Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

HTML5 App For Panasonic TVs Rejected - JQuery Is a "Hack"

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the lets-try-this-again dept.

Programming 573

An anonymous reader writes "I have been working on an HTML5 app for Panasonic VIERA TVs, specifically a client for the Plex Media Server. After paying $129 for the developer program, version 1.0 was submitted for inclusion in their VIERA Connect marketplace several weeks ago. After a few requested tweaks, they inquired about how the client communicated with the Plex Server. As many/most web developers do, I used jQuery and its $.ajax call (which is just a wrapper for XMLHttpRequest()). They insisted this was not standard Javascript, and after several communications with them, they replied back with "A workaround like this is considered a hack.". I'm stunned that anyone familiar with HTML would consider jQuery a hack. I've been patient in attempting to explain how jQuery works, but I am getting nowhere. Any thoughts on how I can better explain jQuery to an app reviewer? Yes, I know I can write my app without any Javascript library, but I am really hoping avoid that."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Panasonic has a TV app store? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169279)

jQuery is a hack too?

I learned two things today.

Ah, yes... but... FUCK BETA! (-1, Offtopic)

denzacar (181829) | about a year ago | (#46169397)

The main thing we all learned today is that Slashdot Beta sucks.

Re:Ah, yes... but... FUCK BETA! (3, Insightful)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year ago | (#46169493)

Hell no, we knew that for several months. What we learned today is that they're planning to promote the beta despite several months of people telling them it sucks. This is what annoys me even more than the bad design - they actually solicited our feedback, and we took the time to give it, then they completely ignored it.

Quite possibly indeed! But still... FUCK BETA! (4, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | about a year ago | (#46169567)

That's what Slashdot is for now.

Comments about how beta sucks, repeating "FUCK BETA" and... Fuck Beta.
I see no point discussing about anything else until they kill that abomination or just let us to continue using the classic interface.

Also, fuck beta.

Does it support unicode... (0)

gclef (96311) | about a year ago | (#46169613)

now? Let's find out:
Mötley Crüe

Re:Ah, yes... but... FUCK BETA! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169549)

The main thing we all learned today is that Slashdot Beta sucks.

We didn't learn that today. We've known that since October 1, 2013 [slashdot.org] .

1191 posts, (no, Beta, I won't click "more posts" a million times to read the entire thread, I'll just leave), nearly universal negative feedback, a bounce rate that must be in the 90%+ range (the other 10% being people who don't know how to turn it off), and despite having helped document the UX failures of Unity and Windows 8, Dice continues to double down on its own UX fail.

TIL: the beta sucked since October 1st. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169611)

And the suckage got much louder today.

Re:It Depends (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169487)

Compared to C, JQuery is considered a "hack" but only on Slashdot if you were to a poll...!

Beta is terrible! (2, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#46169287)

My Eyeses Precious!! they burnses!!

Re:Beta is terrible! (4, Insightful)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about a year ago | (#46169297)

Kill the Beta!!!!! Free Mod Points!!!!

Re:Beta is terrible! (5, Insightful)

LordFlower (606949) | about a year ago | (#46169409)

Fuck Beta twice for more modpoints!!

Re:Beta is terrible! (4, Informative)

chihowa (366380) | about a year ago | (#46169435)

It's like they realize that it's some sort of punishment, too. First, they inflicted it on the ACs, now they're redirecting logged in users. I payed them cold hard cash (which I'm regretting now) and as a subscriber they haven't started redirecting me, yet. When they do, I'm out.

Re:Beta is terrible! (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about a year ago | (#46169451)

Agreed. Here's the letter I sent to the feedback email about Beta:

I've been a Slashdot user since 2007. My username is JoshuaZ ID# 1134087. I strongly dislike the beta version. The large default font makes less on a page at any given time. The comment handling is inferior and is harder to follow. It makes it much harder to just see upvoted comments instead subjecting us to the entire thread. I don't want a choice between "all" and insightful, informative or funny. I want an option to just see the more upvoted comments with the other comments still there with their subject lines so I can then decide based on that if they are worth looking into.

The userpage interfact and display is also lacking. The new version of the achievement display is strictly inferior since it doesn't show when things happened or give any information about the achievements instead giving cutesy graphics that tell nothing about what an achievement is for. Even knowing what achievements are common, I had to use the inspect element feature on my browser to figure out which is which. Comments in the user page also don't show how much they have been upvoted or downvoted nor do they give their description of how they've been modded. There's also no way to just go directly from a comment on the userpage to the comment on the article page, but instead the link takes one directly to the top of the article. This means that if one wants to find the context of a comment one needs to go to the main article and then search for the comment itself. This is inconvenient.

Overall, beta has many minor inconveniences. Any of these by itself would be minor but the totality is highly unpleasant. All of these should be fixed.

Now that I've had even more experience with beta I'd have other fun things to add to that email. I'm not optimistic that any of this feedback is going to be listened to.

Re:Beta is terrible! (0)

mugnyte (203225) | about a year ago | (#46169685)

Certainly not without a true suggestion for alternatives, or writing like "userpage interfact".

Take some pics, circle the offenses, suggest an alternative pictorially. Ya know, like what real designers do when they want to improve a product.

If you say "I like it just the way it is" - realize that not everyone may agree, and you aren't in charge. Do you write these letters to all the sites you visit?

Um, WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169291)

Look, I'm no jquery fan. I code my js the same way I use a blowtorch: bare metal my friends. But jquery has been in industry wide use for years and is no "a hack".

Hey, Panasonic, what would you say about the /. Beta? Hmm??

Re:Um, WTF? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#46169373)

Hey, Panasonic, what would you say about the /. Beta? Hmm??

"It looks like shit".

Re:Um, WTF? (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#46169547)

Also, anybody whose development environment his HTML5/Javascript is...shall we say... poorly positioned to complain about people using giant stacks of abstraction layers.

Re:Um, WTF? (5, Insightful)

unrtst (777550) | about a year ago | (#46169721)

Inline it (jQuery).
When they ask how it communicates, tell them how, not what functions/callbacks you use in your code.
Ex. The server communicates using the standard Plex web API (or whatever it's called), documented _here_. The RCP calls are made using the standard XMLHttpRequest, with wrappers to ensure compatibility with the evolving web browser landscape. yada yada yada.

I'm sure it's a PITA, but I get the feeling the submitter said too much - explaining how jQuery internals work is going to seem like an over complicated nightmare. If they specifically ask about that weird looking "$.ajax" stuff, just tell them it is a simple wrapper that compensates for the subtle differences in XMLHttpRequest implementations. If the code finally gets to someone that can read it, they'll probably be quite familiar with jQuery and quite happy you are using it than some custom cobbled together hack :-)

Re:Um, WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169669)

Look, I'm no jquery fan. I code my js the same way I use a blowtorch: bare metal my friends.

Okay there, hotshot. You're a tough guy.

Re:Um, WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169719)

Okay there, hotshot. You're a tough guy.

Um, whoosh? Wasn't OP referring to having to weld things together in js & html just to make them work?

Move on (2)

barrywalker (1855110) | about a year ago | (#46169305)

They're retarded and have no fucking clue about technology.

Re:Move on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169381)

"Chump don't want no help, chump don't get no help." Yep, move on and let Panasonic be a chump.

Re:Move on (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169423)

Panasonic has no clue about technology? Hahahahahahahahaha. That's a good one. No they simply don't want retarded web monkeys writing bloated apps for their TVs.

Re:Move on (4, Insightful)

atari2600a (1892574) | about a year ago | (#46169701)

Implying the APP STORE on the TELEVISION....PLATFORM! isn't bloat enough?

ask them instead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169307)

Ask them what methods they find appropriate. Do it by email, so you can stab them in the face when they reject it again.

Re:ask them instead... (2)

DittoBox (978894) | about a year ago | (#46169415)

[...] you can stab them in the face when they reject it again.

An artful negotiating technique, subtle in its cunning.

Re:ask them instead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169633)

see, you generally win in the "what do they like" part, and if not, the implied threat from the email. Actually stabbing them in the face is rarely needed.

HTML itself is a hack (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169315)

So does one crappy hack deserve another?

Apple may be even worse (3, Interesting)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#46169323)

Any thoughts on how I can better explain jQuery to an app reviewer?

Where I work, there is an entire group of people, whose sole task is communicating with Apple's app-reviewers. Any time a new app is submitted, they even include a list of reasons, that led to another app of ours getting rejected earlier — with the explanations on why each of those reasons was invalid.

It is never an easy process...

Re:Apple may be even worse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169425)

You're missing the point. The goddamn beta sucks a big old horse's dick.

Re:Apple may be even worse (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#46169587)

Not that this makes either Panasonic or Apple 'better' in any way; but what strikes me as insane is that Panasonic would feel that they are in the position to be all fiddly and demanding about 'apps' submitted for their 'smart TV' platform.

Apple, as obnoxious as their control freakery has always been, undeniably have a walled garden that people would fight like dogs to get their applications into. Their position, in terms of platform ownership, is unbelievably enviable. They can be dicks all they like; because what are you going to do about it?

Panasonic? One of the largely-interchangeable makers of perfectly adequate but not thrilling TVs, pretty much every last one of which has a shitty 'smart TV' platform, all braindead in somewhat different and incompatible ways? What kind of leverage do they think they have?

Re:Apple may be even worse (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169691)

Lord knows. For a while I was thinking GoogleTV might go on to unify all these terrible "Smart TV" OSes into something actually worth developing for. Apparently not. :/

Re:Apple may be even worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169723)

That's because GoogleTV was itself just as terrible.

Psh, jQuery. (5, Informative)

ibneko (1080947) | about a year ago | (#46169325)

http://youmightnotneedjquery.c... [youmightno...jquery.com] ;)

Re:Psh, jQuery. (2, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#46169427)

Oh man so many of those examples are ridiculous.

Look you don't need jQuery! You just type 20 lines of code and it does the same thing as jQuery's 1 line of code.
See? jQuery isn't needed at all.

Re:Psh, jQuery. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169483)

Many of the non-jQuery versions were also a single line to maybe 2-3 lines. Only a handful were even over 10 lines of code and that's only if you can't a line with only a brace as a line of code.

Re:Psh, jQuery. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169641)

The point was that if you are only using one or two of these function consider writing your own equivalent function instead of including the entire jQuery library.

Re:Psh, jQuery. (4, Informative)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a year ago | (#46169773)

There are too many programmers who don't think that way. They'd rather include huge libraries, than write a few lines of code.

It is their (Panasonic's) platform. If they don't want jQuery, don't use jQuery. That seems simple enough.

I've had headaches where I had to put on some dev's code, that required a massive number of libraries. They didn't mind, because their dev machine had them all. They usually can't even say what libraries are really required, it's a game of "lets figure out why their app doesn't work."

I'm logged into one server in particular. One app, 39 different libraries had to be added in addition to the standard libraries included on the system. Some of those would be redundant, except they "wrote" their code with snippets from various places online that seem to do what they want. If you go back and ask what some of them do, they can't even really explain them.

Re:Psh, jQuery. (1)

watermark (913726) | about a year ago | (#46169729)

Ya, just write these 20 lines of code to do what one line does with jQuery. I think the point of the site is that you can easily write your own wrappers for IE9+. Then again, since jQuery 2.x doesn't support IE below version 9, presumably 2.x is such a wrapper (2.x has a notably smaller file size than 1.x). It just wraps everything you could possibly need. If you only need fade in/out, perhaps you should just write your own wrapper.

Re:Psh, jQuery. (2)

Hewligan (202585) | about a year ago | (#46169779)

So, from that I see that you might not need JQuery if everyone is using an up-to-date version of IE (or something that's not IE). Good luck with that.

Slashdot Beta sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169331)

How do I make it stop?

Re:Slashdot Beta sucks (5, Funny)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year ago | (#46169405)

Submit it to the Panasonic app store.

Um.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169335)

Um, jQuery *is* a hack. A necessary one that has grown into some kind of terrifying chimera, but still fundamentally a hack. It always has been.

Re:Um.. Please Explain (4, Informative)

BenJeremy (181303) | about a year ago | (#46169455)

What is being hacked? What exploit is required to make jQuery.js operate? How does it modify the javascript language to work?

jQuery.js is just a library of script routines designed to make a javascript programmer's life easier, like every other library out there, whether it's for C++, ActionScript, C# or assembler. It's not a binary... it is a collection of javascript functions.

Calling it a hack seems a bit ignorant of what hacks are. I've written hacks... patched XBox XDK libraries so I could get my Media X Menu to access extra hard drives in the system... interrupt routines loaded from DATA statements on my old C=64 that allowed me to display more sprites on screen than the hardware was supposed to display, or to do cool things with the borders. I've written multi-tasking kernels with assembler interspersed with the C code so I could directly access or manipulate hardware in embedded systems. Those are hacks.

At worst, you might call jQuery.js a kluge... but even then, jQuery.js works pretty well and doesn't require you to jump through hoops when making small changes (which kluges tend to do). ...so it's a library. A handy collection of useful routines developers can leverage so they do not have to write all that code again. Nothing more.

Re:Um.. Please Explain (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169603)

Ok, since you seem to think you know what jQuery is, but clearly don't, it's an API over the native browser APIs, which hacks around various glitches, quirks, and bugs in said native APIs. It also, as a consequence, makes it easier to write certain things than the native APIs often do, but that's NOT it's primary motivation. The vast majority of the code in jQuery is to work around browser issues, hence "jQuery is a hack". If you want to call it a kludge instead, fine. It's still not primarily a convenience library. That doesn't diminish it's usefulness, but don't go pretending it's not a "hack/kludge" when it is.

Re: Um.. Please Explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169707)

So you're going to blame jQuery for trying to standardize the non-consistent implementations of a standardized API? Sounds like you're the kludge. Get over yourself.

Re:Um.. Please Explain (2)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year ago | (#46169639)

The contemporary usage of JavaScript is in and of itself a hack. The language was never scoped to solve the problems it is presently being applied to. JavaScript has been leveraged to accomplish some pretty amazing feats, but that doesn't change the nature of how the language is being abused and contorted to accomplish them.

Re:Um.. Please Explain (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about a year ago | (#46169643)

Kludge and hack are synonymous, just not maybe the first definition. jQuery should probably this XKCD [xkcd.com]

So the fuck what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169339)

So Slashdot is now the blog of random web weenies? Why exactly is this something we are supposed to care about?

Re:No...Free Mod Points FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169543)

But we should be, and as will as enjoy the beta Slashdot as well...!

sure jQuery is a hack, so is most tech (4, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#46169341)

Most tech out there is a hack on top of a hack, that's what people do, they hack shit together.

oh look, an actual tech related "ask slashdot"... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169347)

I wonder if /. Is trying to put out a story that will attract actual answers, given that 90% of all the comments in the community today have been about the bloat of beta.slashdot.org instead of the topic presented in the summary.

As for the actual topic:

What are the reasons, other than time and it's associated costs, for not wanting to do without a javascript binary, just so you can use JQuery? It's been a trend I have been seeing lately with embedded devices (like TVs) being treated like they were desktop computers with gobs and gobs of resources to blow, and where deploying a large multipurpose binary for a single (or small number of) function(s) is commonplace.

Throwing a big multipurpose library in there can pose a significant security risk (from the company's PoV anyway) because the library can do much more than just handle the small number of things you want it to, and some of those things can be undesirable.

Other than the costs to time, what are your reasons for wanting to use a multipurpose javascript engine for such a narrow scope?

Re:oh look, an actual tech related "ask slashdot". (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | about a year ago | (#46169411)

Other than time? That in itself seems like all the reason anyone would need.

Re: oh look, an actual tech related "ask slashdot" (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169607)

The "time to develop being as close to zero as possible" thing is only looking at one part of the productivity/profitability angle.

If, for instance, your HTML5 app is able to be co-opted into doing very scary things by feeding it strange inputs for the plex server address, or by using some hack to send it instructions that make it improperly call additional functions in the script library (yes, I know javascript is sandboxed) then the developed application can suddenly be used in more sophisticated hacks, doing exactly what the code in the library was meant to, just not in ways the application was meant to.

This can result in loss of profitability for the company adopting the software and loss of percieved public image and reputation, which can cost the company a good amount of money.

At what point does saving 20 minutes to an hour of programming time trump the costs of the potential externalities?

That doesn't even count the issues with wasting space inside an embedded device's memory to hold code that will, by design anyway, never be executed.

Sometimes the correct course of action is to write the function yourself, and not include yet another library, especially when dealing with embedded or closed platform devices.

Putting a swiss-army knife in a closed platform goes against the purpose behind using a closed platform. The costs of such inclusion can dwarf the savings in development time.

Developer time is not the end-all of the discussion.

You don't need jquery for one ajax call. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169349)

Seems like a lot of overhead to save you one or two lines of code.

Indeed (1)

TechNeilogy (2948399) | about a year ago | (#46169355)

Just point them at indeed, where, last time I checked, jQuery was ranked number eight.

Re:Indeed (4, Insightful)

GumphMaster (772693) | about a year ago | (#46169713)

Sod that. Just point them at their own web site [panasonic.com] , where jQuery is included in every page, and tell them they've been hacked.

Boycott (4, Informative)

chebucto (992517) | about a year ago | (#46169357)

On February 5, 2014, Slashdot announced through a javascript popup that they are starting to "move in to" the new Slashdot Beta design.

Slashdot Beta is a trend-following attempt to give Slashdot a fresh look, an approach that has led to less space for text and an abandonment of the traditional Slashdot look. Much worse than that, Slashdot Beta fundamentally breaks the classic Slashdot discussion and moderation system.

If you haven't seen Slashdot Beta already, open this [slashdot.org] in a new tab. After seeing that, click here [slashdot.org] to return to classic Slashdot.

I propose that we boycott stories and only discuss the abomination that is Slashdot Beta until Dice abandons the project.

Moderators - only spend mod points on comments that discuss Beta
Commentors - only discuss Beta

Keep this up for a few days and we may finally get the PHBs attention.

Re:Boycott (1, Offtopic)

Traf-O-Data-Hater (858971) | about a year ago | (#46169467)

Agree entirely. Movin' on Up? More like moving on Across ...to another tech site.

Re:Boycott (1)

gerf (532474) | about a year ago | (#46169489)

They may as well have added animated tiles as links for articles, and it wouldn't be much worse.

Re:Boycott (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169495)

I'm definitely not using beta. When beta is the only thing left, i will stop reading slashdot

Re:Boycott (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169571)

This new interface is horrible. It is simply not as easy to consume information as the current.

I am challenged to keep up with the updates from every information source to which I subscribe. This would be a significant barrier to my daily use of this site.

Re:Boycott (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169575)

Looks like a standard commenting system, you cranky basement dweller

Re:Boycott (0)

mugnyte (203225) | about a year ago | (#46169577)

Well you didn't actually discuss the Beta, now did you?
I just clicked over. Yes, it's different. Not sure I like it, but I'd like to have that discussion on what specifically is bad, in your opinion.

We've been through this before, see... this isn't the first restyling of the ./ site. And we've watched as folks stomped their feet in protest but had little to suggest. Get constructive.

Re:Boycott (4, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about a year ago | (#46169717)

I believe he cited a number of points including the reduction in data density and the disregard for tradition in both form and function. Both points I also agree with. The beta version disregards the historical user base and its preferences in an attempt to attract non-Slashdot types.

Re:Boycott (1)

infogulch (1838658) | about a year ago | (#46169597)

Oh come on, the comments already look and feel a lot more modern, even if they are missing a couple features (read: it's still in beta). And the green gradient everywhere is getting old anyways.

Re:Boycott (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169619)

I truely wish clicking that would give me "Classic" Slashdot! Unfortunately "Classic" hasn't existed for non-members in years and clicking that only gives me this broken AJAX/javascript crap that isn't very browsable while doing something sensible like keeping scripting turned off. But even as insufferable as the Slashdot that has been mucked up for years it is far and above better then the crap that they running for beta.

Please, bring back "Classic Slashdot" and classic Sourceforge while your at it, keep the malware delivery systems away from here and Sourceforge. Hasn't current management done/allowed far too much damage to the reputations of these once fine sites already?

Re:Boycott (2)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about a year ago | (#46169629)

Hear hear. I've gone back to Classic and I'm afraid to look at Beta in case I can't return. I like being able to see at a glance if anyone has replied to my comments and what score I got for them. Couldn't do that in Beta last time I looked. In fact I found it almost impossible to find my comments, it's as if my comments were lost.

But Madonna Loves It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169367)

She says rejection is the greatest turn-on! And at her age (56!), that ain't so easy for her.

Re:But Madonna Loves It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169421)

Beta must be turned on fo sure

Where to go after Slashdot? (4, Insightful)

2phar (137027) | about a year ago | (#46169379)

Reddit isn't going to work. I like Hackaday.. But really, where is the best alternative? Can't use Slashdot much longer with this Beta.

Panasonic and Dice Holdings (1)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about a year ago | (#46169419)

Neither one apparently wants to hear what actual users think, but they probably ignore their own users and support departments while spending money on focus groups.

The thread in TFA has been full of people asking for an application just like the submitter's app, which adds value to their Panasonic TVs, and yet management keeps on pushing the beta site. Oh, what were we talking about again? MyCleanPC? [mycleanpc.com]

I kind of agree (4, Informative)

DrPBacon (3044515) | about a year ago | (#46169475)

JQuery is a hack. A useful one, but still a hack. You should be accountable for all your production code, and there's really nothing jQuery does that you can't do yourself with only a little more effort. http://youmightnotneedjquery.c... [youmightno...jquery.com] #incaseyoumissedit

Re:I kind of agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169659)

I kind of disagree. Js and JQ are here to stay and the old dog purists flame it but do not offer any good alternatives.

Spent all mod points on Beta protest (4, Informative)

duckgod (2664193) | about a year ago | (#46169739)

I would have modded you flamebait since you are using a reference that contradicts your statement in the first line on the site.- "jQuery and its cousins are great, and by all means use them if it makes it easier to develop your application."http://youmightnotneedjquery.c... [youmightno...jquery.com] #incaseyoumissedit

Re:I kind of agree (2)

radish (98371) | about a year ago | (#46169749)

You could say the same for any library in any language. Hell, you could say the same for a compiler. Or an assembler.

Skip it (2)

SeanBlader (1354199) | about a year ago | (#46169481)

Don't explain to them that you used jQuery, just tell them you used XMLHttpRequest(), and if they didn't intend it to be used, they should have included it in their JavaScript processor.

The Beta is horrible (5, Interesting)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#46169513)

The Beta of Slashdot is horrible.

Sadly, I'm going to be moving on from Slashdot, but I don't know of anywhere on the Net has such good discussions with such relatively intelligent people. The stories on Slashdot often suck, but the moderation moderation, I think, is what has kept it such a great place to have discussions. Is there any other site that has similar moderation?

Killed by CSS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169647)

So weak. You don't deserve to be here. Post a scriptmonkey block that delivers your flavor shiny, and earn your cred back.

Re:The Beta is horrible (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169655)

Hacker News.

Re:The Beta is horrible (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169733)

4chan. Wait - you like being called homophobic slurs, right?

Ceterum censeo Slashdotum esse delendam (1)

CaptainStumpy (1132145) | about a year ago | (#46169521)

Put this in EVERY subject you post. (But wait until someone checks my declensions first, its been awhile) More info: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki... [wikipedia.org]

Bad timing, hope this helps. (5, Informative)

sootman (158191) | about a year ago | (#46169527)

You had the unfortunate luck of having your story picked up during the middle of the slashdot beta shitfest, so most of the comments here will be about that. My condolences. (Also: the new beta sucks.)

Explain that jquery is not a hack or a workaround. It is a framework that is itself written in -- ta da! -- 100% valid javascript. Tell them it is nothing more than a collection of well-written, consistent, standards-based, heavily-reviewed and -tested code, and all it does is contain some pre-written libraries to make it easier to do common tasks.

It is sponsored by [jquery.org] many large companies, including Wordpress, BlackBerry, Intel, Mozilla, and Adobe, to pick just the most recognizable names from that page.

According to this [lineofthought.com] , it is used by Google, Facebook, AOL, ESPN, and whitehouse.gov. This [pingdom.com] 20-month old page also has a big list: WordPress.com, Pinterest, Reddit, MSN.com, WordPress.org, Amazon, Yandex, Microsoft.com, GO.com, Ask.com, ESPN, Craigslist, About.com, Go Daddy, Stack Overflow, Huffington Post, Instagram, Slideshare, Fox News, The Guardian, Etsy, LiveJournal, and Weather.com

Re:Bad timing, hope this helps. (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about a year ago | (#46169697)

According to this [lineofthought.com] , it is used by Google, Facebook, AOL, ESPN, and whitehouse.gov. This [pingdom.com] 20-month old page also has a big list: WordPress.com, Pinterest, Reddit, MSN.com, WordPress.org, Amazon, Yandex, Microsoft.com, GO.com, Ask.com, ESPN, Craigslist, About.com, Go Daddy, Stack Overflow, Huffington Post, Instagram, Slideshare, Fox News, The Guardian, Etsy, LiveJournal, and Weather.com

Who are these fly-by-night sites? You can look at the HTML source for a reputable company's [panasonic.com] website instead if you want a much more credible source.

Fuck Beta: I've been here for 13 years (5, Informative)

mclearn (86140) | about a year ago | (#46169553)

If I am forced out of Classic, I will leave and never look back.

Fuck beta.

Re:Fuck Beta: I've been here for 13 years (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169625)

I agree 100% The new design offers NOTHING. It is utterly soulless and spaces everything out requiring more and more fucking scrolling. Which is what seems to be the damn trend.


Re:Fuck Beta: I've been here for 13 years (1)

Nivag064 (904744) | about a year ago | (#46169673)

I agree with your first line - but not your last lne, as I am a bit fussy about the software I have sex with...

Unqualified (2)

infogulch (1838658) | about a year ago | (#46169557)

I don't suppose it would help to tell the reviewer that if they don't even know what JQuery is they shouldn't be reviewing anything that has to do with any web technology. It's just a convenience and compatibility wrapper library. It sounds like the reviewer has never touched any programming outside of excel, and is completely unqualified to perform any type of technical review.

It is a hack. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169585)

jQuery is a hack. Just like Dojo, cowtools, and whatever else is out there. Does that mean a hack is a bad thing? According to Panasonic.

Excuse me while I modify a dinner recipe to "hack" a different flavor than intended. Or would that not be allowed by Wolfgang?

Slashdot beta sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169591)

Slashdot beta sucks

NO! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169649)

If you move me to the beta slashdot abortion i'll add this place to the block list and never visit again.

Too many other news sites regurgitate the exact same storys i see here. And all of them don't look as shitty as the beta slashdot.

Stop being stupid


Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169663)

hahahahhahahaahahahahahahahhahahahahaha! *Takes breath*

Yours sincerely, a real javascript developer.

Beta blank space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169677)

Please tell me all this whitespace will be replaced with Google ads?

A workaround for what? (4, Insightful)

ysth (1368415) | about a year ago | (#46169683)

Reading the actual email they sent, it sounds to me like they provide a (javascript) API for doing what "VieraApp" is instead doing with a direct ajax call (and jQuery vs XMLHttpRequest is not the issue; it's not using their wrapper that is the issue).

Why they use jquery on their site. I Guess it is (1)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | about a year ago | (#46169741)

Use the source Luke.

Beta.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169745)

I bookmarked the classic weeks ago after the powers that be relentlessly keep trying to cram the improved version down our collectively throat.

Beta uses waaaay too much real estate. In a world in increasingly smaller devices, the appearance just doesn't make sense.


zenlessyank (748553) | about a year ago | (#46169747)

Triple stack clusterfuck. F U C K B E T A ------- Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.

JQUERY is in no way a hack. (1)

PenguinJeff (1248208) | about a year ago | (#46169761)

JQUERY is so common it should be built into all browsers and incorperated into the javascript standards and even replace the standards in some cases. JQUERY is nothing more than wrappers that make it so much easier to port between browsers and do things you would need to do outside of it. If anything the standard javascript that JQUERY wraps that does something different in all browsers to do what is called one thing under JQUERY is the browser hack and JQUERY covers it up nicely. To redo JQUERY by making your own wrapper functions is ludicrious and dumb. I would describe JQUERY as a javascript library that wraps up similar browser specific calls into a standard one call for all browsers. I feel so strongly on this I may need to contact the people that make the javascript standards and get them to update javascript standards. The lack of standards to do specific tasks and browser developers wanting to implement non existant standards is what prompted JQUERY in the first place.

Slashdot beta is the worst piece of shit ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#46169771)


Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?