• (cs) in reply to Ralesk
    Ralesk:
    Ho yes, same here. Valid XHTML 1.0 helps with IE6 a lot — it too has a quirks and a “standards” mode, and even things like 
    margin: auto;
    work, as long as you leave out the xml version stanza (weird bug, that!).
    How exactly does XHTML help IE, when no version of Internet Explorer supports it (that includes IE7)? (there's a world of difference between sending a file as text/html and application/xhtml+xml).
  • Will (unregistered)

    You do realise thats a fake. its got the xp window in the back with the vista error message. Now either thats some pretty cool coding or someones been had.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Will
    Will:
    You do realise thats a fake. its got the xp window in the back with the vista error message. Now either thats some pretty cool coding or someones been had.

    Please don't say stupid things. Think of the children.

  • Sapiens (unregistered)

    Doesnt happen in IE7 :P

  • (cs) in reply to Will
    Will:
    You do realise thats a fake. its got the xp window in the back with the vista error message. Now either thats some pretty cool coding or someones been had.
    Comments like this are why I will never tire of TDWTF.
  • (cs) in reply to Brianary
    Brianary:
    poochner:
    Why would I pay for Opera when Firefox mostly works? Other than leaking memory like a sieve, I mean. After you get enough plugins to make it useful, anyway. But I have to figure out which ones those are ...

    So how much is Opera again?

    What memory leaks? Perhaps you think RAM is better left pristine and untouched rather than used for cache. You can remove the memory from your machine if this is the case.

    What exactly does Firefox not do natively that you want? I can't think of much that Opera does that requires a Firefox plugin: wand, gestures, and speed dial.

    adblock, dom inspector, web developer tools , and a couple of things like farkit or bbcode helper I can live without.

    I don't mind it using half a gig for a disk cache. I do mind it using half a gig for a memory cache. I don't see that those are separately configurable, or even that the setting affects the size of the memory cache (the help says only setting is for the disk cache). A memory cache that grows without bound is in practice indistinguishable from a leak. I don't recall the 2.0 upgrade saying they'd fixed all the leaks, just most of them.

  • waffles (unregistered) in reply to Brianary
    Brianary:
    What memory leaks? Perhaps you think RAM is better left pristine and untouched rather than used for cache. You can remove the memory from your machine if this is the case.
    There were some actual memory leaks where the cache was never being released. When I'm at 1.5 gigs used with only 1 gig of ram, the unnessesary "cache" kills my performance. I believe those issues have been mostly fixed, though.
    Brianary:
    What exactly does Firefox not do natively that you want? I can't think of much that Opera does that requires a Firefox plugin: wand, gestures, and speed dial.
    The features people will use naturally varies a lot, but the main things I use in Opera that'd require an extension in FF are automatic session saving, Tab rearranging, mouse gestures, closed tab reopening, medium-screen rendering. I don't use Opera over FF because of the major features though, as I really don't mind dealing with extensions, but mostly because of the little details. In Opera, holding down Ctrl-Shift while doing quite literally anything will cause the result to open in a background tab -- there's probably a FireFox extension to do that, but will it work on new UI elements added by other extensions? I personally value these small bits of polish over the minor benefits I could get from extensions not built into Opera.
  • Vlasta (unregistered)

    Hello to everybody, especially to Trent G., the one who submitted this topic.

    I am the author of that online tool and I am proud of it. Seems line leaving shitty_IE_needs_this was the best promotion idea ever, I am considering putting it back ;-).

    Anyway, none of you web development "experts" really understands why is the onmouseout="shitty_IE_needs_this" there. Forget at least for a moment, that you know the code better than I and consider this: IT IS THERE TO CAUSE AN ERROR. PERIOD. IE needs this error to function as I want it to. Sometimes you must lose to win.

    If you do no understand and still think that I am a bad coder, there is a whole new world for you there to discover.

  • (cs) in reply to Vlasta
    Vlasta:
    Hello to everybody, especially to Trent G., the one who submitted this topic.

    I am the author of that online tool and I am proud of it. Seems line leaving shitty_IE_needs_this was the best promotion idea ever, I am considering putting it back ;-).

    Anyway, none of you web development "experts" really understands why is the onmouseout="shitty_IE_needs_this" there. Forget at least for a moment, that you know the code better than I and consider this: IT IS THERE TO CAUSE AN ERROR. PERIOD. IE needs this error to function as I want it to. Sometimes you must lose to win.

    If you do no understand and still think that I am a bad coder, there is a whole new world for you there to discover.

    Do elaborate please... Why would you intentionally need to throw an error to make something work? What kind of bug are you trying to work around?

  • Vlasta (unregistered)

    without the erroneous handler, only the first pixel is drawn and not the other ones when holding the button down and moving mouse. Events are not coming...

    In FF and Opera all works fine without the onmouseout handler. That's shitty, isn't it?.

  • (cs)

    according to google analytics:

    Firefox 65.90% Internet Explorer 23.31% Mozilla 7.12% Opera 2.58% Safari 0.59%

    yay!

  • (cs) in reply to Kiasyn
    Kiasyn:
    according to google analytics:

    Firefox 65.90% Internet Explorer 23.31% Mozilla 7.12% Opera 2.58% Safari 0.59%

    yay!

    Utter bullshit!

  • Ben (unregistered) in reply to Welbog
    Welbog:
    If it were that simple we'd all be using Opera.
    I can't believe how many people still seem to think you have to pay for Opera. It's been free for a year and a half, and is the best browser available right now.

    Yeah, I said it.

  • (cs) in reply to Vlasta
    Vlasta:
    Hello to everybody, especially to Trent G., the one who submitted this topic.

    I am the author of that online tool and I am proud of it. Seems line leaving shitty_IE_needs_this was the best promotion idea ever, I am considering putting it back ;-).

    Anyway, none of you web development "experts" really understands why is the onmouseout="shitty_IE_needs_this" there. Forget at least for a moment, that you know the code better than I and consider this: IT IS THERE TO CAUSE AN ERROR. PERIOD. IE needs this error to function as I want it to. Sometimes you must lose to win.

    If you do no understand and still think that I am a bad coder, there is a whole new world for you there to discover.

    I think writing code that requires an error to be thrown to the browser in order to work is the very definition of a WTF.

    And the fact that you think that by exploiting this, you are proving that you are not a "bad coder" makes me feel very worried about the state of software development.

  • Vlasta (unregistered) in reply to nwbrown

    Funny. You act as if I am building a nuclear missile...

    The code works in Opera, Firefox, and IE with debug mode off. 99.9% of scenarios are covered. That is a pretty good result. It is a free tool, more like a toy than a tool. I see no reason to strive for 100% perfection in this case. Ever heard of the 80:20 rule?

    But...good news. I got and email from Fred Foobar (who posted a comment above) (thanks for it) with another workaround for IE that does not require intentional errors.

  • Brianary (unregistered) in reply to Xandax

    Yeah! There's no possible way to objective evaluate the differences between two pieces of software that do the same thing.

    It's certainly more important to avoid offending people than to exercise critical debate.

  • (cs) in reply to Vlasta
    Vlasta:
    The code works in Opera, Firefox, and IE with debug mode off. 99.9% of scenarios are covered. That is a pretty good result. It is a free tool, more like a toy than a tool. I see no reason to strive for 100% perfection in this case. Ever heard of the 80:20 rule?

    There's a big difference between striving for 100% and then saying "I can't figure out how this works so I'm just gonna stick something in there that'll make it throw an error since I can't be arsed to learn how to work it".

    I've written lots of code that wouldn't work a certain way I had in mind. Sometimes it would work but throw errors. Instead of saying "that's good enough, at least it works", I'd learn what it was doing that caused it to throw errors, then find a way to stop it. Sometimes this meant spending several days reading up and learning, or bugging my friends to take a look at it, or joining a tech website to ask questions.

    In the end, if I couldn't solve the error problem, I removed whatever was causing it and either left it out completely or found a way around it... error-free of course.

    If you want to create buggy code that throws errors, go right ahead, but the minute you post it to the general public, you're going to be raked over the coals for writing buggy software, even if it's just a little fun app.

    -- Seejay (and for the record, I'm far from being an above-average coder... just tenacious and stubborn enough to figure out how to do something properly instead of half-assed)

  • Omarius (unregistered)

    The linux kernel still contains something like, "AIEEEEEEEEEEEE! Interrupt handler shutdown."

  • Andrew (unregistered)

    People give IE crap, but let's consider why IE is #1 now.

    Once upon a Netscape, only anchor tags would listen (or produce, depending on your perspective) to mouse events. Thus onclick didn't work on an img tag. The IE people said that's shitty and did away with it. Before IE decided to hell with the spec, any time you wanted a roll-over image, you had to wrap it in an anchor tag and trick the browser into not actually considering it a link.

  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to Vlasta
    Vlasta:
    Ever heard of the 80:20 rule?

    I like the 80:20 (90:10) rule. It has nothing to do with errors though. It has to do with locating the part of an application that might be optimizable for speed considerations.

  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to Will
    Will:
    You do realise thats a fake. its got the xp window in the back with the vista error message. Now either thats some pretty cool coding or someones been had.

    Did you really try to run this on Vista? The "xp window" you are talking about is a drawing on a web page.

  • Hruntio (unregistered) in reply to Andrew
    Andrew:
    People give IE crap, but let's consider why IE is #1 now.

    Once upon a Netscape, only anchor tags would listen (or produce, depending on your perspective) to mouse events. Thus onclick didn't work on an img tag. The IE people said that's shitty and did away with it. Before IE decided to hell with the spec, any time you wanted a roll-over image, you had to wrap it in an anchor tag and trick the browser into not actually considering it a link.

    I agree. Proprietary extensions to standards are one of the best ways for the standards to get extended (competition driving innovation and all that); XMLHttpRequest is another example (originally created by Microsoft). However, to actually not support many parts of the standard is what tends to irk people. To make a fitting parallel to your example, IE6 doesn't support the :hover CSS state on anything but anchors.

Leave a comment on “Actually, I Don't Need That”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article