Rubbish code from alleged professionals.
Wednesday, 5. November 2008, 22:34:12
It's been almost a year since I've posted anything - mostly because I'm just not the blogging type. I have anything to say it usually ends up in a forum discussion... But this time around I'm pissed off - just because of the constant ineptitude shown by the programmers at successful companies.
In this case the primary target of my wrath is Microsoft. Yes, they are an easy target - but lands sake how the devil do you bone webmail this badly?
The newest incarnation of Hotmail is a train wreck the likes I've not seen since the last time I poked my head into that rubbish YUI library yahoo likes to use to claim they know something about HTML/CSS. The ONLY reason crap like this is usually allowed to even reach the marketplace is the suits don't realize just how inept their coders really are.
Using Opera as a browser, the new hotmail seems to 'hang' on the first page load on trying to load some element that doesn't resolve. This 'hang' prevents ANY of the links on the page from functioning until it times out because they are ALL javascripted via onload - with ZERO fallbacks for javascript not present. Violates the very principle of javascript being to ENHANCE functionality, NOT REPLACE IT!!!
It's a wonderful example of throwing AJAX at a website for no good reason, in a manner that frankly is IMHO costing them MORE bandwidth than if they just stripped the damned thing down to what hotmail was back in 1998 before Microsoft took over and ****ed with it.
The sad part is, I really LIKE how the new hotmail LOOKS... But there's this laundry list of issues that make it next to useless. ten to twenty seconds to resolve ANY link I click on? No visual cue's that it's even DOING anything? An editor that 90% of the time doesn't even let me enter e-mails and the rest of the time restricts me to 20 columns wide? It's rubbish!
... and I can PROVE it's rubbish with some simple numbers. We'll use the inbox as our example:
HTML: 63k
CSS: 58k
Javascript: 16K, possibly more because it's self linking.
Now, if we CTRL-C just the actual contents of the page?
Content: 2k
130k of bandwidth chomped to transmit 2k of actual data the user wants. /FAIL/ hard. there's NO excuse for that page to be more than 6k of markup, I could probably bring it in under 5k... The layout is so simple it should only use 6-7k of CSS, and the javascript should be optional - though I think 8-12k sounds about right for something as moronically simple as an AJAX webmail with a non-ajax fallback.... Though I'd take a huge freaking axe to the stupid WYSIWYG nonsense.
Better proof of ineptitude? Just run it past the validator (Opera will actually transmit your contents, otherwise cut/paste from source)
168 Validation errors means they do not have HTML - they have gibberish. Amongst the errors we have unclosed tags, attributes that are invalid for their doctype, attributes on elements that don't even HAVE those attributes (HTML does NOT have a class attribute for example), ending tags for things that aren't even open, inlined CSS, inlined scripting, presentational markup, and a whole host of "did the person that wrote this even KNOW html?" warning signs.
... and that's really what it comes down to. Whoever they have coding all this has NO ****ING BUSINESS ANYWHERE NEAR A KEYBOARD. There, I said it!
You look at other websites and they are often just as bad. 99% of the problem is programmers not taught the old lesson "the less code you use, the less there is to break", much less the less code you use the less bandwidth consumed, the less code you use the easier it is to maintain, or just the simple damned KISS theory. This overcomplicated overthought rubbish site after site are adopting is wasting bandwidth, cutting into their own profit margins, and just ASKING for it to /FAIL/. Yahoo, google, amazon, ebay, Microsoft - they're entire web staff needs to either get a ****ing clue or do the world a favor, back away from the keyboard and take up macrome weaving.
I swear we need to drag out the shotgun and thin out their numbers a bit. How the hell do people this inept GET, and KEEP their jobs?
In this case the primary target of my wrath is Microsoft. Yes, they are an easy target - but lands sake how the devil do you bone webmail this badly?
The newest incarnation of Hotmail is a train wreck the likes I've not seen since the last time I poked my head into that rubbish YUI library yahoo likes to use to claim they know something about HTML/CSS. The ONLY reason crap like this is usually allowed to even reach the marketplace is the suits don't realize just how inept their coders really are.
Using Opera as a browser, the new hotmail seems to 'hang' on the first page load on trying to load some element that doesn't resolve. This 'hang' prevents ANY of the links on the page from functioning until it times out because they are ALL javascripted via onload - with ZERO fallbacks for javascript not present. Violates the very principle of javascript being to ENHANCE functionality, NOT REPLACE IT!!!
It's a wonderful example of throwing AJAX at a website for no good reason, in a manner that frankly is IMHO costing them MORE bandwidth than if they just stripped the damned thing down to what hotmail was back in 1998 before Microsoft took over and ****ed with it.
The sad part is, I really LIKE how the new hotmail LOOKS... But there's this laundry list of issues that make it next to useless. ten to twenty seconds to resolve ANY link I click on? No visual cue's that it's even DOING anything? An editor that 90% of the time doesn't even let me enter e-mails and the rest of the time restricts me to 20 columns wide? It's rubbish!
... and I can PROVE it's rubbish with some simple numbers. We'll use the inbox as our example:
HTML: 63k
CSS: 58k
Javascript: 16K, possibly more because it's self linking.
Now, if we CTRL-C just the actual contents of the page?
Content: 2k
130k of bandwidth chomped to transmit 2k of actual data the user wants. /FAIL/ hard. there's NO excuse for that page to be more than 6k of markup, I could probably bring it in under 5k... The layout is so simple it should only use 6-7k of CSS, and the javascript should be optional - though I think 8-12k sounds about right for something as moronically simple as an AJAX webmail with a non-ajax fallback.... Though I'd take a huge freaking axe to the stupid WYSIWYG nonsense.
Better proof of ineptitude? Just run it past the validator (Opera will actually transmit your contents, otherwise cut/paste from source)
168 Validation errors means they do not have HTML - they have gibberish. Amongst the errors we have unclosed tags, attributes that are invalid for their doctype, attributes on elements that don't even HAVE those attributes (HTML does NOT have a class attribute for example), ending tags for things that aren't even open, inlined CSS, inlined scripting, presentational markup, and a whole host of "did the person that wrote this even KNOW html?" warning signs.
... and that's really what it comes down to. Whoever they have coding all this has NO ****ING BUSINESS ANYWHERE NEAR A KEYBOARD. There, I said it!
You look at other websites and they are often just as bad. 99% of the problem is programmers not taught the old lesson "the less code you use, the less there is to break", much less the less code you use the less bandwidth consumed, the less code you use the easier it is to maintain, or just the simple damned KISS theory. This overcomplicated overthought rubbish site after site are adopting is wasting bandwidth, cutting into their own profit margins, and just ASKING for it to /FAIL/. Yahoo, google, amazon, ebay, Microsoft - they're entire web staff needs to either get a ****ing clue or do the world a favor, back away from the keyboard and take up macrome weaving.
I swear we need to drag out the shotgun and thin out their numbers a bit. How the hell do people this inept GET, and KEEP their jobs?
WIDGETIZE
Weatherlawyer # 5. November 2008, 23:39
I have heard so much about how crap M$ code is I'm surprised now that I never bothered to check just why.
I just knew it was true by what you said about the delays and fails. You have to hit the bookmark twice in K-Melleon to open the service.
But then it is free. So... -so well nothing really.
Perhaps they need all that extra code for the NSA bods to check you out?
Talk of The Web # 6. November 2008, 00:10
I never used Opera before but I am now. There is a lot to like about it. Smooth, fast, not littered with the unnecessary.
I have been having a lot of trouble with IE. Not so much with Opera.
Part of the problem might be, also, that MS is coming out with a new addition of Explorer. I have noticed that everytime MS comes out with a new edition of anything whether it is free or not the old edition does not work so well. Plus I believe they relie on the public to get the bugs out. This is a good way to save money. MS takes care of the big issues with their software then let the public take care of the nit picking stuff. Sadly enough, it is the small stuff that makes the software fail to execute or work smoothly. Oh well! MS saves a bundle because there are people they do not have to hire. Just hire the public! lol, lol!
Oh yeah!!! I almost forgot if you check the source code of most of MS you will find there is a lot of hidden advertisement for MS in the coding of their software, etc. This include MS Publisher, Hotmail, etc. It is almost like they think they are an unknown quality.
No Concern # 14. December 2008, 20:54
Is Hotmail still being run on FreeBSD?