Web Development

General discussion



By Jaqui ·
website technology do you preffer to use?
xml / xhtml?


if doing a db driven application, which database engine do you use?
why is this your preffered engine?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Plain jane HTML

by jmgarvin In reply to 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.

Collapse -

about the

by Jaqui In reply to Plain jane HTML

only thing I don't agree with is the xml xhtml. they have been the official standard for websites since january 2000.

it's the website designers that have not pushed for tools to effectively use the product rather than a weakness in the product.

Collapse -


by jmgarvin In reply to about the

I agree to a point. I think the problem with XML is it just doesn't feel mature enough. I can't quite quantify my feeling on this, but it really feels like the early days of HTML....

Collapse -

true enough,

by Jaqui In reply to hmmmmmmmmm....

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. :)

Collapse -

Too True

by jmgarvin In reply to true enough,

Perhaps we'll see more XML stuff out there. I'd like to see it used more often, but you are correct, the tools just aren't there yet.

Oh, I'm looking for coffee cup for linux right now ;-)

Collapse -


by Jaqui In reply to Too True

that's thier website.
they have it linked, but it's not obvious.

Collapse -

I'm a bright one ;-)

by jmgarvin In reply to Too True

Master of the search am I! User of the obvious I am not! ;-)

Thanks again!

Collapse -


by tagmarkman In reply to which

.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.

Collapse -


by Jaqui In reply to Depends

postgresql is closer to oracle than mysql.

php is a cgi script, if you want to use it that way.
for most web related stuff, perl is a better option, as it's string tools are far better.

but php's db integration is better than perls.
native obdc, mysql, postgresql, mssql support.

xhtml is xml compliant html, html is completely separate concern.
( and is no longer the official standard )

flash, only for a banner rotator or omething like that. anything else is abusing the tech.
( besides the fact that business law says that using someone else's computer to make money means you have to pay them for that use, all clientside scripting should be avoided. [ flash, javascript, activex, vbscript, java applet ] are last resort and only if you can get hard copy contracts saying you don't have to obey the lays and pay the site visitors for using thier cpu capacity )

Collapse -


by tagmarkman In reply to hmmmm

"postgresql is closer to oracle than mysql."

"for most web related stuff, perl is a better option, as it's string tools are far better."
I agree. Perl has been a natural choice for web stuff for as long as I can remember the parcing is absolutely wonderful.

"but php's db integration is better than perls.
native obdc, mysql, postgresql, mssql support."
I suppose you are correct but the libraries that my company built over time has made that issue all but moot.

"xhtml is xml compliant html, html is completely separate concern."
Still, I would be more likely to lump xhtml with html than with xml. I divide the two like this: html is display technology, xml is information technology.

"flash, only for a banner rotator or omething like that. "
I can think of several more reasons but you are very correct, flash is often abused and used most oftenly in places that it shouldn't.

"all clientside scripting should be avoided."
This I disagree with but I feel that it should be used with discression. AJAX has been wonderful utilizing a pethora of accepted web technologies without doing a clientside install (which I'm opposed - activex, java applets)

Using their CPU for client side scripting is not violating that law. It would be ridiculous because the simple "viewing" of the page would cause the CPU to be taxed. Programs like SETI or Grid computing however would be included.

Related Discussions

Related Forums