suzzer,

i was being satirical. although maybe you're out-trolling me:

if so, well played.

i have an insane idea: abandon the fear of losing "the leveling game" and just say what we mean?

tyler, i still don't know what you are trying to say or how much of it is a joke

suzzer,

Stylus works really well for what it's supposed to do. The scale of the page doesn't really matter in this case. You can use it without it being middleware so there's absolutely no performance hit because the css is already made beforehand.

Dust is so so I think at best. The original dust's author stopped developing it, then linked-in took over and made some questionable decisions with the lib. I would probably stuck to jade, swig or handlebars.

I haven't made any huge sites with node but there's some in the works. AFAIK myspace's new page is built ontop of express (the most popular web lib for node). Node itself is also sprinkled about at a lot of big companies. I wouldn't really say it's new anymore. Maybe compared to Java it's new heh.

If you want to glance over sites using node in general:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/...ies-Using-Node

Satirical or not, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Do you disagree that templates are necessary for the presentation layer? If so, what is your alternative?

Thanks this is really helpful. I forgot to mention that we are looking at express for the web lib as well. Looking at the docs for jade it looks like the templates can be run on the client-side or server-side, which is perfect for us.

Our web layer will consist of the presentation layer, a controller layer, and our API Client layer - which will make HTTP/REST calls to our back end services. I assume node/express can handle this last stuff just fine? The API client will need to handle authentication and error handling. The goal is to make the whole web layer as stateless as possible - since user sessions always get so messy. With the HTML5-enabled browsers we should be able to pull it off. Maybe IE will just have to have a server-side session and template rendering. **** the IE people anyway.

I think we're going with Stylus no matter what. Anything that can help modularize, organize and enforce good structure on our monster CSS base will be huge. Especially now that we have a lot of junior-level offshore developers mucking around in it.

Yeah stylus is pretty nice. There's also another lib from the stylus author that takes some pain away from CSS but doesn't give you a full env. like stylus. I use jade too. The syntax doesn't take long to get used to and I feel very productive with it. It might not be the fastest template engine ever in terms of run speed performance but micro benchmarks are horse **** when it comes to template languages because they will be cached in production and then it's irrelevant.

This just adds in vendor prefixes for css:
https://github.com/visionmedia/rework

Also if you're doing a lot of client side JS, you'll definitely want to look at this:
https://github.com/component/component

And testing:
https://github.com/visionmedia/mocha

Might just be easier to say look at this guy's repo list:
https://github.com/visionmedia

He's the author of Express/Component and made about 100 extremely useful node libs that many people use on a day to day basis.

Another guy to look at is:
https://github.com/substack

Sure, node was pretty much made for that type of thing. It's a complete beast when it comes to doing what you want.

Express handles sessions really well. Not only is it insanely easy to use sessions but if you want to move them out of the app into some type of memory db like redis then it requires no changes other than using a different data store in the session middleware.

Example, look at index.js and then redis.js:
https://github.com/visionmedia/expre...amples/session

That's all there is to it for making sessions work outside of your app's process if you happen to need that functionality in the future or decide to change your mind.

Btw the express examples folder on github is filled with a lot of good stuff. I'd probably start there for any pointers to see how things are done.

I've starting using foundation and this is my early impressions of it so far:

It's a double-edged sword in that is built with on the assumption that you want a responsive site. It uses a version of "grid layout" based on 12 columns. In English, this means that you wrap column divs inside of a row div:

And basically, that is where it is good and bad rolled up in one. As far as I can tell so far, you MUST have your columns add up to twelve, so you end up with something like this in order to make sure everything looks natural:

Although the above may look like you are creating a lot of divs, I've been deleting a lot of the divs I used with the Bootstrap. I have to be a tad careful with this statement because I did use a template, but I will also note that I did not use all of the pre-made divs from that template.

Things I don't like:

- The default colors are way too light. I wish they would have just let it be browser default. Not sure where this trend of making everything light-colored is coming from, but it clearly has to be breaking the W3C accessibility standard.

- The CSS is a whopping 6033 LOC. I'm going to have to research into finding something that will automatically erase all the excess code since I'll only be using about 100 LOC.

- To get the Sass version, you have to install Compass and then install the foundation gem. This isn't really a big deal since Sass depends on Ruby, but it is sort of an irritation that they offer you a config.rb file and tell you to place it in the root directory when you deploy your app. It's a bit presumptuous of people to assume you are using their favorite framework. They even pre-define the routes for you:

- It would be nice if there was a normal SCSS file that is similar to the Sass you'd create by hand. Instead they give you a huge file full of things that you can comment out, but I don't know what half of it means, but I haven't really dived into it either.

Things I do like:

- Sass, obviously. I don't know LESS, so that is a plus, but as I pointed out, this may be an illusory benefit.

- If you don't want to use Sass, you can use the straight-up CSS. The CSS is completely human readable and familiar, which Bootstrap isn't. (I would know this because I did edit the straight CSS in Bootstrap, yuck)

- As I mentioned earlier, I'm using less div-soup than I was before. Foundation feels more flexible and freeing than Bootstrap, but each appears to have their own opinions.

- The nice thing about foundation is that it doesn't really suggest that you are done once you slap something up. I don't get the sense that there will ever be a classical "Foundation" site like there is a "Bootstrap" site. I don't know if it is the way Bootstrap markets itself or if it is truly less designer-friendly.

This last sort of irritates me but it's not a "bad" thing per se: Foundation makes the assumption that you will create a semantic HTML site, and whilst that is true for some sites, it's not the truth for all sites, so similar to Bootstrap, you have the non-semantic div names, so you don't have a "nav" or "article" class in the CSS for example.

lol @ this letter from my bank this morning:



They storing account numbers as floats lol?

4.35401e7 = 43540100

So probably not float but still lol.

Maybe it's a string and the e(xtra)+007 also means you're sharing your account with James Bond.

http://gizmodo.com/5980842/there-is-...in-github-code

what kind of naming conventions do you guys use when just throwing some code together or trying something out?

I lean towards fairly generic and safe foobar-ish terms. If I'm annoyed or frustrated I go to the sh**/fu** terms.

Looks like a formatting error not a storage error to me, re: the Ing letter.

Web Warrior Wanted (Los Angeles)

You're a trend-savvy, whip-smart Code Warrior Supreme with Cheese, and you know it. You live to develop. You make those code guys in The Social Network look like Cub Scouts at After School Science Club. You're just waiting for the next hot Internet startup to come calling, so you can really show your stuff. Wake up, McNerd, we're knocking at the door!

Ugh, I can only imagine the amount of forced "fun" and Kool-Aid drinking that would go on at a job like that.

Reminds me of the minor Dead Island scandal some years back: http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/09/...d-islands-data

I don't even understand the motivation behind this. Like, there's no way ****** or ****** is the best description for whatever you're using (and calling a python module that is just wow). I mean it seems like these people are just literally being jerks for no reason. =/

how difficult would it be to write a bot that plays a flash game? there's buttons to click and simple game states to determine and a simple set of rules. for example: there's a box and if the box displays the number 5 then press one button, if it displays the number 10 click a different button, etc. something like that.

i only really know c++ well, but obviously that's not at all suited to something like this. i guess a better question would be what language should i consider learning and what approach should i take?

So, I just spent a few hours with foundation:



Not complete, obviously, but its pretty cool to see what can be accomplished in a few hours. I like this a bit better than the current design even though it is a tad rough right now. I do like how the top of the page laid out: I don't think I'd be able to do that if I was hand-writing my own CSS. The rest of the layouts are fairly satisfying also, it's all super easy to do with the column idea in Foundation. So, I guess for people wondering about a comparison between it and Bootstrap, you have to answer how easy it is to create the above layout + have it responsive in Bootstrap. If you'd like a screenshot of how it looks on a small browser, I can pull that up too.

I ended up just deciding to edit the raw CSS file included in Foundation.

this way lies madness. hope you've got a migration plan!

Probably just using Excel and it autoconverted lol.

Time to switch banks

Edit: daveT would you mind if I'd go over the content on your site sometime next week and PM you my thoughts? I might not have any suggestions but I like to do this for fun every now and then

You know, I consider !important to be a sign of quick hacks, but I'd rather use !important than edit a framework's core CSS.

daveT: bootstrap.css has a similar 12 column layout, either with fixed width column sizes or percentage based ones (row versus row-fluid classes on containers)

It seems to work fairly well in my (somewhat limited) experience. And of course you don't have to use those classes to use other parts of bootstrap. I have never tried foundation

also I think you could override things you don't like just by making your own CSS file, including it after the foundation one, and overriding the class definitions?

Great. If I agree with this then the ATF guys are going to think I sold out.

I won't tell anyone if you won't