Quote:
|
Originally Posted by strcrssd
Yes, almost all of what I said is opinion, not fact. It is my opinion that any non-portable language is a horrible thing to waste time learning. (especially one that may end up having only one interpreter).
|
I guess my whole career is based on a waste of time. All 7+ years of it. I started out of VB (ya, I know, laugh) & Sql Server, moved on to ASP and finally to .NET (c#, still not c++ but it's not VB either). Considering developing for windows (websites and desktop acpplications) has paid for everything I have since I have been on my own, it is not a waste of time. Microsoft isn't going anywhere, despite it's horrible business practices.
Quote:
|
It is my opinion that many /academic/ web crawlers (like google was when it was first developed) will stop parsing old HTML when a significant amount of data is available in XHTML. And yes, I doubt the big indexers will stop parsing old HTML, but you could sure make their lives easier (and all your readers) by using something that meets w3c specs.
|
I'd like to see them do this and not have half the web get upset at them. I can't see geocities, tripod, comcast, etc with a "wysiwyg" browser based web site development tools that are wc3 (XHTML+CSS) compliant. Then again, I doubt those people care about search engines, I guess the point is moot.
Quote:
I'm just stating my opinion and trying to offer guidance based on my experiences tutoring future Computer Scientists.
I'd also like to add that, in my experience, those that end up coding for windows only are typically much poorer programmers than those that learn standards and cross-platform toolkits. I don't have any scientific studies of this, just my experience.
|
Thanks for your opinion based on your experiences, but mine have differed greatly from yours.
Oh, and thanks, you have opened my eyes and made me realize that programming in a MS environment FOR a MS environment automaticly makes me a poor programmer. [/sarcasam]