'd like to actually get some experience working with hardware and embedded systems. So of the offers, I accepted the one from Qualcomm since that's what they offered me. I'll be working there this summer and starting graduate school next year. Basically my point is, to CS/CE students, REALLY consider what you want to do in terms of software work. Yeah it may seem cool to be that guy who does the HTML stuff on Facebook's page because you use Facebook, but do you really want to do that 40 hours a week? Before I reply, that's a complete misuse of the term 'script kiddie' and not at all what its actual meaning is. Unless of course they wanted you to copy and paste scripts from the web with no knowledge of how they work, but I doubt that's the case  I think a lot of companies don't have this sort of front-end/back-end dichotomy post-hiring. There are certainly people that are going to have more familiarity working on user-facing vs service-facing things, but there is still an expectation that you'll have an understanding of both (and honestly, I think at this point they have a lot of the same problems to solve). Being a front-end developer is certainly not just writing some HTML and calling it a day. Modern web applications have a lot of complex code running in the browser, stuff like rendering dynamic content, querying remote APIs and maintaining local datastores. A lot of logic that used to be kept on the server is now being run on the client, and honestly I think its a very interesting space. If embedded systems are your interest, then yeah, web apps are probably not going to be something you enjoy working on. But if you are interested in web stuff, I think the sort of front-end work that modern companies need done can be every interesting, and you're being incredibly disingenuous in your description of it. Some interesting reads/talks from that space: http://backstage.soundcloud.com/2012/06/building-the-next-soundcloud/ | ||
|
phar
United States1080 Posts
Hope it works out regardless. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On April 15 2013 09:15 tec27 wrote: Before I reply, that's a complete misuse of the term 'script kiddie' and not at all what its actual meaning is. Unless of course they wanted you to copy and paste scripts from the web with no knowledge of how they work, but I doubt that's the case I think a lot of companies don't have this sort of front-end/back-end dichotomy post-hiring. There are certainly people that are going to have more familiarity working on user-facing vs service-facing things, but there is still an expectation that you'll have an understanding of both (and honestly, I think at this point they have a lot of the same problems to solve). Being a front-end developer is certainly not just writing some HTML and calling it a day. Modern web applications have a lot of complex code running in the browser, stuff like rendering dynamic content, querying remote APIs and maintaining local datastores. A lot of logic that used to be kept on the server is now being run on the client, and honestly I think its a very interesting space. If embedded systems are your interest, then yeah, web apps are probably not going to be something you enjoy working on. But if you are interested in web stuff, I think the sort of front-end work that modern companies need done can be every interesting, and you're being incredibly disingenuous in your description of it. Some interesting reads/talks from that space: http://backstage.soundcloud.com/2012/06/building-the-next-soundcloud/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unEuPvA2wnM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDmFZbP2b0A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx40CRwwkS8 I completely agree with you. My last post ignored some specifics and details that made it pretty one-faceted and yes, disingenuous, I acknowledge that  . I'll watch these vids now, but I guess maybe I've done and have been given the wrong kind of front end stuff. Raw HTML/CSS and JS. It's rather plain and dull. :S Like back-end stuff is really cool to me (as far as web-dev goes), although many people would disagree with me, but I like making all the logic and database stuff happen. I agree that people are expected to know both sides, but I've talked to a few people in industry who do front-end, and it just feels to me I'd get bored pretty quickly. That's just me though. But I also know plenty of people who thought it was going to be the coolest thing ever, because the front-end stuff is what they see on all their favorite websites, and then they regret it :s. That happens too. On April 15 2013 10:17 phar wrote: Also I hope you did accept an internship at a comparable company, because having an amazon or yahoo internship on your resume will be really good for you when you try to get an actual job. I would have killed for an amazon internship even if it was pure frontend while in undergrad, and I'd be willing to be a large sum that I had more backend emphasis. Hope it works out regardless. Well, I don't know how Qualcomm weighs in, but they gave me work in my interest, and in addition, it gives me a great opportunity to do some future proofing in my hometown. It was basically an offer I couldn't refuse. Who knows, if I'm lucky, I could even get some sort of deal to go visit Qualcomm Korea for a week or two, or in other words, get to visit South Korea | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On April 15 2013 07:03 CecilSunkure wrote: The problem is that it isn't being advertised as a simplified tutorial. I'm with you there, however, that doesn't have to stop you from recommending it to newbies, since you can let them know that as part of the introduction. "Go through this HTML tutorial quickly to get up to speed. Keep in mind that the site is quite simplified, here's some more advanced links you can check out once you're done with the basics here". Depends on the person wanting to learn though, resources like MDN are probably still superior for most beginners, unless they are computer illiterate. | ||
|
phar
United States1080 Posts
| ||
|
tec27
United States3696 Posts
On April 15 2013 15:32 Tobberoth wrote: I'm with you there, however, that doesn't have to stop you from recommending it to newbies, since you can let them know that as part of the introduction. "Go through this HTML tutorial quickly to get up to speed. Keep in mind that the site is quite simplified, here's some more advanced links you can check out once you're done with the basics here". Depends on the person wanting to learn though, resources like MDN are probably still superior for most beginners, unless they are computer illiterate. I think that's a bad approach for beginners though. One of the defining characteristics of someone with more expertise in an area (especially within CS and programming knowledge) is knowing how to pick out good information and advice from bad. Someone starting from a clean slate won't be able to break down the material enough to do that, and thus they internalize bad information and it will take them a while to expel that (and they'll likely build some ideas on top of that bad information, making it even harder to get rid of down the road). I think we've all internalized bad information in our path to becoming better programmers, but I don't view it as a necessary or good thing, and don't think we should be willingly encouraging people to learn from bad material. I'll agree that wiki-like docs are not that great to use for absolute beginners since they lack direction. I think following project-specific tutorials is almost more helpful in that regard though: it gives you a starting point, a goal, and something cool at the end! There has been some effort to give a more general starting point for things in the open source community though, e.g. http://jsforcats.com/ | ||
|
JonGalt
Pootie too good!4331 Posts
I have no problem creating them and getting them to send the correct values. However, I have 2 drop down boxes that have the same data, and 16 drop down boxes that have the same data. Each drop down box holds a lot of choices. I want to create a javascript function that creates the drop down box, then I only have to do it one time and if the choices change it is a matter of altering the function and not all 16. Is this possible? | ||
|
Craton
United States17246 Posts
| ||
|
JonGalt
Pootie too good!4331 Posts
On April 16 2013 09:04 Craton wrote: Sounds like you just want a data source. Thanks! Going to look it up now. | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3237 Posts
On April 15 2013 22:37 JonGalt wrote: I am trying to create a website with multiple drop down text boxes. I have no problem creating them and getting them to send the correct values. However, I have 2 drop down boxes that have the same data, and 16 drop down boxes that have the same data. Each drop down box holds a lot of choices. I want to create a javascript function that creates the drop down box, then I only have to do it one time and if the choices change it is a matter of altering the function and not all 16. Is this possible? If you are using ASPX, its simply going to the code behind (aspx.cs) of the page, putting the drop values on an array and then data binding all of the drop downs. Any other language (and even aspx) can be resolved the same way by JS, on page load, smt like + Show Spoiler + //assuming its a HTML select with id dropdownX, not sure on the array initialization syntax now function addSelectValues() { var i; var j; var values={"a","b","c"}; for (i=0;i<16;i++) { for (j=0;j<3;j++) $("#dropdown"+i).innerhtml+="<option>"+values[j]+"</option>"; } } | ||
|
Yoshi-
Germany10227 Posts
Especially when the use is absolute not needed He should rather use the normal js Function
But if possible you should solve that issue serverside. | ||
|
JonGalt
Pootie too good!4331 Posts
Data sources seem nice, but they are much more complicated than I need as my website is really very simple. Plus the infrastructure of my JS lines quite nicely with what is posted above by Yoshi ands misirlou. | ||
|
LukeNukeEm
31 Posts
I have a problem with tuples and vectors in c++. std::tuple<unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int> tuple;this works fine. std::tuple<unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int> tuple;this does not. Error 10 error C2784: 'const _Ty &std::get(const std::array<_Ty,_Size> &) throw()' : could not deduce template argument for 'const std::array<_Ty,_Size> &' from 'std::tuple<<unnamed-symbol>,_V0_t,_V1_t>'this is the errormessage on the last line. i'm not really that experienced with templates to understand all of it - any help? | ||
|
halvorg
Norway717 Posts
On April 17 2013 05:09 LukeNukeEm wrote: Hi guys. I have a problem with tuples and vectors in c++. std::tuple<unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int> tuple;this works fine. std::tuple<unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int> tuple;this does not. Error 10 error C2784: 'const _Ty &std::get(const std::array<_Ty,_Size> &) throw()' : could not deduce template argument for 'const std::array<_Ty,_Size> &' from 'std::tuple<<unnamed-symbol>,_V0_t,_V1_t>'this is the errormessage on the last line. i'm not really that experienced with templates to understand all of it - any help? Hey, I'm not all too strong in c++, but as far as I know you need to add a space between your last two >'s, the c++ compiler thinks you are using the '>>' operator. I've been learning haskell as of late, it's quite fun and I really like how easy it is to reason about pure code. Now that I've gotten lost in monads etc. I'm losing that ease of reasoning, I don't esp. like all the "do" statements I see in haskell code. Right now my major problem is finding a project to do though, one can only learn so much by small project euler problems and tutorials. | ||
|
scudst0rm
Canada1149 Posts
On April 17 2013 05:09 LukeNukeEm wrote: Hi guys. I have a problem with tuples and vectors in c++. std::tuple<unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int> tuple;this works fine. std::tuple<unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int> tuple;this does not. Error 10 error C2784: 'const _Ty &std::get(const std::array<_Ty,_Size> &) throw()' : could not deduce template argument for 'const std::array<_Ty,_Size> &' from 'std::tuple<<unnamed-symbol>,_V0_t,_V1_t>'this is the errormessage on the last line. i'm not really that experienced with templates to understand all of it - any help? This compiles fine for me. What compiler and version are you using? | ||
|
iaretehnoob
Sweden741 Posts
On April 17 2013 05:17 halvorg wrote: Hey, I'm not all too strong in c++, but as far as I know you need to add a space between your last two >'s, the c++ compiler thinks you are using the '>>' operator. Working fine in VS2012, FWIW. They fixed that operator >> ambiguity thing in C++11. See if it works with a typedef'd tuple type and/or with explicitly typecasting the result of the vector access. | ||
| ||
