[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Debian, FF & NavyFed



>> As soon they come back with and display my balance all the text 
>> turnes to grey and a twiddler pops up and it stays like that forever.
>>     NFCU's tech support will not admit to knowing who's waiting for 
>> what just we don't support Linux.

Speaking as a programmer. You write websites for a standard, not a browser, language, operating system. This is what is wrong with the web. Wasn't Java supposed to be a web language? What is so wrong with html 5. In full disclosure, I only tabble in TCL programming now days, never dealt a lot with websites but html 5 looks pretty darn good to me. 

Windows, Mac, Linux, Unix shouldn't have to have anything to do with how webpages are programmed. 

If your website can not pass W3C standards, you don't need to be publishing it to the web.

I apologize about the rant but we need to put the blame where it belongs. Today's web programmers that don't crap about programming and their employers who don't do due diligence in TESTING, Quality Control and reliability of the product (Website) they create.

This is coming from a programmer who programmed on a lot of different platforms over the years (1979-present)

All I'm saying is 'in the day' computers costed money and you learned how to get the most out of them and do it reliably. To me OOP (Object oriented programming) meant chain loading basic programs or patching in and deleting out basic lines of code on the fly for the options the user selected. 

Last note, WHY do we have to keep reinventing the wheel (i.e. the next big great language). There are a lot of GOOD languages out there already. Companies, programmers and end users waste too much time chasing the next big thing and the latest and greatest. 

Today's language: Excel 2010 for me. As a programmer I haven't been 'gettin it (spreadsheets)' for years until I decided to look at it as a language. Now, picking up on it fairly easily. :)

Regards and have a blessed day,

Richard
 


Reply to: