War of the Programming Languages

What's the best language for the web?

Is it Java, the Android OS platform's poster boy?

Is it C#, currently Microsoft's darling?

Is it PHP, Python or Ruby? JavaScript, even?

Your guess is as good as mine. Proponents of any language have, and are still, engaging in vigorous debate (I'm trying to be kind here) as to why their language of choice trumps all other languages. On the web, there are ongoing bitter flame wars between fans of Java and C#. C# vs VB. Python vs PHP. And then there's the whole Object-Oriented Programming vs Functional Programming debate. Open-source vs Proprietory. List goes on forever.

This ought to put to rest the myth that techies are ruled by cold, hard logic. Now, if these were some rabid non-techie fanboys screaming about how superior iOS is to Android, that would be infinitely more forgivable. But these are tech people. Why are techies behaving like children, or worse - laypeople?

Watch any of these debaters. They'll bring out all the flaws of other languages, compare it to the amazing awesomeness of their chosen language, and fanboys of all stripes will have a field day - or a hissy fit. And when that happens, I don't see seasoned professionals. I see a bunch of woefully insecure nerds trying to obtain validation in their choices. Heaping disdain on those who choose to do things differently. Scorn. Hostility, even.

To what end? Does this shit make you guys feel clever, or something? Do techies making choices different from yours, somehow threaten you? Has choice of a programming language or platform suddenly become some kind of religion?

There are no blanket solutions

I've repeated this often, because this bears repeating: There are no blanket solutions. Not in many industries, and certainly not in the web industry. As a developer, the greatest disservice you can do to yourself is to willfully and deliberately close your eyes to the possibilities that other platforms and languages bring to the table, and the power they add to your arsenal. There is no programming or scripting language in the world without flaws. Sure, it's good to know the ins and outs of your tools, especially the environments in which they thrive most. But, using it as a justification to use one language to the exclusion of all else, is an exercise in futility. Especially on the web.

At the end of the day, languages are merely tools. Use the correct tool for the correct occasion. Because, as with the Law of the Instrument, when you only know how to use a hammer, pretty soon everything starts looking like a nail. Don't be that kind of developer.

Everything is a nail.

Everyone has invested time, sweat and tears honing their craft. No one wants to feel like they wasted all that effort on learning to use tools that aren't relevant. But no matter how much we'd love to believe in a tech meritocracy where the most objectively superior platform should be dominant, the fact is that things aren't as cut-and-dry as all that.

Some languages, like JavaScript and PHP, came to prominence back then because there weren't many other options, and they've filled their respective niches so well that uprooting them at this point would be more trouble than they're worth. You can't possibly tell people that your chosen language is absolutely superior and expect them not to snigger. There is no absolutely superior language. No such animal exists. Superiority is completely context-dependant.

Also, bear in mind that at the heart of every programming language, is a philosophy. Certain languages enforce certain practices. Certain languages make it a point not to enforce a damn thing. The kind of person you are determines the kind of languages you gravitate towards. There is nothing wrong with any of that. You like what you like. Your choice is perfectly valid, and let nobody tell you different.

It doesn't matter what you know...

Here's another line I'm fond of repeating: It doesn't matter what you know. What matters is what you can do with what you know. It is not your choice of language which you should be obsessing over.

Take PHP, for example. PHP is the go-to whipping boy of nerds who consider themselves "proper" programmers. PHP to scripting languages, is what Donald Trump is to the Presidency of the United States of America. Want to look enlightened? Want to appear clever? Pick on PHP! It's the perfect target. Point out all its flaws, and bemoan the fact that it's even still in use today. Sure, PHP is a badly designed language. Sure, PHP does object orientation poorly. Sure, PHP is a hodge-podge of features that feel tacked on. And yep, PHP enforces bad programming practices through its laxness.

So what?

You know what uses PHP? Flickr, for one. Yahoo! is another. Wikipedia. Goddamn Facebook!

Yes, I know C#, Java and Python have done pretty well too, but this isn't about what others have done using those tools. It's about what you have done using your chosen tools. Using the language of your choice, what have you created that's even half the significance of Flickr, Yahoo!, Wikipedia and Facebook?

Drawing a blank? You've done nothing to champion your chosen language other than talk about it endlessly on the Internet? Hey, this is just a suggestion, but maybe, just maybe, it would be far more productive to STFU, roll up those sleeves and get cracking!

Time to work.

Bjarne Stroustrup said this in his book The C++ Programming Language, and I think it's particularly apt even today.

"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses."

Or, how about, say, COBOL? What, you've never heard of it and therefore it must not be important? Junior, COBOL has been around since the 1960s, and at the time of this writing, it's still kicking ass in the banking industry. It does more in a day than you've probably ever done in your hipster kiddy-script writing life, and this is not hyperbole.

All I'm saying is, show some respect. The languages you love to rag on, have earned it.

Enough is enough

Dear developers, you're part of an honored tradition that harkens back to the days of Ada Lovelace and the first algorithm. Passion is fine and all, but this empty one-upmanship is beneath you. Stop arguing. Go forth and create.

guys.chillout();
T___T

Website Building in the New Millennium (Part 2/2)

Here, let's explore the modern incarnation of the Content Management Framework, Online Website Builders.

What is an Online Website Builder? 

An Online Website Builder is an online platform with tools for creating and updating websites. It could even be considered a dumbed-down version of the Content Management Framework, because installation is not required. Notable examples are Weebly, WiX, Google Blogs, Shopify and WordPress. Follow this link for a more comprehensive listing.

Hold on, WordPress? 

Yep! WordPress is both a Content Management Framework and a Online Website Builder. wordpress.org hosts the files and plugins needed to install the Content Management Framework, while wordpress.com is a Online Website Builder. But I digress...

Origins 

The natural progression from Content Management Frameworks, was Online Website Builders. Sure, Online Website Builders had their humble beginnings as part of the (now-defunct) Yahoo! Geocities web portals. But they only truly took off after Content Management Frameworks established a foothold on the market. As mentioned earlier, with some knowledge of HTML and maybe CSS, and knowing how to click buttons, one could now build a website simply by installing a Content Management Framework.

But! Why stop there? Why not dumb it down even further? Why not have the installation on the cloud, and then have developers just create websites without needing to concern themselves with installation and setup? That's where Online Website Builders came in. Now not only did people not need to know scripting or database in order to build a website, they didn't even need to know HTML or CSS anymore. All that was needed was to click buttons! So simple, your dog could do it!

Website building? Bitch please.

 

Hosting 

Online Website Builders are hosted online (well, duh!). Users log in to access the interface for creation and updating of websites. Online Website Builders take care of the system updates, security and hosting. The tradeoff is that you have less control (more on that in a bit). Of course, that can count as an upside, because you no longer need to bother with pesky installation details such as PHP version, database compatibility and so on.

Components 

Like Content Management Frameworks, Online Website Builders make extensive use of plugins of which a Content Management System is included. The plugins available for an Online Website Builder tend to be more limited in selection. This only makes sense, since the Online Website Builder is ultimately responsible for the security and compatibility of your product. It goes without mentioning (but here I go, mentioning it anyway) that plugins installed on an Online Website Builder should still work if the Online Website Builder's version is updated. And if something doesn't work, it's most definitely the vendor's fault, not yours.

Control 

Customization is severely limited because in order to ensure security, controls have to be imposed. If you just want a site with the default settings, you're good to go. For anything else, you'll find your hands severely tied. Those restrictions are part of the package. The Online Website Builder is responsible for security and compliance, and certainly can't take the risk of you doing one of the thousand and one things that could break the site. Think of it as a sandbox for your website design - a very small sandbox.

In a Nutshell 

Whatever your choice is in the end, it all depends on what you need. Look past the glossy packaging and do your homework. Now everyone can build a website without depending on cranky and sometimes unapproachable techies. It's all good, right?

Not so good for some web developers who do this for a living, and even those who do this as a side-hustle (guilty as charged). Now hideously unskilled techs can churn out websites for a fraction of the price we used to charge, and even total noobs can do it by themselves if they put their minds to it.

But come on, web devs. Can you honestly say you'll miss having to do this, at times, deadly boring work for customers who don't know what they want and endlessly frustrate us with their lack of savvy? We all knew automation of this process was coming one day. And if you didn't, you need to seriously re-evaluate your participation in this industry. It was inevitable. We should take this as the impetus to move on to bigger and better things. There will always be a place for web developers with legit skills. Just not at this level. This very elementary level.

What a terribly ex-site-ing development,
T___T

WhatsApp and the Great Privacy Controversy

There are many, many users upset with WhatsApp right now. And that's being generous. As the weeks go by, some of these users have started moving over to rival messaging services. The noise on Twitter has been deafening.

Et tu, WhatsApp?

And it's all down to WhatsApp's latest controversial decision, announced on 25th August - to share collected user phone numbers with its parent company, Facebook.

Back when Facebook acquired WhatsApp, founder Jan Koum reassured the current user base that WhatsApp was as committed to data privacy as ever. The users, rightly or wrongly, see this move as betrayal. Even users who don't have a Facebook account (and therefore aren't affected) don't seem to approve much of this.

Maybe it's the principle of the thing, eh?

WhatsApp has mitigated the blow by offering an opt-out to users who wish to keep their WhatsApp and Facebook accounts separate, though if you want to do so, you'd better hustle. There's a 30-day window to do it, and the window's closing by the day. Not that I think it'll make an ounce of difference. According to some news sources, WhatsApp will still be sharing information with Facebook, for, y'know, better integration.

What's with all the angst?

I'm looking upon all this outrage with bemusement. Sure, I get it. Privacy is important. Sure, this could be considered a dick move. And yes, I'm not exactly thrilled about the turn of events. And I'm aware that Facebook and WhatsApp face some kind of legal inquiry from the Federal Trade Commission over this very issue.

But can anyone honestly tell me this wasn't expected? Come on.

From the day WhatsApp gave up its autonomy to Facebook, this was always par for the course. I've said this before here, and I'll say it again: Facebook is not a charity. It is a business entity. The purpose of its existence is not to provide us with free apps for life. There's a catch. There's always a catch.

Know how much Facebook paid to acquire WhatsApp back then? A whopping 22 billion USD.

How much did we pay for our Facebook accounts? How about our WhatsApp accounts? I don't know about you, but to date, I've paid a big fat zero. And you know what they say about free lunches. (Hint: They hail from the same hometown as Santa Claus) Facebook doesn't charge us to have an account, or to use WhatsApp. But it does have to make some kind of profit, and in this case, it will probably come in the form of advertising dollars as the data is shared with marketers who wish to push their products.

But Jan Koum said...

Yes, I'm aware of what he said. In fact, I'll reproduce it below.

"If partnering with Facebook meant that we had to change our values, we wouldn’t have done it. Instead, we are forming a partnership that would allow us to continue operating independently and autonomously. Our fundamental values and beliefs will not change. Our principles will not change."

This was said two years ago. What's happened since then? JavaScript came up with several exciting new frameworks. Tech companies rose and fell. Yahoo and LinkedIn are being sold. Windows 10 emerged on the market. Should I go on? The thing is, in the tech business, change happens all the damn time, and happens at a scary rate. You adapt or die. Do we really want to hold Koum to something he said two entire years ago?

Other messager apps

Don't like it? Still miffed? Want to stick to those principles? There are always other messaging services. Or you could simply delete your Facebook account to make a point. You'll live.

Good chat, folks. Ping you again sometime.
T___T

Google's Logo Switcheroo

Holy pixellated pictograms, Batman! Google has changed their logo! Again!

Google: Before and after

If you're like me and a little slow on the uptake, you might have noticed the change now, when it actually took place two months ago. It's not that I never noticed; it's more that the change never fully registered in my mind until now. I mean, come on, this is Google. Ever so often, they change their home search page for shits and giggles, and sometimes, that involves changing the font and styling of the word "google". This felt like one of those changes.

Take a look at some of these. (Check out more at Google Doodles!)

And I'm suppose to blink when I encounter this?

That aside, check out Logopedia and you'll see that Google has changed its logo no less than five times since it burst on the scene in 1997. The last change took place in 2014 where the "l" in "google" was shifted by a few pixels. If nothing else, this tells you just how anal detail-oriented the branding team is. As they should well be - Google's brand is pretty damn strong and one of their main assets.

Google's been evolving since Day One. It's associated with change, in a constant state of flux; which is perhaps why it still feels fresh and perky despite having lasted more than a decade. Which is also why I saw the new logo two months ago and thought little of it. Hey, this is Google, right?

The Trend

Two other web companies that changed their logo these past few years - Microsoft and Yahoo!. It's worth noting because the changes, including Google's, reflect a trend. Note the transition from fancy lettering and kerning to simpler non-serif fonts. In Yahoo!'s case, the vertical alignment has also been altered to be less radical.

Yahoo!: Before and after

Microsoft: Before and after

All to what end? Well, you may have noticed that the changes seem to have been made to allow their logos to be better viewed on small screens, ie. mobile phones and tablets. Mobile devices have influenced yet another aspect of our lives. This is the new normal. Embrace it!

When will Google next change their logo? Hey, search me.
T___T