doc4t

"First, the development tools available to Internet Explorer are absolute butt hole"

Yes the build-in dev tools are not on par with the other browsers but I wouldn't say that Visual Studio is butt hole. I don't use it myself but as I understand it is generally acclaimed to be one of the best IDEs. If you don't want to run VS which I perfectly understand then go with MS Script debugger. It would probably bring down your number of "shit giggles"

"It feels like Microsoft deliberately takes the stance of making it HARD to develop software for Internet Explorer"

It feels like Apple deliberately takes the stance of making it HARD to develop software for Safari qua not providing vms.

"Supporting IE is a time sink, but not just because it's "hard" to set up Windows environments,"

I can provide the same argument for any system which I am not familiar with.

"but because Microsoft actively tries to make it hard for developers to code, test, and debug applications in Internet Explorer."

From what my MS developer coworkers say they are actually quite pleased with how much MS gets involved in their development community. But that's just anecdotal I guess...

"I've been developing on Mac for 4 years and haven't used Internet Explorer as an every-day browser in 7 years"

Well maybe it is time to learn it again then. Lots of things have improved. What do you know - you might even make life easier for yourself...

It was not my intention to side track the discussion. I just don't like the simplification of comparing with cars - but the OP made it clear that I misunderstood his post.

I agree. I'm not sure it ever will. But comparing software to a car and the relationship between the buyer and seller is too simplified. Software have bugs. Many more bugs than cars. Because it's not tested properly. Which we don't do because no one would buy it at the price which comes from proper testing.

You can accept this and write your contract accordingly or you can sit down, muck and be disappointed when it fails.

I'm not saying it's right - it's just how things are.

Ok. The possible combinations of the way your application can (theoretically) run far outnumbers the estimated number of atoms in the visible universe - even for small programs. You just need a couple of loops in loops. If your program don't have it then I'm sure Node, Apache, Postgres, Rails whatever have plenty.

While many of these combinations may never happen you would still have to provide proof of all of them not causing your program to go into a state which you can not handle.

"and then go and make some of your own comparisons with the space shuttle" This was a comparison of complexity - not a direct comparison between the two.

It's still a good example when trying to convey the complexity of software to people who don't understand computers since most have an idea that space shuttles are very complex (which they of cause are)

My point was that that testing all possible combinations of how your app can execute is next to impossible unless you are willing to cough up a serious amount of money for rigid mathematical proving. Which would then make it too expensive.

Which is sad because I like to have all kinds of users but it's really really difficult to accommodate for all you guys browsing on a mac.

Please hit me with hints to make life easier for myself if you have some...

While popular the comparison between cars and computer programs are not well chosen. Actually comparing software to any physical object is point-less. These two only have anything in common on the surface.

If you were to make software require the rigorous testing that physical products like cars undergo you would likely never be able to ship anything. If you did the customer would not be willing to pay the price.

Software is infinitely more complex than even space shuttles. The number of possible combinations which you program can traverse is so big it doesn't make any sense.

You could of course start proving mathematically that your software will always behave correctly. This would require you to use a language which facilitates such a method like erlang. No more web development in PHP, Ruby, JavaScript or anything else which relies on probabilistic garbage collection.

I guarantee you that once you spend the money having your code proven your costs are so high that no one will buy your software. In stead they'll turn to the competitor who wrote it in VB and accept their EULA and live with any errors.

The nature of software is not the same as of physical objects. You can either accept this and plan accordingly or you can betray yourself and keep getting angry about bugs.

"does anything like this exist for windows?" Not the exact same but if you start to drag then you can alt-tab to focus the application where you want to drop (if you can't see it already)

Given that the OP works for an organization which is "focused on digitization of government data" it is quite peculiar that he doesn't understand the problem domain any better. It's quite a joke to think that it's a matter of throwing in some web forms here and there.

In complexity I would say it's up there with his favorite Apollo quote. Maybe not on par - but close. Just thinking about the size of the rule engine which is required makes my head hurt.

Any experienced programmer should definitely start elsewhere so he can make up his own mind about Crockfords ideas about how programming should be. While the book is ok-ish almost half of the material is about Crockfords personal preferences for coding style and can be applied to any language.

JavaScript - The Definite Guide by David Flanagan is in my opinion the best book on the subject. No other JS book comes even close in clarity and thoroughness.

http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-Definitive-Guide-Activate-G...

If you really want this world join ATTACK or a similar organization and try to bring down WTO for starters.

Note: Not arguing one over the other - just stating the obvious

When the entire process is analog I (and everyone else) can transparently verify what is going on. From I submit my vote to it is counted so many people are involved from all political parties that cheating becomes virtually impossible.

Once you start to digitize the process you loose transparency completely. I can not see what is going on. The counting is computerized. I have to place trust in however implemented the algorithm. Also since I don't know much about crypto I even have to place trust in the guy telling me he did it right.

I loose my ability to verify that the process is running untampered...and I'm a clever guy. I know CS and math and what not. Imagine the alienation of common people without IT education

Voting is just one of those things that should not be computerized - there is no benefit. The current model is even costless since the people involved in the administration of votes and counting are volunteers (at least in DK).

Source code will never be transparent to anyone but programmers.

I will trust this system of humans counting any day over a sum function in a database implemented by a private company with their own agenda

This is because - among other things - that the system is transparent to everyone involved.

You are trying to fix a problem which don't exist - and you are fixing it the wrong way. E-voting opens up a huge amount of possibilities of cheating and worst of all it is going to be even more difficult to find out when it happens.

Worst of all the entire process will end to be transparent to the layman...

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Algorithms-Thomas-H-Corme...

BTW Using PHPStorm on Win7 64

Never use alerts to output debug info - the alert itself may interfere with the events you are trying to debug

console.log is mostly reliable - but sometimes the value of a variable will not be what you think due to firebug weirdness (or hoisting?) - use break points instead.

If you are required to make stuff work in IE the JS debugger that comes with IE8+ is actually rather good (and more stable than Firebug).

JS Lint your code but don't use an overly zealous settings. JS is flexible - no need to constrain yourself.

The only book worth reading IMO if you really want to learn the details is "JavaScript - The Definitive Guide" by David Flanagan (ISBN 0596805527).

Crockfords good parts is mostly about his general preferences for programming style. Definitely don't read it like the bible.

If you want to focus on UI learn how to use events properly - this means not using frameworks but doing it from scratch yourself.

Read up on event driven programming and asynchronous behaviors

Learn JS first - then jQuery, Prototype, whatever second.

Before being hired you obviously have a normal interview with the customer. The depth/length of the interview is proportional to the duration of the assignment which can be anything from 3 days to several years. My last assignment was 10 months and only ended as I decided to not extend the contract.

I generally like that a given job is usually no longer than 3 months. I come, work, enjoy and leave again before it gets boring. And you leave with A LOT more money than being full time employed.

The downside of course that you have no job security, pension, health insurance and you have to manage your own company including accounting and legal work. But this is also why you are paid more as you need the money for the services related to your company.

It is my impression that it is always possible to get work. The more specialized you are and the more experience the higher the paycheck.

If you happen to be located in northern Europe I would recommend ProData Consult (www.prodataconsult.com) - my current agency. They do require your expertise to be at a certain level though.

Even though I am busy at the moment doing one of my own project I am continuously being offered new jobs from these guys and I have the impression that they really care about 'their' consultants.

For the provision they will do all the legal work - which can be considerable. I'm very satisfied with this arrangement.

I would recommend you to get in touch with agencies. Just make sure they don't screw you over - the division should be at least 80/20 in your favor.

http://www.agilejournal.com/articles/17-articles/1737-what-i...