A colleague of mine asked me yesterday: what’s the difference between good code and bad ones? I gave my answer without a blink: “Reusability.” The answer struck me. I didn’t realise that before I said it out loud.
One good way to improve reusability, is to consciously refine one’s code with an eye for patterns. Repetitions are worth summing up–it’s just pure fun.
In IE9, if two parent elements don’t have z-index set, their children who do have z-index could jump out of the flow of z-index.
In the flow of all DOM elements, there is something that decides the order of appearance among each other: the stacking context. And its behaviour is somewhat odd in some cases.
I wondered what it would be like to have my front-end workflow in Ruby, or Common Lisp. What about all the libraries that could have been easily bowered and required in JavaScript? Could existing libraries somehow fit into the picture, or should there be counterparts taking their places? What about CoffeeScript, how does it work?
After some research, the list of answers I got:
Button overlay on top of Video [iPad]:
I came across Paul’s take on this quite a while ago. I simply wish more people could have read this:
When I was five I thought electricity was created by electric sockets. I didn’t realize there were power plants out there generating it. Likewise, it doesn’t occur to most kids that wealth is something that has to be generated. It seems to be something that flows from parents.
Because of the circumstances in which they encounter it, children tend to misunderstand wealth. They confuse it with money. They think that there is a fixed amount of it. And they think of it as something that’s distributed by authorities (and so should be distributed equally), rather than something that has to be created (and might be created unequally).
Problem (see details here):
When we test a Flash movie in a web page, the SWF may be cached by the browser software, so that when we make modifications to the SWF, the browser may continue to display the cached version of the SWF and ignore any new version.
We like to buy products that come with larger packages, because, we think we’re saving money doing so:
Wal-Mart sold $284 billion worth of goods in 2005. Groceries accounted for about one-quarter of that amount, but that meant $64 billion, and rising. Many food companies do a third of their business with this one retailer. Wal-Mart does not have to demand slotting fees. If a food company wants its products to be in Wal-Mart, it has to offer rock-bottom prices. Low prices sound good for people without much money, but nutritionally, there’s a catch. Low prices encourage everyone to buy more food in bigger packages. If you buy more, you are quite likely to eat more. And if you eat more, you are more likely to gain weight and become less healthy.
When we buy larger portions, do we actually consume more?
Unfortunately, yes.