What are you working on? v6

[KmartSqrl]

Not to mention it's faster than HTML5 almost completely across the board which makes your performance argument completely invalid in the first place.

[editline]14th July 2011[/editline]

Of course the CPU usage is going to be high, it's a benchmark for fucks sake.

[editline]14th July 2011[/editline]

You're sitting here showing us one number with no comparison from the other platform or the technology you're trying to defend. You've done absolutely nothing to back your argument up at all.

[Jelly_]

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;31111818]Not to mention it's faster than HTML5 almost completely across the board which makes your performance argument completely invalid in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Your proof for this is what? Year old benchmarks?

[editline]15th July 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;31111818]Of course the CPU usage is going to be high, it's a benchmark for fucks sake.[/QUOTE]

All I'm doing is going to either a youtube video or a full flash movie website.

[BrettJay]

[QUOTE=Jelly;31111889]Your proof for this is what? Year old benchmarks?[/QUOTE]
Well, considering that's valid, tangible, comparable data. You're the one posting screenshots of flash player ram usage without much context to ground it in. Try running the demos (They're hyperlinked in each section table, HTML5 and Flash respectively), and tell me if you get different results.

[QUOTE=Sc00by22;31111335]Try the HTML5 video for YouTube[/QUOTE]
Oh man, when I tried out the HTML5 beta a few months ago, it made me miss Youtube's Flash Player. The HTML5 player was much slower and buggier for me than Flash ever has been. Of course it's still experimental, but YouTube is a perfect case where I think flash is suitable and perhaps even the best tool for the job. There were just so many minor issues with the HTML5 player when I tried it. If the Youtube developers manage to iron out all the bugs, that's great, but for now, I'm going to stick with flash player on Youtube.

[spidersdesign]

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;31111472]Definitely, that's why the interactive agency I worked at for 6 months before I started freelancing did all their flash dev on OSX right? Most of the processing power from youtube is going to come from the video itself so that's a terrible metric for judging the performance of flash.[/QUOTE]
Before I state this I just want to make it clear I am not taking Jelly's side on this one so please don't attack. Flash performs horrifically on OSX compared with windows.

Also HTML5/CSS3 doesn't perform very well either yet (chrome can easily start using a lot of CPU for some simple animations) so it's not exactly ready to take over for some complex tasks.

[editline]14th July 2011[/editline]

I think for video delivery if the device can hardware decode it (like iphones can) streaming without flash is much better, however you sacrifice the ability to customize the chrome of the player and cannot enforce adverts. So it is still better to use flash for youtube and other sites like that.

[VoHiYo]

[QUOTE=TehWhale;31110767]We got programmer king rating now, this will be good.[/QUOTE]

hasn't that always been there?

[deadeye5362]

[QUOTE=BrettJay;31111997]Well, considering that's valid, tangible, comparable data. You're the one posting screenshots of flash player ram usage without much context to ground it in. And you're calling Kmart's 'proof' out?

Oh man, when I tried out the HTML5 beta a few months ago, it made me miss Youtube's Flash Player. The HTML5 player was much slower and buggier for me than Flash ever has been. Of course it's still experimental, but YouTube is a perfect case where I think flash is suitable and perhaps even the best tool for the job. There were just so many minor issues with the HTML5 player when I tried it. If the Youtube developers manage to iron out all the bugs, that's great, but for now, I'm going to stick with flash player on Youtube.[/QUOTE]

Currently, the bugginess of the HTML5 player is through the interface implementation. If you're aiming to compare video performance, I'd have to go with HTML5's <video> tag. Depending on the encoding of the video, and the browser you use, the <video> tag is hardware accelerated, and that greatly outperforms software accelerated video decoding.

Canvas is a pretty new standard that is still developing, you can't expect it to be fast or perfect at this stage. As browsers develop more to fit this standard, you will notice improved performance. Microsoft launched the IE10 Platform Preview a month or two ago which accelerates Canvas elements using the GPU, and the performance was spectacular compared to Chrome public or Firefox (at the time).

[KmartSqrl]

Which is still useless in any real world situation for the foreseeable future since support is so spotty, and will continue to be for a long time unless there's some sudden rise in people being aware are updating their browsers.

It's cool for tech demos, but not for anything commercial.

[TeratybeS]

When does this argument end?

[Jelly_]

Macbook Pro 7,1
Mac OS X 10.6.8
8GB 1067MHz DDR3
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo

Acer Aspire 5810T
Windows 7
4GB 398MHz DDR3
1.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo

[img]http://i.imgur.com/YiHon.png[/img]

Windows Flash does better than Mac Flash even much so that my Windows machine has half the specs of my Mac one.

[QUOTE=BrettJay;31111997]Well, considering that's valid, tangible, comparable data. You're the one posting screenshots of flash player ram usage without much context to ground it in. Try running the demos (They're hyperlinked in each section table, HTML5 and Flash respectively), and tell me if you get different results.[/QUOTE]

I got different results.

[Weiss]

This argument never ends

Somehow it got from here to both Steam group chats I was in, despite me being the only FPer in either one

[TeratybeS]

And I started it by just saying "You're using flash. Shame on you."

[Jelly_]

We're both bringing forth evidence and it isn't a flame war (yet), I don't see any problem with it.

[TeratybeS]

Well I hope it doesn't become one.

[spidersdesign]

WTF? Why was:

$variable::staticMethod();

only introduced in 5.3.

you have to:

call_user_func( $variable, "staticMethod");

How ridiculous. Why doesn't everyone switch to 5.3? 5.2 is like IE7 standards.

[StinkyJoe]

[QUOTE=spidersdesign;31114528]WTF? Why was:

$variable::staticMethod();

only introduced in 5.3.

you have to:

call_user_func( $variable, "staticMethod");

How ridiculous. Why doesn't everyone switch to 5.3? 5.2 is like IE7 standards.[/QUOTE]

Static methods should only be accessed through the class name. If anything else makes sense to you, then you don't understand object-oriented programming.

Correct:

MyClass::my_static_method()

No-no:

$my_instance_of_MyClass::my_static_method()

[TeratybeS]

[QUOTE=spidersdesign;31114528]WTF? Why was:

$variable::staticMethod();

only introduced in 5.3.

you have to:

call_user_func( $variable, "staticMethod");

How ridiculous. Why doesn't everyone switch to 5.3? 5.2 is like IE7 standards.[/QUOTE]Because it's a class method, they're meant to be used through the class, not through the corresponding object.

[Weiss]

So in the past [i]oh god it's been three hours[/i] I've really come to hate assembling things vertically with CSS.

You can have a look at what I'm doing at [url]http://clockler.com/ggbgbbg/[/url] - the idea should be pretty clear.
But the handling is inconsistent as all hell. I've mastered incompatibility, or so it seems. The page acts differently in all four of the browsers I regularly test in (Chrome, Firefox 4, IE9, Opera)
In Chrome it works perfectly. Exactly as intended.
In Firefox, it handles the percentage heights as relative to the full container element instead of its inner area (I think, I couldn't be bothered waiting the fifteen seconds it takes Firefox to start to reaffirm it's still doing this)
In Opera, it handles the percentage heights as relative to the screen exclusively.
In IE9, it cannot handle the negative margins I'm using to pull the footer text up underneath the cards at the bottom there, so the footer text is pushed a little way off the page.

What's even funnier about this is that the previous version of this before I completely rebuilt it was exactly the same as this one. Practically to the character. And it was broken in Chrome, too. I meant to add something when I was rebuilding it but I accidentally removed it while testing and it ended up with the same structure. Sleep deprivation is [i]awesome[/i].

Edit: Of course when content overflows the minimum bounds it's fine in Firefox and Opera.

[spidersdesign]

[QUOTE=StinkyJoe;31114664]Static methods should only be accessed through the class name. If anything else makes sense to you, then you don't understand object-oriented programming.

Correct:

MyClass::my_static_method()

No-no:

$my_instance_of_MyClass::my_static_method()

[/QUOTE]

Except I don't know the name of the class.

wait 2 secs i'll explain

I have a class (lets call it tom).

in the __construct method it creates an instance of another class (lets call it dick) in a property called dick.

Dick has a version number appended to the end (needs to as multiple versions of dicks may coexist)

The actual code that needs to access the static method (lets call it harry) does something like this:

$tom = new tom();
$tom->dick::harry();

The idea is that I can have any number of dicks (all with version numbers) and the only piece of code that is version specific is the one line in the __construct.

You may want to know why the hell would I need more than one version of dick (this is starting to sound weird):

It's because someone may have more than one of my plugins and they may not have updated all of them to the latest version - if I didn't version them then whichever one was declared first (something which I have no control over) would be set and if that was the older version then a plugin may try and use some new method and cause an error.

Understand why I need to do it now?

There should be a not necessarily rating. Sometimes I don't disagree with what someone's said but it isn't always true.

[StinkyJoe]

[QUOTE=spidersdesign;31115185]Except I don't know the name of the class.

wait 2 secs i'll explain

I have a class (lets call it tom).

in the __construct method it creates an instance of another class (lets call it dick) in a property called dick.

Dick has a version number appended to the end (needs to as multiple versions of dicks may coexist)

The actual code that needs to access the static method (lets call it harry) does something like this:

$tom = new tom();
$tom->dick::harry();

The idea is that I can have any number of dicks (all with version numbers) and the only piece of code that is version specific is the one line in the __construct.

You may want to know why the hell would I need more than one version of dick (this is starting to sound weird):

It's because someone may have more than one of my plugins and they may not have updated all of them to the latest version - if I didn't version them then whichever one was declared first (something which I have no control over) would be set and if that was the older version then a plugin may try and use some new method and cause an error.

Understand why I need to do it now?[/QUOTE]

You can get an instance's class name with [b]get_class[/b]. Your whole setup seems confusing and inefficient, however; you might want to have another look at it first.

[spidersdesign]

[QUOTE=StinkyJoe;31115567]You can get an instance's class name with [b]get_class[/b]. Your whole setup seems confusing and inefficient, however; you might want to have another look at it first.[/QUOTE]

I know you can but then what do I do with that; stick it in a variable and - oh yeh, that doesn't work so your back to using call_user_func (with an additional line of code).

I understand that you don't know why I need to do that so i'll try and explain a little further (with the real example):

$tom was a "pluginFramework" class (unique to each plugin so cannot be more than one) but extends a class that isn't unique to each plugin.

$dick is a settings class (used to store/retrieve plugin settings) and is used like this:

$tom->dick::new( "setting_id" ) //returns an instance of itself and stores it in a static property as an array element with the key "setting_id"
               ->default( "somevalue" )
               ->type( "email" );

//later in the code or in another file
$value = $tom->dick::fetch( "setting_id" )->value();

They need to be static methods because that's the only way that the instance can be retrieved somewhen else.

Still confused?

The only way I can do it (and support versions prior to 5.3) is to have two classes: a settings and a setting, which is annoying as it's not the logical way of doing it.

[TeratybeS]

[url]http://ifttt.com[/url] looks like a fucking awesome idea. I got accepted into the beta but I have no idea what to make a task for.

[ThatLuaCoder]

[url]http://dev-zilla.net/?p=7[/url]

Just wrote a post about how to put a Steam login on your SMF forum.

[StinkyJoe]

Working on a very rough system to keep track of the various articles/papers/etc that I've read (or possibly that I would like to read in the future). This is just a static non-functional page for now:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/kEt8s.png[/img]

Live preview: [url]http://fildob.com/kb/[/url]

Micro-data ahoy!

[TehWhale]

I've never seen a dotted border used that way. It looks nice, unlike most dotted borders.

[TeratybeS]

[QUOTE=StinkyJoe;31118898]Working on a very rough system to keep track of the various articles/papers/etc that I've read (or possibly that I would like to read in the future). This is just a static non-functional page for now:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/kEt8s.png[/img]

Live preview: [url]http://fildob.com/kb/[/url]

Micro-data ahoy![/QUOTE]What's the point in using microdata if it's for personal use?

[StinkyJoe]

[QUOTE=TeratybeS;31119352]What's the point in using microdata if it's for personal use?[/QUOTE]

It's for personal use for now, I might want to do something with it eventually. Besides, it's a good way to play around with some things I haven't used extensively yet.

[Uglehs]

[QUOTE=TeratybeS;31107647]You're using flash. Shame on you.[/QUOTE]
Im not going to quote each post but I do believe in the switch to HTML5. The reason I am using Flash and not HTML5 is because I simply know AS3. I really have not gotten into the Canvas feature of HTML5 because I have not had time yet, but I do plan on it when i have more time. My main goal on the sites production isnt the flash interface but the php interface, the background stuff ATM.

I love HTML5, ive seen sites use it like canv.as and I plan to switch to it once I get a better site design and experience in the matter.

[TeratybeS]

[QUOTE=Uglehs;31121197]Im not going to quote each post but I do believe in the switch to HTML5. The reason I am using Flash and not HTML5 is because I simply know AS3. I really have not gotten into the Canvas feature of HTML5 because I have not had time yet, but I do plan on it when i have more time. My main goal on the sites production isnt the flash interface but the php interface, the background stuff ATM.

I love HTML5, ive seen sites use it like canv.as and I plan to switch to it once I get a better site design and experience in the matter.[/QUOTE]I think you'll find it to be easy to pick up and way easier to use for the thing you're looking to do.

[editline]14th July 2011[/editline]

Also, how does your tuts+ backdoor work?

[Uglehs]

[QUOTE=TeratybeS;31121235]I think you'll find it to be easy to pick up and way easier to use for the thing you're looking to do.

[editline]14th July 2011[/editline]

Also, how does your tuts+ backdoor work?[/QUOTE]
Just like youtube I guess I will give the users the option to choose flash or html5. Really its different in many users. I still love youtube in Flash but thats just not the case anymore.

As for the TUTS+ backdoor its very simple. I own a Tuts+ premium account and all it does is uses curl to grab the download link and then uses wget and saves the file.

There is a lot of protection, like it wont download anything but a zip, it detects if the page is a tuts+ page, and if it detects the "server" not logged into Tuts+ it will do a curl login and save the cookies for later.

[TeratybeS]

[QUOTE=Uglehs;31121638]Just like youtube I guess I will give the users the option to choose flash or html5. Really its different in many users. I still love youtube in Flash but thats just not the case anymore.

As for the TUTS+ backdoor its very simple. I own a Tuts+ premium account and all it does is uses curl to grab the download link and then uses wget and saves the file.

There is a lot of protection, like it wont download anything but a zip, it detects if the page is a tuts+ page, and if it detects the "server" not logged into Tuts+ it will do a curl login and save the cookies for later.[/QUOTE]Interesting. I see you're not asking for anything in return though. How do you pay for its costs?