If webdevs have to know about optimization and shit how come most blogs and other simple shit make a slightly old ThinkPad grind to a halt?
>>53713151
>pic
Wow, so now they're idiots AND obnoxious about it
>>53713151
>screen shotting a post and making a new thread instead of just replying to the post.
W E W
as someone who used to work in web development I can confirm most of them are like this, it's not even bait, they genuinely don't know enough to know how little they know
>>53713151
> how come most blogs and other simple shit
its usually because they have a bunch of flash/videos loading at once.
It'd be pretty hard to make a site lag without any content I imagine.
>>53713151
Meh probably loading up every framework ever made, and their custom scripts in each one that were written so poorly any browser would lag rendering it. I'm in webdev and mostly everyone here doesn't know jack shit.
>>53713240
Dunning-Kruger
Webdevs think non-webdevs just couldn't into CSS so they started building distributed systems for computational neuroscience instead
>>53713151
>disagreeing with quads
>ever
As someone who worked 3 years as a back-end web dev, my experience is that front-end devs, UX devs and designers have no fucking clue what they are doing 90% of the time.
Also, whatever optimisation we do back-end in order to minimalise request completion time isn't really reflected front-end when the "responsive design" and whatever buzzword is popular right now takes 90% of the computing power.
>>53713267
even with barely any content, there are a lot of sites that load several mb of js code
>>53713359
This is true, but god why? I can't order a pizza.
>>53713151
Such as?
I can tell you for a fact that brutal deadlines and also not giving a shit are prime examples, because quite frankly, being a web-dev is alienating, boring, montonous, yet suprisingly laborious.
It's not an ideal career choice to make.
>>53713151
my blog loads quite fine on my netbook, maybe i'm an exception to the rule and only use the absolute minimum on it
>>53713355
Responsive design is good IMO. The issue is devs swinging jquery/css like a fucking club and not knowing what reflows and repaints are.
>>53713783
>Responsive design is good IMO.
yes, when its done like http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
>>53713810
Fuck off with your margin-less, ugly-font, badly spaced website
http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
>>53713925
very nice
>>53713359
>several mb of js code
They're probably using a bunch of bloated libraries they dont need
Really, a web dev's entire purpose is to be an imbecile. Their continued employment is dependent on shoehorning in more bullshit, and maintaining high backend usage and sheer code traffic. Because if they ever finish their design, their services are no longer required.
>>53713151
The problem is that there isn't a lot of very talented web developers out there (I've met some very good web developers, trust me).
For one very talented developer at Google who will work on JQuery and page optimization, or at FaceBook doing miracles with modern and efficient PHP (yes this is a thing) there will be 200 Prajeets with barely enough knowledge to even understand what they are doing who will add 2 mb of useless imports and scripts to a webpage.
>>53713810
>>53713925
>>53713976
http://evenbettermotherfucking.website/
>>53713783
>Responsive design is good IMO
>want to zoom
>can't zoom
Fuck off
>>53715940
Responsive design (if properly implemented) should let you zoom
>>53713925
I think the rule of website design should be "can the most important information be read as pure text?"
Obviously there are exceptions, like video, image or audio specialised sites. But there's no reason that blogs and news sites shouldn't all be designed in such a way.
And this isn't just efficient design, it's compassionate. The internet in much of the world is incredibly slow, and their machines are out of date. Designing news sites in such a way that much of the world can't read them is a terrible thing to do.
>webdevs actually believe they're programmers
Holy shit. Anons in Australia let me know if you see my sides.
>hipster devs working using sublime text on their mac book air with their "Keep calm" shirt and dr who wallpaper trying to "program" to pay off the .io domain they obsess over using byte-code interpreted virtual machine language with a dedicated garbage collection thread stuffing their language with meme libraries feeling smart because they used "&1" rather than "%2" that one time.
Once web assembly hits your days are over anyways.
>>53716179
Are you making fun of web devs or actual devs I really can't tell
Web assembly is just translated JavaScript anyways.
>web devs
>code everything in le javascript
>makes their small poorly tested JavaScript functions into invidual libraries and uploads them online.
>>53716246
>Web assembly is just translated JavaScript anyways.
no. it isnt.
>>53716279
Well then what engine does WebAssembly run on? Keep in mind you can access JavaScript objects within WebAssembly. :^)
>>53716290
It suppose to be seperate from JS, but they will provide APIs and slowly add more access.
>>53716316
https://github.com/WebAssembly/design
>WebAssembly describes a memory-safe, sandboxed execution environment that may even be implemented inside existing JavaScript virtual machines
Sorry.
I will use bootsrap and have a mb worth of javascript rather than coding it behind
you cant stop me
>>53716290
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>53716363
Just because a language can compile to web assembly doesn't mean it's just an extension. It's like a binding.
>>53713151
People only talk about the programmer when the program works like shit.
Just so happens that webdev has a low barrier of entry and is very widely used, hence the perception that all webdevs are bad.
>>53716444
You sound like you use WebAssembly :^)
>>53716454
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_binding
>In computing, a binding from a programming language to a library or operating system service is an application programming interface (API) providing glue code to use that library or service in a particular programming language.
Come on dude, are you even trying? WebAssembly is just a binding to JavaScript. It's JavaScript.
>>53713151
>web devs
>security
>optimization
>server administration
>>53716485
That's like saying Javascript is x86 assembly just because it gets cached to it in your browser. That's like saying C++ is x86 assembly.
Chill. Quit being so scared.
>>53716539
It's not though, webdevs keep acting like they're getting "real" programming languages but they're not. They're just getting LLVM to translate C++/C/Whatever flavor of the month language their favorite hipster webdev blog says is cool this week/Actual Assembly to LLVM IR, which is translated to a binary/AST (with no written down ABI as of right now mind you), which is then run on a JAVASCRIPT VM.
All this work just to be able to program JavaScript in C++.
>>53716491
It's called DevOps, get with the times grandpa
>>53716583
Do you honestly believe that web assembly is just C++ emitting JavaScript code you dumb shit.
>>53716633
It's LLVM making a binary which is run on a JavaScript VM.
>>53716643
From what I understood, it's a sub-set of JS that than be JIT-compiled efficiently.
>>53716629
Letting webdevs do devops work causes shit like applications in production running in debug mode or devel/staging servers exposed over WAN. See: Patreon
>>53716671
that's normal operator procedure, get with the times grandpa
>>53716657
Glad we can agree it's just JavaScript.
webdevs btfo
>>53716643
Webasm is its own thing. Just because it's getting implemented into the JavaScript VM too doesn't mean it's suddenly just a JavaScript thing. That's like writing an x86 assembly VM for arm and claiming "oh x86 is just an arm extension now"
>>53716703
They are only doing this at first, they are making it run in-browser bytecode(not javascript) in the future.
>>53716768
So what you're saying is now websites will be able to run their own bytecode on my machine?
>>53716768
It will be JS though. WebAssembly is just a portable intermediate representation (abstract syntax tree) in binary form, making it smaller and faster to parse (and potentially also faster to execute).
That's important, because it means you don't have to change much in your engine to support this together with ordinary JS.
>>53716779
Yes.
With the way things are going in 20 years we'll need a dedicated JavaScript coprocessor to even look at websites.
>>53713151
Maybe we, webdevs, are not the best at optimisation, but at least we are not neckbeard freetards.
>>53716827
Good to know everyone will be using my machine to farm bitcoin in compiled JavaScript. What a time to be alive.
>>53713151
Not even a manger could be that amazingly stupid. Your screenshot is obviously a troll post.
>>53713335
So close
>>53716851
Atleast it will be more efficient than now where your browser already executes javascript code in a vm.
>>53716866
I can block it with NoScript, read through the code, and decide if it's safe, I can allow it
I don't even know if I'll be able to block WebAssembly.
>>53716657
That is asm.js
>>53713151
>this pic
>>53716845
Instead you're just generic hipster retards.
Congratulations.
>>53713151
I've been wondering the same thing a lot lately. The "improved" web portal to two of the mail services I have to use has reduced them to a crawl on my older Android. Like selecting a message can take 15+ seconds to happen.
And it's seriously just displaying the usually unformatted text from an E-mail.
I know in the past, on much older phones, the older interfaces went just fine.
>>53713151
Day of the webdev is over soon. Technology is quickly reaching a speed plateau and the first thing to go is going to be this bloated disaster of a platform.
>>53713322
>bait posts as proof
wew lad, because CS babies on /g/ aren't obnoxious or pretentious at all, right?
>screenshotting your own b8
sad desu
>>53713925
>(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga');ga('create','UA-46163202-2','auto');ga('send','pageview');
the only language i really know and work in is C. do people seriously expect other people to be able to understand shit like this?
>>53713151
Because the real problem without most web devs is that most don't even know the shit they're supposed to know.
>>53717403
The reason might be is that webpage generating and rendering is being moved onto the user's machine. Kind of sad, really.
>>53717514
>trying to read minified code
LOL
>>53715858
honestly that looks worse than >>53713925
>>53717514
C/C#/VB/Python master race chiming in
can webdevs explain this shit desu
>>53717541
>minified code
okay, i had to google that one. i understand the goal, but dont understand the technique. can't they just use compression to reduce how many bytes gets sent? unless they're doing this to intentionally make the code hard to understand..
>>53717605
Characters are already bytes. You can't compress anymore beyond that.
>>53717635
uhh..sure you can. that's kind of the whole point behind compression. quick example, you could have a file with one million bytes of 0xFF, it'd be easy to compress that file down to a couple bytes if you just stored the byte 0xFF and the literal number "one million".
>>53717605
>unless they're doing this to intentionally make the code hard to understand..
you can easily un-minify it
Better question: why does it create function just to run it afterwards? Is it because Javascript has broken scoping?
>>53717605
if you do both you can send even less bytes.
>>53717727
Well that is true.
But what would be the time used to decompress it?
I assume that the point of minifying is reducing everything to 1-2 characters at most (besides JS actual functions), remove spacing and tabulation AND still have it do its original intent without the need to decompress it.
>>53715858
>Open source code on GitHub.
kek
>>53717418
How much time do you give it? Minus tech giants, how long do you think the web dev at the company down the lane has a career?
>>53713322
>>web developer
>scripting and markup languages
>>programmer
>writing the scripting engines and browsers web developers work with
>>53717748
But you still won't know the name of the functions and the names of the variables, which are so useful to understand what a program does.
>>53715858
Shit font.
>>53716000
How did you get it to look like that
>>53718650
Terminal web browsers are a hell of a drug.
>>53718650
He opened it in lynx or w3m.
>>53717514
People aren't supposed to understand this.
Javascript is so shit that the more verbose it is the slower it runs.
It's basically optimizing the code.
>>53718920
links2, w3m and lynx don't render it that way (at least not we a default configuration)
>>53719116
Lynx does.
Most blogs run on wordpress/some other bloated CMS. Frontend devs are the biggest fags ever
>>53716491
Backend development
>>53719186
>>53716491
you're thinking of front-end web development only
>>53718496
Maybe another generation of processors when mid-range single core performance is starting to go down instead of up, and web shit is awful for multicore.
>>53719186
Webdev; so easy, even this fuckface can do it.
>>53715858
Disgusting
>>53719186
Why are all webdevs such hipsters? Is it due to commiefornia?
>>53720304
they have an eye for design and social skills required for the job unlike NEET neckbearded anime lovers. Also you just think he's a developer because you read the filename lol
>>53720334
0/10 b8
>>53713925
>http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
Why is the font grey instead of black? It makes it infinitely harder to read. Fuck off with that shit.
>>53713151
I remember that thread, that guy couldn't even answer what scoping was
>>53720304
it's because they think they are programmers/hackers and thus part of some small exclusive group that 'runs shit'
the perceived exclusivity causes pretentiousness
Why is CSS such a horrible clusterfuck?
>>53721376
You clearly haven't seen jquery
>>53716000
what font is that? looks like some type of heavy sans serif courier?
>>53721542
You don't have to see jQuery, you just have to use it.
CSS is like, you want to do this? Well it's different depending what type of element you are targeting and what element it resides in.
Let's just take something like centering something in the middle of the window regardless of the width of the browser window. You need to know the width of the object you're placing in the center because you need to set margins to offset it from the center.
>>53721376
It was designed by people without imagination.
>>53715940
wut, nothing prevents you from zooming
>>53715858
nah I like the other one. But the grey background is nice
>>53713151
Managers who run their departments on Adobe suites, recent graduate slackers and the latest innovations in analytics and AB testing suites.
> webdev audience
> lynx user
> typical web developer
>>53713151
Webdev follows the Lisp philosophy. Lisp programmers believe optimization makes your time less valuable than the computer's. They don't think programming has anything to do with computer science.
>Indeed, Waldemar Horwat once told me that he viewed JavaScript as essentially Common Lisp with a C-like syntax. In fact Waldemar defined a metalanguage, wrote an interprepter for his metalanguage in Common Lisp, and then wrote the JavaScript spec in his metalanguage, thereby enabling him to actually run the specification. It was a clever technique.
>>53717788
That's explained in SICP.
>tfw the public opinion of webdev is that it's about creating colorful animated boxes while I could easily spend a week at work without ever actually reloading a web page of the project.
