Question about Building Websites ?

[n2ize]

It seems that there are so many tools for building sites these days. The question I have, what is wrong with building websites from scratch like I used to do in the old days ? It seems like it's quite easy to build almost anything using an ordinary text editor + css / html / xhtml / php / etc.

[W4GPL]

Nothing is wrong with it, but using a CMS is generally going to be faster to implement and come with features that would take you a considerable amount of time to code yourself. You may or may not need/want these features, so it's just a matter what your goals are.

[n2ize]

Nothing is wrong with it, but using a CMS is generally going to be faster to implement and come with features that would take you a considerable amount of time to code yourself. You may or may not need/want these features, so it's just a matter what your goals are.

It's just that I am an idiot when it comes to using a CMS and I find it seems easier if I do it from scratch and I understand exactly what I am doing every step of the way. Everything seems to click together and makes more sense to me in as far as why one thing works, what this, that or the other thing does. So the main drawback in scratch building would be more time consuming. I guess I'll just have to go ahead with it and see how it goes.

[kf0rt]

I'm not into the complicated stuff -- still use a text editor for most of what I do; simple static HTML pages. For the photo stuff, I've modified a Lightroom template that works pretty well.

[n2ize]

Basically all I want to do is to great a group of linked pages that have the same header at the top of each page. The rest of the content on each paged linked from the top can vary accordingly, i.e images, text, forms, etc. Years ago I used to do all this stuff using Perl/CGI. I guess I can still do it that way, (nothing wrong with it that I can see) as I am familiar with it (just need a little brush up), and it would save me the trouble of having to learn a bunch of new stuff. I can always incorperate the newer stuff as I go along.

[K7SGJ]

Basically all I want to do is to great a group of linked pages that have the same header at the top of each page. The rest of the content on each paged linked from the top can vary accordingly, i.e images, text, forms, etc. Years ago I used to do all this stuff using Perl/CGI. I guess I can still do it that way, (nothing wrong with it that I can see) as I am familiar with it (just need a little brush up), and it would save me the trouble of having to learn a bunch of new stuff. I can always incorperate the newer stuff as I go along.


How bout carbon paper?

[NQ6U]

How bout carbon paper?

Too high-tech for John. He writes his HTML code on parchment using a goose quill pen.

[W1GUH]

There are some requirements for web pages that absolutely must be followed if one's site is to be popular.

1) Make sure your web page downloads and executes lots of stuff that take over at least the browser so that the user can sit there for a long time wondering what's going on. The longer the browser remains inert, the better -- give 'em more time to stare at the ads that have been displayed. There are extra points if the web page takes over the whole computer!

2) Position lots and lots of links, especially on text that doesn't appear important, that can be easily clicked on by accident. Make sure the user frequently hits one of those links in error. And all of those links should fulfill the requirement stated in 1).

3) Put in lots of "dead-end" links that contain no links to the web site's home page or anywhere in the site. Make the user use the "Back" button lots and lots.

4) For contact information, a web-bot will do. Who needs to seriously hear from the users anyway? Make sure said web-bot has lots and lots of cleverly worded "blame the user" expressions, especially if the subject is a total whine about the first three conditions stated here.

5) Every web page should be an eye test. You MUST include important text presented in the smallest font you can use. Don't want them OF's reading it anyway, right?



Follow these guidelines and you are guaranteed to have a successful web page.

[KA9MOT]

Hmmmm.....Interesting subject.

What software would a guy use in Ubuntu if he wanted to learn how to create his own website. As a useful learning experience.

[KC2UGV]

Hmmmm.....Interesting subject.

What software would a guy use in Ubuntu if he wanted to learn how to create his own website. As a useful learning experience.

Vi.

I kid, I kid.

I generally use Notepad++ (There is a Linux version). It's a gui app with syntax highlighting, section bracketing, and auto-indenting for most languages; and there's a Win32 version as well, so I can quickly move back and forth should the need arise.

For websites, the CMS I tend to use is either Drupal or PmWiki. Drupal, if I have access to a database (And, will need advanced things like eCarts, etc). PmWiki if no DB is available (Or, is too unreliable) or, if there will never be a need for complex functions in the site.

Both use the same templating system, so moving between the two is easy for customization. And, both are written in PHP.

[K7SGJ]

Vi.

I kid, I kid.

I generally use Notepad++ (There is a Linux version). It's a gui app with syntax highlighting, section bracketing, and auto-indenting for most languages; and there's a Win32 version as well, so I can quickly move back and forth should the need arise.

For websites, the CMS I tend to use is either Drupal or PmWiki. Drupal, if I have access to a database (And, will need advanced things like eCarts, etc). PmWiki if no DB is available (Or, is too unreliable) or, if there will never be a need for complex functions in the site.

Both use the same templating system, so moving between the two is easy for customization. And, both are written in PHP.

I used to smoke that stuff. Oh wait.........................that was THC.........never mind. As he says fuckit and rolls another doobie.

[n2ize]

Okay, I started building it from scratch. I created a page header with logo's links and stuff. I am waiting for feedback from the client. The only thing I am doing differently so far is that I am using CSS style sheets to handle some of the colors and formatting. At first I thought CSS might be hard to learn. But after looking at it for a full 5 minutes I determined it's pretty much self explanatory. CSS makes things a lot easier as I can define my styles in one place as opposed to distributing it among markup tags as I have always done in the past. The other thing I will probably be doing differently is that I will be using more PHP as inline tags within the documents as opposed to doing it via Perl/CGI as I always did in the past. But I need to give myself a crash course in PHP and I can still use Perl/CGI should the need arise. As it stand I prefer doing it this way because I understand what is going on every step of the way. Once it becomes routine I may adopt a CMS to make the job easier. But for now this is slammin.

I would still like to see this simplified to the point where I can just tell the system...do this...put this here...put this there... but the computer flunkies are still living in the 1950;s.

[kf0rt]

You're way ahead of me with all that PHP/CGI stuff.

I code in HTML with a simple text editor; keep a local copy of the web site and upload it all via FTP using Filezilla. It all works. Added some CSS stuff some time ago, but never quite figured that out.

[K7SGJ]

It's all geek to me. I'll keep my THC and my zigzags, thanks. I know how to manipulate those kind of things. I don't always smoke dope, but when I do................web sites make more sense. Especially the Hostess website.

[KA9MOT]

It's all geek to me. I'll keep my THC and my zigzags, thanks. I know how to manipulate those kind of things. I don't always smoke dope, but when I do................web sites make more sense. Especially the Hostess website.

I no longer smoke dope, but in this case I'm with you. My curiosity has been pummeled by PHP, CGI, CCS (They send me my diabetic supplies), and the rest of the geek alphabet.

[n2ize]

You're way ahead of me with all that PHP/CGI stuff.

I code in HTML with a simple text editor; keep a local copy of the web site and upload it all via FTP using Filezilla. It all works. Added some CSS stuff some time ago, but never quite figured that out.

I like CSS because I can keep the styling rules in a separate .css file making it easy to make changes quickly. It can even be distributed among several .css files, so for example I can have one .css file for colours and another for formatting tables, forms, etc. CSS can also be done inline and placed within an html/ xhtml document. That is a good feature as for relatively simple web pages you may not need a whole separate file of CSS statements. You can just embed them into your html / xhtml docs. CSS just makes life a little easier.

In the past I always used Perl/CGI and I don;t expect to abandon it. I used to do almost everything from within a Perl/CGI program... including generating html, forms, etc. But I want to give PHP a try. Nice thing about PHP is that short scripts can be added or referenced inline from within a document instead of having to call or reference a CGI script. But you can also run it as a CGI script. Trouble is I am not yet familiar with PHP so I'll have to give myself a crash course. I think I have a digitized PHP book round here somewhere. Mostly I would use it for generating forms, dynamic content and, database access... same as I do with Perl.

P.S. I found the digitized PHP book. It's in .ps (postscript format). I Knew it would come in handy one fine day.

[n2ize]

Playing around with the PHP a little. Seems pretty straight forward. If I was able to do Perl, C, C++, and even assembly PHP should be a cinch.

[koØm]

Rhetorical Question: Why did I buy that domaine name and rent the space (http://www.midwestgrandlodge.org/)when I am too lazy to populate it/

????

[ad4mg]

Hmmmm.....Interesting subject.

What software would a guy use in Ubuntu if he wanted to learn how to create his own website. As a useful learning experience.

KompoZer is a decent WYSIWYG html composer that doesn't butcher your html code, and its in the Ubuntu repositories. It isn't much to look at now, and I really need to upload my recent work, but that's what I'm using to build my website (ad4mg.org). I wouldn't call it a learning tool, but I construct the basic structure with KompoZer, and enhance it with my own code. The program allows you to edit html files in the WYSIWYG design mode, or the source html code.

I find the W3schools web site the best for their tutorials and as a reference point. They cover everything from html to scripting:

W3Schools Web Tutorial (http://www.w3schools.com/)

[n2ize]

Hmmmm.....Interesting subject.

What software would a guy use in Ubuntu if he wanted to learn how to create his own website. As a useful learning experience.

On Linux (I use Fedora but just about everything that runs on Fedora runs on Ubuntu, after all it's Linux, ain't it ?) there are a lot of apps that can help build web sites. For very simple stuff, like a single page, I used a text editor. I often fire up emacs and just type in the html and save it into a folder. For more complicated stuff, like where am building a site composed of many pages including Perl/CGI or PHP programming, style (.css) sheets etc I i use a KDE app called Quanta because it enables me too build the site as a project and quickly switch between files, organize folders, etc. and upload modified files to the server. It's not WYSWYG, you have to type in the appropriate xhtml / PHP, etc. code but, it does give you WYSIWYG views, so you write your code and then click an icon to get an idea as to what it will look like then click it again to switch back to your source code. It also has provisions for various add on features, plug-ins, etc. But so far I have mainly used just the basic core features.

If you're looking for 100% WYSIWYG editors where you build everything visually without having to look at any kind of code I can't help much because I've never used them. For that you may consider the suggestions of Luke and others.

[W1GUH]

Okay, I started building it from scratch. I created a page header with logo's links and stuff. I am waiting for feedback from the client. The only thing I am doing differently so far is that I am using CSS style sheets to handle some of the colors and formatting. At first I thought CSS might be hard to learn. But after looking at it for a full 5 minutes I determined it's pretty much self explanatory. CSS makes things a lot easier as I can define my styles in one place as opposed to distributing it among markup tags as I have always done in the past. The other thing I will probably be doing differently is that I will be using more PHP as inline tags within the documents as opposed to doing it via Perl/CGI as I always did in the past. But I need to give myself a crash course in PHP and I can still use Perl/CGI should the need arise. As it stand I prefer doing it this way because I understand what is going on every step of the way. Once it becomes routine I may adopt a CMS to make the job easier. But for now this is slammin.

I would still like to see this simplified to the point where I can just tell the system...do this...put this here...put this there... but the computer flunkies are still living in the 1950;s.

"I would still like to see this simplified to the point where I can just tell the system...do this...put this here...put this there... but the computer flunkies are still living in the 1950;s"


You just described the .net environment.

[KC2UGV]

"I would still like to see this simplified to the point where I can just tell the system...do this...put this here...put this there... but the computer flunkies are still living in the 1950;s"


You just described the .net environment.

.net makes building your GUI easy. But the work behind the GUI is just as difficult as any other language (Except, maybe Assembler).

There's no drag-and-drop bubble sort algo. There's no drag and drop device integration. You still have to code that by hand.

[W1GUH]

.net makes building your GUI easy. But the work behind the GUI is just as difficult as any other language (Except, maybe Assembler).

There's no drag-and-drop bubble sort algo. There's no drag and drop device integration. You still have to code that by hand.

Bullshit. Sounds like you've never used it?

[KC2UGV]

Bullshit. Sounds like you've never used it?

Sure I have. And, I know once you get past the simple shit of shell code for button actions and what not, you still have to code the useful parts like:

* Data transforms
* Data sorts
* Encryption Algos
* Protocol handlers
* A/D<-->D/A conversion
* Information displays (Such as dashboards)

Visual Studio is nice to get the shell code in place. After that, you still have coding to do. If not, every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally could call themselves a ".Net developer".

[WØTKX]

http://media.nola.com/2010_gulf_oil_spill/photo/charles-robin-net-repair-violetjpg-d92dc73f2afbc5f9_large.jpg

[n2ize]

"I would still like to see this simplified to the point where I can just tell the system...do this...put this here...put this there... but the computer flunkies are still living in the 1950;s"


You just described the .net environment.

Hmmmm... from what I've seen of .net it's not much more than a visual GUI builder, albeit a rather good one. What I was referring to was more along the lines of something so sophisticated that it will automagically write the underlying code to solve the problem at hand rather than just the boilerplate code.

I have also used visual GUI builders in other packages such as QT, etc. I do like them because they streamline most of the mundane / repetitiveness programming tasks, such as building the GUI.:) leaving me more time to focus on writing the important code that actually gets the desired underlying job done. Case and point, manually building the GUI from scratch involves a basic idea for a layout, then coding the layout, testing it, resizing, relocating, adding, changing, or removing widgets, etc. Very annoying and time consuming. That type of stuff I really appreciate the visual designer because it generates all the boilerplate code for me. All I need to do is tweak it a bit here and there and then focus on writing the actual working "meat and potatoes" code i.e. the stuff that actually performs the calculations.

Now I will admit... most of the programs I write don't really need a GUI at all. Most of the stuff I write runs behind the scenes as a daemon and can be initiated from a command line prompt, from a cron job or an initialization script at start up. Otherwise, I am trying to crunch some large numbers in the background and spit out a result. For those tasks, LISP, FORTRAN, Perl, or C (or even assembly) running from the CLI work fone.

Web programming is another matter. For that the GUI is already built for me, namely the clients web browser. Any code I write for a web site is either going to be standard HTML / XHTML code enhanced with some PHP or Perl/CGI stuff. For that a basic editor or a simple project manager like "Quanta" is adequate.

[n2ize]

Sure I have. And, I know once you get past the simple shit of shell code for button actions and what not, you still have to code the useful parts like:

* Data transforms
* Data sorts
* Encryption Algos
* Protocol handlers
* A/D<-->D/A conversion
* Information displays (Such as dashboards)

Visual Studio is nice to get the shell code in place. After that, you still have coding to do. If not, every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally could call themselves a ".Net developer".

Exactly. .NET will generate the boilerplate code saving time. But you are still going to have to code the Fourier transformation, encryption algorithm, approximation formula, etc. yourself.

Bear in mind I never fully understood what .NET is. At one time someone told me it was Microsoft's answer to Java. Then I heard it was a programming language unto itself. Then I heard it is many languages and apps wrapped in a suite of development environments. I have also heard it described as an abstraction, a state of mind, a philosophy, etc.

From what I gather it is a relatively simple and common development concept filtered through one or more layers of abstraction encapsulated undder the marketing name of .NET.

[ad4mg]

I always thought .net was a very efficient device used to clog up and generally hose an otherwise perfectly good XP installation.

[KA9MOT]

I always thought .net was a very efficient device used to clog up and generally hose an otherwise perfectly good XP installation.

Windows7 too!

[kf0rt]

I always thought .net was a very efficient device used to clog up and generally hose an otherwise perfectly good XP installation.

Good call. .net was Microsoft's marketing ploy into Internet programming. The real tool is Visual Studio and every Windows bloatware app ever devised was developed under VS. It's not bad... Bought me a house over the years and I still don't understand it.

[N2RJ]

.NET is similar to Java in that it's basically a managed environment for your apps to run.

Java is basically the same thing, which is why .NET is so stupid - .NET pretty much only runs on Windows. Java runs on everything.