which

I tend to stick to plain HTML or maybe a little CSS. However, my web coding is limited, but I know what I hate:
1) javascripted up pages that won't allow you to use them unless you turn on javascript
2) Flash...ug...Over used and pointless in most cases. What is can help with usability, it is usually beefy and ugly
3) asp/php are nice for backends that need to do something, but I think a lot of coders need to go back to school! I've seen some VERY nicely done backends that do what they should (connect to a module on the server and THEN do something)...Ala amazon.com
4) xml isn't mature enough yet. I'd like to see it more, but I think it needs to grow up a bit (puts on flame proof pants)

db stuff over the web seems like it could be done far more efficiently via a small client app rather than a javaed-up web browser.

but it could very well be the lack of good tools to work with it, on top of the lack of it being pushed.

w3c.org has a fair amount of data on the spec for working with it.
it's far more robust than the tools indicate.

the latest coffee cup html editor has support for xml / xhtml. code in html with it, then convert to xml.

and they have linux version of thier editor. :)

.asp ... not on my life...
.asp-.net ... from time to time
.php ... if I have dynamic content but I often just use HTML output from Perl or other CGI.
.xml ... couldn't live without.
.html ... I'm lumping XHTML in with this... This is a must.
.flash ... very very rarely but it has it's place.
.javascript ... often but I try not to rely on it. When I do rely on it, it's usually to build a product so I can avoid Java Applet, or Active X implementations.

DB engines.. for my relational DB.. I prefer Sybase but I'm cool with Oracle and sometimes MSSQL (depending on it's nature). For lower end systems, I'll go with MySQL or even Postgres.

For Flat Systems I'll choose BerkleyDB or implement LDAP... On Windows I might go with an Active Directory implementation and much more rarely BTrieve.

For ObjectDB Systems... Matisse, DB4Objects, ObjectDB but we don't use them a whole lot compared to the others.

test.

turn off javascript in your browser.

then go here:

http://www.visa.com/

blank page as thier entire web app, designed to make them money, runs on your cpu, not thier server.

that is pay up for use or theft of processing capacity.

since I do not have any clientside scripting enabled at all, I see hundreds of sites like this, from flash, javascript and vbscripting.
all are abuse of the tech.
and, yes, it is actually a criminal offense in at least 20 states, canada and several other countries to do this.

"html, because it is "static, where processing of user input is done on the server side, dosn't fit into this description."
Static or not, it takes processing power to display it. It has to be rendered.

"if thier site had zero e-commerce, or was a simple flyer ( advertising with contact data ) then they would not be breaking the laws."
Once you add advertising and the host gets payed for it, it can be considered a commercial endevor.

"much heavier usage of processing for the dynamic content"
Who determines what is considered heavy?

"a 100% clientside scripted site"
even the visa side is not 100% clientside scripted. If you look at the code, the javascript is used to "build" the display of the page. It's not processor intensive (but then again who am I to make judgement on what is considered non-intensive?)

"try doing an ecommerce site using html"
I've done it many time. but if your going after client side processing (which is a major point of thin client technology) then do you consider session IDs processing? What happends when you click a button, that takes processor time as well as sending the submitted data.

Once you attack technologies like Javascript for client side processing you basically nix inovation such as AJAX which is a Major step forward in web usability (take a look at google maps).

Java Applets and ActiveX controls are completely different because it requires a client side installation. Even that is shaky ground because you have tools like Windows Update that uses it to determine which upgrades you need.

not the processing of the static script that is the issue, for me.
it's the fact that with the dynamic scripting you are getting links, menus, content that can only be displayed with the use of technology NOT included in the standards.
( and javascript is not part of site design standards from the w3c, they recommend using xml. )

not add avertising.
the site is only an advertisement for the company.
like this one:

http://www.reboot.com/Welcome.html

which is owned by:
( also another example )

http://www.mainframe.ca/

which is why proprietary tech based sites and site designers should be trashed, not allowed to happen.

activex, vbscript, java applets all require software installation, and unless you are wunning windows ( which I do not at all ) you cannot use 2 of those 3. ( java applets being the only one that does run on all os... even though I never install java virtual machines on my linux.
to many options, and to many problems.
need to install 5 jvms to be sure that you have the right one to run an applet.
( including sun's own )

"http://www.reboot.com/Welcome.html"
This site uses Javascript to resize the page for optimal viewing and also attempts to specialize the output depending on the operating system for a better user experience (an attempt limited to people with Javascript turned on). It also uses it to build menus. How is this more dramatic than HTML markup?

This site:
"http://www.mainframe.ca/"
Uses Javascript to optimize views as well. If it is a smaller screen (under 850) pixels it will display a smaller version of their site otherwise it will let you view the larger on... I don't see much of an issue here. However, when you go to the next page it wants you to install a plug-in which I feel is more in line with your argument.

"it's the fact that with the dynamic scripting you are getting links, menus, content that can only be displayed with the use of technology NOT included in the standards."
Lots of websites use technology NOT included in a standard. How do you think many of these concepts get into a standard in the first place? Somebody had to push it beyond the limit. Sometimes it was a good thing and it got adopted and othertimes is was a pretty poor implementation. Although, I believe you should use standard, it should be up to the business to decide if it wants to deviate from that. However, I'm also in favor of disclosure when it comes to this as well.

"javascript is not part of site design standards from the w3c, they recommend using xml."
And XML is never Client side intensive? Also explain to me how only using XML allows for useful development concepts such as AJAX? You need more than just XML for that.

"not add avertising."
And who determines this?

"which is why proprietary tech based sites and site designers should be trashed, not allowed to happen."
Why? If it is proprietary, the company has determined that limiting their audience in this fashion is best for their particular client base (whether they are right or wrong determining who they will cater to is the business perogative).

"activex, vbscript, java applets all require software installation"
vbscript does not require installation on all browsers. ActiveX and Java Applets do and I agree this can be a problem.

"and unless you are wunning windows ( which I do not at all ) you cannot use 2 of those 3."
What does that have to do with anything? A business reserver the right refuse business to anyone (unless it is regulated).

I would be bitter as well if I could only see a fraction of the website but there are at least two issues here.

First, you refuse to install or activate the software necessary to view those sites properly. That is your choice, you reserve the right not to support those business that engage in using software technology that you do not approve of. I agree with you and I refuse to use "most" sites that require ActiveX or Java installations as well.

Second, business have a right to refuse business to you. They have the right to use the software technology that serves their needs best. Law is not necessary to govern this issue.

Attempting to impose this vision on business through government regulation (forcing the business to pay the prospect) is like forcing a self service gas station to pay every potential client just because they drove into their parking lot.

Sueing technology only hurts the industry... while your at it, sue Grokster or maybe Napster.. to late it's been done.. you'll have to find another technology to blame.

first off, I was NOT talking about adding advertising to a site, I was talking about the site itself being one companies advertising for itself.

mainframe and reboot do not have eccommerce, they are nothing but flyers advertising the company and one of it's products.
( mainframe makes reboot, beasties, transformers.... )

they are examples, that due to the wording of the laws, are not illegal.

I still won't go through them completely.
since I have zero javascript capability in my browser, and will not add a single plugin.

these sites that absolutely require software installation, or use extensive dynamic clientside scripting are only wasting my time for a second or two, then I'm gone. not interested in the content if they have to use that tech.

html, xml/xhtml, php, cgi go for it.
but anything else, stuff it.

( 65% of the time, fancy graphics are a waste, as I use lynx at least that much )

"I was talking about the site itself being one companies advertising for itself."
Ah ... understood...

"due to the wording of the laws, are not illegal."
Do to the wording of the law (not the interpretation), ALL commercial websites are illegal. This is where I have issue. Where are the lines drawn, why, and who determines it? And how does the law advance when new technologies evolve? These are HUGE gaps...

"these sites that absolutely require software installation... wasting my time for a second or two, then I'm gone."
Yes... they don't get my time either... and hopefully more people follow that example and the problem will eventually take care of itself due to lost revenue... etc.. But if people keep doing it... well... we'll continue to see it.

"html, xml/xhtml, php, cgi go for it.
but anything else, stuff it."
You say PHP but what about other technologies such as ASPs and .NET or Cold Fusion... just curious.

"( 65% of the time, fancy graphics are a waste, as I use lynx at least that much )"
I agree with you here and I use lynx as well but only about 5% of the time.

I also keep asking questions that pertain to this conversation but you ignore them. Any reason? Is this just something you are annoyed at (which I'll agree with you... it can be very annoying) or are you serious saying that the use of javascript on a commercial site should involve the courts to prevent its use?

since asp and .net are both not part of the standards and being solely controlled by a single corporation, I do not use them myself.
nor will I promote something that can be changed on a whim, with no input from anyone else.

coldfusion db engine, I've not worked with it.
even though I think they have a linux version of it.

javascript menus.. why?
for the fancy animated rollout effects?
not interested in them.
basic xml/xhtml and html work fine.

since I've never looked at ajax, can't offer any opinion on it.
( never worked on or with a thin client network. )

vbscript requires jumping though the ms hoops to use, as it doesn't run on any os worth using.
( no vbscript on linux )

forcing business to obey laws that business got passed for business' benefit is a waste of time?

okay, break the security and run apps on a companies system, see if they don't come after you for breaking the self same laws.
( using thier systems to make money without paying them for the processing capacity used )

as far as the processing used by clientsiode dynamic scripting,
if html uses 1% of cpu cycles to display, for about 1 second to actually render, and the dynamic site script, using 5% to render, then using 3% to watch for mouseover events, then 5% to render the dynamic content, then 3% to watch for mouseover......
see where the dynamic clientside is using more processing?
that's just with a single dynamic menu, add the rest of the crap they are using and it goes up to 50 to 60 %

that is abusing it, and legal action is the only way to wake the site designers up. ifd the companies get sued, have to pay huge, they are going to go after the twit that created the scripts for some of the money.

I can understand you not commenting on technologies that you don't use. I appreciate that. However, some of us to use those other technologies and many of there core functions require leveraging client side activity in order to make the site more usable. As a consumer, I like these enhancements and use them to increase my productivity.

"javascript menus.. why? for the fancy animated rollout effects?"
I don't care for them either... however, some businesses feel that it is important.

"since I've never looked at ajax"
It's a pretty cool inovation. They take existing well integrated languages such as HTML, XML, Javascript and so on to make a more seemless experience. In other words, they make web apps work closer to installed apps without the install base of technologies such as ActiveX and Java Applets. Go to google maps, it uses AJAX.. word of warning, it uses Javascript... so you might not like it.

"break the security and run apps on a companies system.."
I don't see the relevance of this. Could you elaborate?

"html 1% of cpu ... dynamic site script 5% to render... see where the dynamic clientside is using more processing?"
I never said it didn't use more. I said both use client process power. Even this "formula" is not necessarly decisive. A liniar progression of impact is rarely accurate and often a simplistic approach. 1% to 2% is a 100% increase (even though it's only a point higher) but a 50% to 75% increase is a much lower ratio (even though it's 25 point higher). Also, your ratio does always hold true when comparing those technologies. I've seen HTML that was built by converting a Word Document to HTML take far more processing time than a javascript enabled page.

"that is abusing it, and legal action is the only way to wake the site designers up."
The "ONLY" way... there are many ways. A law such as this is a shotgun approach especially when it is not very specific.

Who determines what is excessive? Who determines what technology is effected? There are so many questions that have to be answered. Just because you don't "like" something, you can't "use" something, or you don't "want" something shouldn't mean that a technolgy should be "snuffed." This is an RIAA approach and I see it very stiffeling.

Windows Boxes should never be let out into the real world go

Postgres SQL on A BSD box with a tomcat frontend, You can use perl php asp(if it suits you) jscript etc. I try to use the lowes common denomenator theory, whichever you will use the most use at least there is a really easy to use php port and best of all, it's all free (you provide the box)

in preference, intranet stuff I will use clientside without moral reservations though I do have several technical ones.
To be quite honest I still have a softspot for ISAPI, I did my first serious web/db app with it and from a development point of view it's very neat and tidy, therefore maintainable and it's faster than CGI on windows boxes at least.

Course it's biggest downfall is it's not script.

Database, I don't really care as long as the DBMS in question will handle the requirements.

As a web user though I have very little time for using my bandwidth, memory, processing power ect to give me a 'better' browsing experience and distinguish them from their competitors. The thing I detest most about clientside scripting though is the bastardisation of what was meant to be a presentation technology into some sort of half -arsed application environment who's performance on both front's goes to poor as soon as you use it.

Lotus Domino
JavaScript
Java
SQL

new laws.
I'm saying enforce the existing laws.

with visa's 100% javascripted site, how much of the app is being processed server side?
how much on the clientside?

the laws around distributed computing say they are required to pay for the cpu usage, since it's all being processed clientside, with maybe 1% of it being server side.

"break the security and run apps on a companies system.."
I don't see the relevance of this. Could you elaborate?

they would be after you for illegally using thier systems.
same thing they are doing with 100% clientside scripted web apps.

Who determines what is excessive? Who determines what technology is effected? There are so many questions that have to be answered. Just because you don't "like" something, you can't "use" something, or you don't "want" something shouldn't mean that a technolgy should be "snuffed." This is an RIAA approach and I see it very stiffeling.

well, if you don't mind footing the bill for some company to make money off of you, then you will see making thm pay as being restrictive.
if you would rather see the laws applied, as intended, equally across the board, then you will not see demanding it as restrictive.

as far as I'm concerned, any company that requires my cpu time for site processing is going to pay for it or not get my business.
( static clientside scripting excluded )

"I'm saying enforce the existing laws."
In order to truely enforce laws, there have to be less of them and the the wording needs to be very clean and decisive. It needs to be understood and they need to be important enough to spend a great deal of money to enfore them. If the law does not make sense it takes far too much effort to enfore it.

"with visa's 100% javascripted site, how much of the app is being processed server side?
how much on the clientside?"
Client Server Ratio is irrelevant.

"the laws around distributed computing say they are required to pay for the cpu usage"
The "understanding" of distributed computing is different from your perspective due to "intent". Grid computing falls under this issue not javascript. You processing power, is not being used to resell to a third-party for profit. This is what is was intended to protect against. In other words, if have a task that I am going to make money from say computing prime number and I use other peoples system to generate that information, if I sell that data, I have to reemburse the owners of the distributed system. If I use your system to render a page for you then this issue does not apply even if I am a commercial entity.

"they would be after you for illegally using thier systems. same thing they are doing with 100% clientside scripted web apps."
You mean if I break into their system and user their processors... Different issue. They are not initiating the connection and rendering the data for themselves.

"well, if you don't mind footing the bill for some company to make money off of you"
How are they "making money" from you. You are engaged in an exchange.

"if you would rather see the laws applied, as intended, equally across the board, then you will not see demanding it as restrictive."
This is not how it was "intended" even if it was every commercial site would immediately be considered criminal. This is absurd.

as far as I'm concerned, any company that requires my cpu time for site processing is going to pay for it or not get my business.
( static clientside scripting excluded )

Client Server Ratio is irrelevant.

no, it's the issue.
a companies site, run at your expense, so they can make money off you.
you are paying data transfer, paying in cpu cycles, and paying them cash. you are gaining what, as small bit of something, yet you paid 3 times for it.
they paid next to nothing because you paid 3 times for it.

he "understanding" of distributed computing is different from your perspective due to "intent". Grid computing falls under this issue not javascript. You processing power, is not being used to resell to a third-party for profit. This is what is was intended to protect against.

not here, the laws here state that a signed agreement must be in place prior.
so visa is breaking the law.

"a companies site, run at your expense, so they can make money off you."
That is like saying (extreme example) A company should pay for wear and tear on your shoes because the parking garage was not close enough and you are using up the lifespan of your shoes to shop in their store.

"you are paying data transfer, paying in cpu cycles, and paying them cash."
Client Server technology often reduces bandwidth. I would rather let a site tax my cpu for 3% vs 1% for a few seconds instead of hitting my bandwidth everytime I do anything. Data transfer cost me a heck of a lot more than a small CPU hit. On a transfer, I have to wait (time is expensive), I have to take time on my firewalls, and routers, and I have to pay for additional bandwidth if my company consumes too much due to bandwidth consumption. In other words, static pages, can cost me more than javascript enabled pages.

"the laws here state that a signed agreement must be in place prior. so visa is breaking the law."
Prior to what? Using the site? Then I see no difference between a static site breaking the law and a dynamic one. The is no mention of amount, therefore, I can assume ANY. And that mean Static as well.

Either way, I don't see how my argument has been countered. You are engauged in an exchange of information by requesting to visit their site via a URL. The site you are visiting is not "reselling" your CPU usages. Therefore they are not profiting off of your visit even if you do purchase something (however, if they were to process something on your box to generate income by reselling the process to a third party that was generated on your computer, it would be a different story).