Re: Online communities

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:24:28 -0000, "[ Doc ]" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>>>> There are some prefab stuff you can get, but as far as making
>>>> functional solutions (accessing database, user interaction, etc) it
>>>> requires quite a degree of scripting knowledge...and not the kind of
>>>> anal induced stupidity encoding that Reaper is so keen on.

>>>Given the option, I'd rather have that kind of coding because I know
>>>a) that it'll work

>> Actually no...you really don't. That's another reason why you
>> shouldn't code like that, it can EASILY lead to mistakes since people
>> aren't computers and as such don't "think" like computers do.

>Are you serious? Error checking is a basic thing taught in any
>programming class and that's for a reason.

Error checking is usually good to do in the debugging stage, but once
all the bugs have been worked out it's generally not needed. For
example the codec I'm working on, currently it renders as slow as ***
cause I have about 15 different redundant error checking functions to
examine each fusion encode in the cascade. Once I know it works I'll
take all those out (kind of a bitch though because I have to test it
with 16,777,216 possible color combinations.

>> Think of it like this. What if I came up with a numbering system to
>> replace words. Like this:
>>
>> 1 = do
>> 2 = you
>> 3 = a
>> 4 = have
>> 5 = I
>> 6 = cat
>> 7 = dog
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Okay, now read this using the code reduction form we came up with:
>> 1 2 4 3 6
>> 5 4 3 7
>>
>> Now imagine that you have 253 sentences that are all constructed like
>> that. The program in an of itself might not have any problems with it
>> (although it'll be slow as *** as it has to go through so many cpu
>> cycles) but you as a human CANNOT easily function that way without
>> first memorizing it all and even then you're not 100% accurate. Now
>> do you see why coding the way Reaper does is REALLY not a good idea?
>> Not only will it actually SLOW the program down, but it'll make it so
>> hard for YOU the programmer to read it that you'll wind up making at
>> the very least twice as many mistakes.

>Coded properly, it could be faster than you're giving credit for being. I
>don't buy your argument because it seems based on an emotional frame of
>mind (read: reaper terrifies you with her prowess at programming)

Hey, believe whatever you like, Kiddo. You don't seem interested in
actually producing anything so it's not like it even matters to you
one way or another. And if you're ever in a position where you're
going to hire someone to do a job...well personally I like "seasoned"
clients...meaning I generally like to go with clients who have been
fucked over severely by kids like Reaper at least 4 or 5 times...tends
to make them a lil more discerning in their choices...and they make
for better references. ^_^

>>>C++ is a pig of a language in most implementations. You're better off
>>>with C and then tacking on the OOP stuff you need manually.

>> *not gonna get into a debate about it*

>Good. You don't have to agree that I'm right, just remove yourself from
>the argument. That's cool. :)

You're not right...of course you're not wrong either...it's not as
simple as you're attempting to make it. But since you're trying to
make it that simple you obviously don't have a very good grasp of it,
so that's why I'm not going to get into a debate about it, it'd be
pointless. It's like when some fuckin dumbass starts spoutin off
absolutes like "Linux is better than Windows!"

Usually it's best to just let the dumbass believe in the stupidity,
after all, it's not like he's ever gonna be competition for you.

>>>For the simple reason that it's inherently slow even on a high-speed
>>>connection.

>> Not really, depends on what you do and how you setup the Flash file as
>> far as loading....most people tend to like having it load the majority
>> of the site all at once, so in effect it's like browsing an offline
>> web page, however you can set it up to load materials on the fly when
>> needed.

>When it takes 30 seconds to download a flash presentation at 7mbps, I can
>blame some of it on internet routing but the size of the flash is also to
>blame.

....except once again you're missing the fact that you're downloading
the WHOLE SITE (in most cases) all at once. Obviously that's going to
take longer than just downloading the initial display.

>> The fact is that Flash is powerful,

>Never claimed it wasn't, you know. In the right person's hands, flash can
>be damned impressive.

Like this for example:
http://www.airtightinteractive.com/projects/related_tag_browser/app/

And I love that arbitrary angle effect that it does on the text input
box, that's exactly the kind of thing I want to use when I rebuild the
"Insanity Now" site (which most peeps here may or may not remember).

>> so when you're using it
>> most peeps like to use that stuff. If you took an ordinary web site
>> and remade it in Flash, the Flash file would actually probably be
>> smaller overall than the original site..it's just, again, in most
>> cases you're downloading the entire site at once.

>I could buy that if that's how it occurred in the real world. Problem is
>that most of the flash-enabled sites I've seen aren't all in flash so you
>have to wait a damned long time for each flash file as well as the useful
>content (useful being subjective, yes, I know).

Well that's a general problem in the tech industry as a whole though.
I mean it's like you've got a handful of people who are good...I mean
REALLY good...and the thing is everybody wants a piece of that...but
there's just not enough to go around, but oh, there's plenty of posers
that can promise you the moon and then take teh money and run. That's
how we wound up with the last technology stock crash. Eventually
investors suddenly came to the horrifying realization that creative
talent and ingenuity in the field of technology was no different from
any other art form. And with art, it's not usually something you can
just go to school and learn, it's something you have to have a passion
for and on one level or another you need to have some kind of innate
talent for it.

>>>Forcing people to download a 2mb flash presentation is silly
>>>when you could feed them the same quality of content without all that
>>>excess...

>> One can just as easily say, "Why bother walking when you ride around
>> in the lil Wal*Mart electric scooter."

>Apples and oranges. In fact, more like chocolate cake and granola bars.
>Flash being the chocolate cake, obviously, as it's full of stuff you
>don't really need...or want.

On the contrary, indulgence is a human need...a very strong one at
that. You wouldn't be human without it.

>> Again, has nothing to do with the code, it's all about images in this
>> case. And hey, I'll give anyone 100 bucks if they can recompress
>> those alpha transparent rainbow tinted ripples without losing any
>> quality (free cl00, you can't). Granted one could sacrifice QUALITY,
>> but sacrificing quality at the expense of speed is a rather backward
>> form of intellect.

>The human eye and brain are remarkably competent when it comes to filling
>in missing data in images. This is why image compression is such a hot
>thing. Fractal compression, for example, proves that almost any image can
>be compressed and still retain enough quality which the eye/brain add to
>to make it "normal".

Yes but it never seems quite as 'real'. Its like the difference
between reading about a place and actually going there. Yes, by just
reading about it, your mind is fully capable of recreating the
environment in your head...but it's never as real as the real thing.
And when you experience the real thing...it cheapens your fantasy
world even more. For example most people who own HDTV sets and watch
all their favorite shows as such would NEVER want to go back. Or like
being on dialup and then suddenly going to high speed...you NEVER want
to go back to something so slow. Again, a human thing.

>>>> It basically creates a perfect liquid site that's fully cross
>>>> browser and cross OS compatible.

>>>When Flash works in Lynx then I will be impressed.

>> Lynx only displays text, Kiddo.

>Which should tell you what I prefer...

So why not just get a newspaper or a book and skip teh whole
"Internet" thing...obviously it's not the place for ya.

>>>compatibility *** right out with that argument. Nothing at all is
>>>cross-browser compatible if it doesn't work in EVERY browser.

>> Which mine does. If you view the main Backwater site with Lynx you
>> can see all the text content that makes up the site.

>Indeed. This is correct. I didn't want to be the only one to report that
>fact, however. I might be accused of slurping :)

Only if you're accusing yourself. In reality, there is no such thing
as slurping, there's no melodrama, no question, no emotion...there is
simply what is and what isn't. Like with me and Mimic...I have
sites...he doesn't...my skill is superior. For all the talk and all
the bull*** and all the posturing it does not change and never will
change the hard, undeniable fact that the quality of my work increases
at a near exponential rate while people like Mimic continue to do
NOTHING but talk.

>>>I go to the web for content that is immediately useful. If it takes me
>>>more than 5 minutes to get to useful content, the site it wasting my
>>>time and doesn't get my return visit. It's really that simple.

>> That's your loss. You're willing to sacrifice quality for speed.

>I tend to find what I'm looking for though ... and in relatively decent
>amounts of time.

But that's part of the problem...and it can be seen in a lot of
"arguments" around here. Too often you find what you're looking
for...but you don't find what's ACTUALLY the truth. Or you grossly
misinterpret what you read to suite your arguments because you're in
such a hurry. Look at the posts I made about using best quality in
Flash applications, over a half dozen people were in such a hurry to
try and "prove me wrong" to try and "show me up", that they COMPLETELY
misinterpreted the information that was available on the net and wound
up just making fools of themselves across a half dozen Usenet froups.

>> Good research is very rarely ever fast.

>It would be if people would lay off the flash and other needless stuff.

The Internet is generally a very poor resource for research you know.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
.