Web Development - WAYWO - #8 - Developers

Anyone got a good guide on how to animate vectors? (Preferable SVG) I want to change an icons appearance on hover. Like going from a X to an arrow.

[QUOTE=HarryG321;45366116]Finally decided to learn Bootstrap, but I can't deciide how I feel about it. Really simple to learn and prototype with, but requires so much HTML to get the job done.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by "so much html"? Would you rather write more JS or just less of anything?

I wrote my website in Markdown, and it just "recompiles" the entire set of pages. Basically it has a "header" and "footer" file, then it parses all markdown files from {file}.md to {file}.html, and that leaves the entire writing of pages to just write simple markdown files. It's beautiful. Am I the only one doing this for static pages?

[QUOTE=mastersrp;45366769]I wrote my website in Markdown, and it just "recompiles" the entire set of pages. Basically it has a "header" and "footer" file, then it parses all markdown files from {file}.md to {file}.html, and that leaves the entire writing of pages to just write simple markdown files. It's beautiful. Am I the only one doing this for static pages?[/QUOTE] Why not just write html? [editline]12th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=xmariusx;45366166]Anyone got a good guide on how to animate vectors? (Preferable SVG) I want to change an icons appearance on hover. Like going from a X to an arrow.[/QUOTE] Answering myself here: D3 seems like it would be of great help here. What do you guys think? [url]http://d3js.org/[/url] 51kb .min.js

[QUOTE=xmariusx;45366795]Why not just write html? [/QUOTE] Markdown takes up less space, and is easy to look at when you're writing it. Makes for a simpler view of the code, and less bloat to mind. It does require more dependencies to maintain, but it is easier to read in the longer run I think. I prefer to think of it as a compilation process like C to native code (although that's a bad analogy).

[QUOTE=mastersrp;45366769]I wrote my website in Markdown, and it just "recompiles" the entire set of pages. Basically it has a "header" and "footer" file, then it parses all markdown files from {file}.md to {file}.html, and that leaves the entire writing of pages to just write simple markdown files. It's beautiful. Am I the only one doing this for static pages?[/QUOTE] Nope, I use it as well. Well I use DocPad which uses markdown

[QUOTE=mastersrp;45366872]Markdown takes up less space, and is easy to look at when you're writing it. Makes for a simpler view of the code, and less bloat to mind. It does require more dependencies to maintain, but it is easier to read in the longer run I think. I prefer to think of it as a compilation process like C to native code (although that's a bad analogy).[/QUOTE] Personally I like knowing exactly what I'm looking at without having to reference anything but that's just me. I never took any classes or anything like that for HTML, it's so easy to read. I can see that <b> means bold. ** isn't as straight forward. Neither is **** as being equivalent to <h1>. That's just me though. I find it rubbish to read whereas I find HTML extremely straight forward and quick to read

[QUOTE=Banana Lord.;45366922]Personally I like knowing exactly what I'm looking at without having to reference anything but that's just me. I never took any classes or anything like that for HTML, it's so easy to read. I can see that <b> means bold. ** isn't as straight forward. Neither is **** as being equivalent to <h1>. That's just me though. I find it rubbish to read whereas I find HTML extremely straight forward and quick to read[/QUOTE] When a page get's slightly complicated with ul/li and divs and classes and links and all kinds of fancy shit, I find it easier to do with Markdown, but that's just me. It is of course a matter of personal preference, however I doubt that one could write the same amount of HTML code for a page, that a Markdown page of the same would correspond to. Plus, if you know the simple syntax and specifications of Markdown (there's not a lot to it, really), then writing Markdown you know exactly what kind of HTML code you'll get. I mean, one could easily write the whole thing in HTML and live happy for a long time, but if time is money for you and you find yourself more productive writing less (as I do), then Markdown can aid in that area.

I find Sublime Text 3's tag auto complete lets me write code pretty quickly. But yes, to each his own

I love-hate auto-complete because it screws me all the time when I want to add tags to existing things, so I need to remove the auto-generated end tag and write it again at the actual end of the thing :v:

[QUOTE=Coment;45367009]I love-hate auto-complete because it screws me all the time when I want to add tags to existing things, so I need to remove the auto-generated end tag and write it again at the actual end of the thing :v:[/QUOTE] Heh, remember having the same problem when I used ST2. Using brackets now, where that isn't a problem at all, or I've just found a way around it without knowing it.

[QUOTE=AndrewPH;45360143][url=http://hypertext.ml/collect/]The first prototype of this thing I'm working on[/url] It's been described as "addictive", even now. (Drag the thing, if it's not obvious)[/QUOTE] [t]http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/633291Sanstitre1.png[/t] p.s.: got my fps droped :/

[QUOTE=dexon;45367704][t]http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/633291Sanstitre1.png[/t] p.s.: got my fps droped :/[/QUOTE] Nice! Can't wait to rewrite it so that it's not embarrassingly bad looking.

[QUOTE=mastersrp;45366769]I wrote my website in Markdown, and it just "recompiles" the entire set of pages. Basically it has a "header" and "footer" file, then it parses all markdown files from {file}.md to {file}.html, and that leaves the entire writing of pages to just write simple markdown files. It's beautiful. Am I the only one doing this for static pages?[/QUOTE] [url=http://staticsitegenerators.net/]Here's a whole list of them.[/url]

i'm probably late as fuck but ghost is really neat [url]http://ghost.org[/url]

[QUOTE=ifaux;45370493]i'm probably late as fuck but ghost is really neat [url]http://ghost.org[/url][/QUOTE] I hate websites like that. They are so fucking full of themselves that all they say is "trust me it's pretty awesome! Now give me your username, email and password."

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;45370778]I hate websites like that. They are so fucking full of themselves that all they say is "trust me it's pretty awesome! Now give me your username, email and password."[/QUOTE] He probably meant to link to this: [url]https://ghost.org/download/[/url] Though it's not a static site generator, but a blogging platform that uses node.js. If you want a static site generator, you could go with [url=http://jekyllrb.com/]Jekyll[/url].

My static site generator consists of a HTML header and footer, some SCSS code, markdown pages, bash scripts, and a couple of Tupfiles for Tup to use. That's really it, it just depends on a POSIX shell, Tup (optional), Sassc, and Discount.

[QUOTE=xmariusx;45367065]Heh, remember having the same problem when I used ST2. Using brackets now, where that isn't a problem at all, or I've just found a way around it without knowing it.[/QUOTE] Can you give an example? I hate Brackets because it lacks so much auto-complete, even simple ending } writing CSS. And the editor focuses on front-end <.<

[QUOTE=AndrewPH;45368793]Nice! Can't wait to rewrite it so that it's not embarrassingly bad looking.[/QUOTE] ;) Also, i tried at 1,000,000,000 stars load. Opera crashed :( Anyway that's cool.

[QUOTE=Moofy;45371955]Can you give an example? I hate Brackets because it lacks so much auto-complete, even simple ending } writing CSS. And the editor focuses on front-end <.<[/QUOTE] Sample of what? And I'm a front-end developer ._.

[QUOTE=xmariusx;45372315]Sample of what? And I'm a front-end developer ._.[/QUOTE] Example where you feel like Brackets is a clear winner over ST2/3 :v: - Just curious, not looking for a discussion which is better.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/N4ofrPm.png[/img] Fancy shit. Soon, sound played when a chat message is received. Currently the "delay" is about a few milliseconds, we're really not talking about seconds at all. Later the website will allow people to create accounts and create their own UDP listener for free, and then they can show their server's chat using javascript and websockets. Currently the incoming chat is parsed using logaddress_add (which sends some console output using UDP packets), but I plan on implementing a POST API too so people can send more than just name, steamid and what they say in chat. Custom stuff for everyone, for free! Also posting this in the Developers Section WAYWO :v: TrinityX did the regexing for me as I am still quite shit with that, however, simple base project. Test server is up, for those who are interested, but will post all that once I release the next "update". edit: url: [url]http://sourcechatjs.com[/url] Please try to break it and let me know.

[QUOTE=Moofy;45371955]Can you give an example? I hate Brackets because it lacks so much auto-complete, even simple ending } writing CSS. And the editor focuses on front-end <.<[/QUOTE] what are you talking about brackets closes curly braces in css.

[QUOTE=AndrewPH;45372721]what are you talking about brackets closes curly braces in css.[/QUOTE] It doesn't for me, and I am not kidding :suicide: Once it did, but it just stopped doing it, no plugins no nothing.

Anyone here use the MEAN stack?

[QUOTE=Relaxation;45378106]Anyone here use the MEAN stack?[/QUOTE] I've never heard of it before but MongoDB is gross.

[url]http://mean.io/#!/[/url] Mongo seems to be fine for small scale work, and it seems to be for lazy people so far. Haven't used it very much yet. I make websites for attorneys and they're mostly static. (new to web dev) What are some good stacks for web design / devlopment? I'll mainly be doing front-end, but in the even that I need to work with back-end, I want my stack to have that support / tools to do so.

[QUOTE=HarryG321;45366116]Finally decided to learn Bootstrap, but I can't deciide how I feel about it. Really simple to learn and prototype with, but requires so much HTML to get the job done.[/QUOTE] It's weird seeing someone saying they need to learn a framework which is just some premade css classes and js functions slapped together into a bundle like as if its a whole new language. As for the "needs so much HTML" what were you expecting? Something like Less but for everything? :v:

[QUOTE=Relaxation;45378106]Anyone here use the MEAN stack?[/QUOTE] I use something similar, the angular setup from mean but a seperate node setup with restify + mongoose instead of express. It works very well from cloud9 IDE, too (which is really great!). It's the first time for me to use mongodb and angular but development is really nice and easy, also loving how you can do grunt build and get everthing minfied.