Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to Outlook.com.
Thread beginning with comment 545944
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[14]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Thu 20th Dec 2012 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[13]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26


If you are writing you workaround in Server Side code you are doing it wrong.

Another massively generated statement. I really do question your sanity if everything in your world is so 'black and white'.


If you need to write targeted code and care about having the lowest foot print possible (essential for popular sites or mobile sites), then it can make sense to have said targeted code on the server side.

One example could be detecting whether to serve a mobile site or a desktop site. But like everything in IT, it's about using the best tool for the job.


I said I didn't like their one IDE, I didn't comment on the rest of them, that is something that lives inside your imagination.

Yeah, you're right. My apologies ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[15]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Thu 20th Dec 2012 13:08 in reply to "RE[14]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Another massively generated statement. I really do question your sanity if everything in your world is so 'black and white'.


I don't see everything in black and white, however I think that a site should be built around content first and while there is a need in some cases (smaller images for mobile is an example), I think as much as possible should be handled by the user agent.

If you need to write targeted code and care about having the lowest foot print possible (essential for popular sites or mobile sites), then it can make sense to have said targeted code on the server side.


Writing targeted code is why we are in the current predicament of non-webkit browsers being forced to honour -webkit.

One example could be detecting whether to serve a mobile site or a desktop site. But like everything in IT, it's about using the best tool for the job.


I think that is acceptable when it comes to images and very little else.

Yes you should use the best tools for the job, but work around for limitations in the browser IMHO should only be used if you HAVE TO and it should be well documented why you did it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[16]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Thu 20th Dec 2012 14:05 in reply to "RE[15]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I don't see everything in black and white

Well clearly you do because every point you've made has been definitive: "you absolutely should do this / should never do that!" blah blah blah.

All because you want to try and convince me that you know what you're talking about. Yet the ironic thing is, using such absolutes only makes you seem inflexible and inexperienced (which I'm sure you're not, but you're not helping your case).

however I think that a site should be built around content first

"however"? I was never implying that content shouldn't come first.

Writing targeted code is why we are in the current predicament of non-webkit browsers being forced to honour -webkit.

Actually no. The reason why is because some developers are inflexible and only target webkit.

The whole bloody point of targeted code is that you're writing code to support other browsers outside of webkit.

If you're writing targeted code and still only supporting webkit then you're a complete fail of web developer.

I think that is acceptable when it comes to images and very little else.

Depends on the layout of the site. Some layouts don't scale well for smaller screens so it makes much more sense to have a mobile style sheet. (yeah I know about how sites should dynamically scale well, and in an ideal world all designs would do so. But in the real world it isn't always practical).

Also some sites are too content rich for mobile connections (eg 3G), so it makes sense to cut down on some of the content (and I don't mean remove important content, I mean remove the unimportant content such as have comments on a separate page to the article. I know OSNews does this on their desktop site, but most blogs do not).

Also some sites might have custom fonts or Javascript to handle mouseover events, both of which just adds yet more bloat for users browsing via 3G.

Maybe you don't share this view. Maybe you're one of the numpties who things dozens of separate javascript and CSS includes makes sense. But I prefer to write optimised yet highly manageable code that works well on all platforms. Which means occasionally resorting to targeted code.

Yes you should use the best tools for the job, but work around for limitations in the browser IMHO should only be used if you HAVE TO

I'd rather people worked around the limitations of browsers than limit their site because of one or two crappy browsers.


and it should be well documented why you did it.

Well yeah. Everything should be documented (or at least a few well placed comments), hacks and "normal" code. But that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Edited 2012-12-20 14:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2