[OT Web 2.0] Do you think free ad's might help advance D?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff14ef58ccd817421b8206 at news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> This is the part where I fly off the handle bitching about any site
>> that incessantly nags non-JavaScript users,
>
> While you many have a good reasons to not using JavaScript, SO (as opposed 
> to 99% of the sites out there) is not a good example case to support your 
> reasons with.
>

Turn off JS and visit SO. You'll see what I mean. There isn't a damn thing 
in SO that can't be easily done without JS, but certain parts of it are 
broken and there's that big red obnoxius always-present nag-banner. If 
you're making a website, and you start to see yourself typing in anything 
that amounts to "This site needs/wants..." then right there that's a red 
flag that you're being a fucking douchebag.

And besides that, there is one, and only one, *good* way to use JS in a 
site: Create the site completely non-JS. Then add in optional JS in the few 
places where it could actually improve responsiveness and usability.

>> and forces that OpenID crap,
>
> What's wrong with it? Really, I want to know.

It's a phisher's wet dream - it makes ordinary logins look like Fort Knox. 
If a person *tried* to design a system that maximized phishability, I don't 
think anyone could have done a better job. Plus, the people in charge of 
OpenID seem to not give the slightest crap (or just not know what the hell 
they're doing).

Links:

(Pardon the absolutely, completely, practically award-winningly piss poor 
site design. It wasn't like this when the article was put up, but now, it 
doesn't look like there's a way to link to it without all that idiotic 
surrounding bullshit that takes up 75% of the page-space)
http://www.marcoslot.net/apps/openid/

http://www.links.org/?p=187

http://www.links.org/?p=188

>> and then start daydreaming about that StackOverflow-frontend
>> site that I want to create but will probably never get around to, and
>> even if I did they'd probably just send their lawyers after me
>
> BTW, they have a API out and are running an app content (with real prizes) 
> so you might be able to get it done without any flack.
>

Yea, I've come across that. Still have to get around to using it though :). 
Plus, I'm skeptical about how far they'd allow things to be taken (It's a 
business, so there's obviously some sort of revenue-generation, and I'm 
guessing it's ads.), and also, I'd be surprised if there's a way to get 
around that OpenID requirement without amounting to a competing service that 
merely merges SO's results into its own.

>> and
>> [...] 99% of programmers out there would still just
>> bitch about how I'm not [...] hop onto and fellatiate any and every 
>> idiotic
>> tech fad that pops up like all the rest of them are...
>
> Re: JS, I'm not sure about "idiotic" but I think calling it a "fad" is 
> like calling the Mississippi river a little bit of water.
>

It's more like calling "sagging" a fad. That moronic "fashion" has been 
around since I started junior high (a loooong time ago, and I thought it was 
idiotic and ugly as hell even back then) and by some bizarre twist of fate 
it's still going (though I honestly can't imagine why - other than an 
epidemic of brain damage). I still consider it a "fad" though, because 
that's precisely the category it belongs in. Same with mandatory-JS, overuse 
of JS, misuse of JS, and JS-nagging. I know I'm breaking the literal 
definition, but as far as I'm concerned, a fad still deserves to be labeled 
"fad" even if there just happens to be enough morons out there to keep it 
going well beyond the lifetime it deserves.