OS/2 was amazing at the time of 95 "a better DOS than DOS a better Windows than Windows" was absolutely true. It wasn't just marketing though IBM was strategically divided on their OS strategy. For example: did they really want to encourage the move to PC servers running OS/2 replacing their more expensive AS/400 servers for mid sized business as they did eventually?
As for Window 8, that's my feeling. Windows 8 is designed for new hardware not old hardware. I see the process as
1) Build a new modern OS 2) Force the change in hardware 3) Force the change in applications
Not for 5mp is it isn't. Most websites aren't designed well for that sort of dpi. The OS / video card has to do a lot of manipulation. The 11" ultrabooks don't have nearly that many pixels nor do they have to do the complex manipulations of scale.
I have a rMBP which has the Intel 4000. Integrated graphics suck. I would never buy this machine without the Nvidia 650M and while I love this machine I gotta tell you even the 650M ain't quite beefy enough that I don't sometimes notice video lag.
I'm sure it is a problem. I have the 15" rMBP. The Nvidia 650M can have problems keeping up with 5mp. The Intel 4000 definitely lags if you force the laptop to use integrated graphics. I would never buy the 13" rMBP for that reason.
I don't know about that. QuickLisp may have solved so of this but the situation was bad for many years. Have you gone through something like Perl or Java library collections to see what a full set of libraries looks like? It isn't just GUI is it everything.
A far as IDEs, yeah it is a problem for most non static languages. The static Algol based languages have the best IDEs. Clojure has fairly good support because of its ties to the Java community, you might want to check that out. I keep my eye on http://leksah.org/ for Haskell an hope.
If by mainstream you mean professional. Common Lisp stagnated and until Clojure there really wasn't a LISP with professional libraries. The LISP community all during the 1980s and 1990s simply didn't want to make the compromises needed to have a mainstream language. I think that in many ways Haskell has taken the role that LISP used to play in terms of language of the future.
If by mainstream you mean educational. It is a pity. Racket is fantastic for educational scheme. The AP exam is based on Java, but arguably that's a chicken and egg thing.
I use Haskell which has infix and prefix and does a pretty good job of letting your pass between the two
i.e. you can take infix star and write ((*) 2 3) for (2*3) and you can take prefix f (a `f` b) for (f a b)
That being said what makes LISP, LISP is the complete lack of syntactic structures that parsing is trivial. The fact that you can write in a LISP evaluator in a few hundred lines and thus whip up a DSL inside of anything is what makes LISP. I don't mind curly braces. I don't mind Clojures additions but ultimately I think those things absolutely should just be macros that all resolve to infix notation.
I understand your point and it is possible. That's Apple's position on the matter that the way we interact with phones is fundamentally different than the way we interact with computers. Computers need to house document authoring systems and mobile devices display and light editing system. Light editing and authoring are fundamentally different.
I can understand that objection. But it is different then accusing Windows 8 of being change for the heck of it.
For the reason I said above. To make large numbers of clusters of objects visible by making them further away. And 2D GUIs do use the same concept sometimes: mini icons on folders in iOS for example. 3D normalizes that where the computer can generate clusterings thus using more parts of the brain's ability to visualize.
What happens is you select and the area grows relative to the other areas. So what was central gets "further away" smaller and less detailed while new stuff you want to focus on gets "closer" larger and more detailed. The close stuff can be mostly 2Dish.
But they don't expand to the same size they used to be. So they don't agree.
That's a setting "Sidebar icon size". Set it to large and it is rather fat.
because it is easier to discern different-colored objects from one another than it is gray objects. That was my point: gray objects are a step backward, from an efficient interface point of view.
I'm not a UI expert so I'm parroting. My understanding though is the easiest interfaces to understand are ones in which new controls that need to draw your attention use a color scheme against a washed out grey interface. So for example if the web browser is grey the controls on the webpage in color are easier to see than if the browser used color controls. Since users are familiar with the browser interface they don't need to have their attention drawn.
Slashdot Mirror
Please Python was a hipster language 17 years ago. Today stuff like Scala, Clojure are the hipster languages. Even Haskell is getting post hipster.
That's interesting. I've almost always heard the opposite that Perl is faster than Ruby. Though looking at the recent results that is no longer true.
As for Perl 6, I agree that's been a badly badly mishandled project.
Windows 3.1 you just didn't boot into windows if you needed all of 640K. Windows had no impact on DOS.
OS/2 was amazing at the time of 95 "a better DOS than DOS a better Windows than Windows" was absolutely true. It wasn't just marketing though IBM was strategically divided on their OS strategy. For example: did they really want to encourage the move to PC servers running OS/2 replacing their more expensive AS/400 servers for mid sized business as they did eventually?
As for Window 8, that's my feeling. Windows 8 is designed for new hardware not old hardware. I see the process as
1) Build a new modern OS
2) Force the change in hardware
3) Force the change in applications
We are in step (2) now.
They licensed it under open source. They sold copyright. LG has complete ownership that doesn't change the pre-existing license.
They don't have to revoke anything. They have copyright.
I own copyright on book X.
I license A to produce 200 copies for resale
I license B to make a made for TV movie with unlimited distribution and I get a cut.
A can't use B's license and B can't use A's license.
Copyright holders can release things on as many licenses as they want.
Firefox 17 not 18 correct? You should see it immediately. Here is a sample image with FF 16 vs. Safari.
https://bug674373.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=631507
I'll do you one worse. It is officially supported: http://www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/
My laptop in 2001 had 1600x1200. Resolutions on PCs are generally terrible. But they are finally starting to move from 720p to 1080p.
I own the 15" rMBP and wow does the extra resolution make a difference.
He's talking about problems with applications that use dpi specific resolutions. Try browsing on Firefox 17 you'll see very quickly the problem.
Not for 5mp is it isn't. Most websites aren't designed well for that sort of dpi. The OS / video card has to do a lot of manipulation. The 11" ultrabooks don't have nearly that many pixels nor do they have to do the complex manipulations of scale.
I have a rMBP which has the Intel 4000. Integrated graphics suck. I would never buy this machine without the Nvidia 650M and while I love this machine I gotta tell you even the 650M ain't quite beefy enough that I don't sometimes notice video lag.
I'm sure it is a problem. I have the 15" rMBP. The Nvidia 650M can have problems keeping up with 5mp. The Intel 4000 definitely lags if you force the laptop to use integrated graphics. I would never buy the 13" rMBP for that reason.
fs = [(lambda n: i + n) for i in range(10)]
fs[3](4)
returns 13
should be 7.
Python has a broken non-functional semi lambda. This has been an issue of controversy.
_____
I didn't realize they added partial application. I'll take my comment about first class functions back.
I don't know about that. QuickLisp may have solved so of this but the situation was bad for many years. Have you gone through something like Perl or Java library collections to see what a full set of libraries looks like? It isn't just GUI is it everything.
A far as IDEs, yeah it is a problem for most non static languages. The static Algol based languages have the best IDEs. Clojure has fairly good support because of its ties to the Java community, you might want to check that out. I keep my eye on http://leksah.org/ for Haskell an hope.
It is popular. You can find stuff all over the web.
And there are books: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=clojure
Clojure is a LISP that can use Java libraries.
I don't know if that helps but there finally is a LISP with a good modern set of libraries.
Python doesn't have lambda expressions or first class functions. Python is far less like Scheme than it was 15 years ago.
If by mainstream you mean professional. Common Lisp stagnated and until Clojure there really wasn't a LISP with professional libraries. The LISP community all during the 1980s and 1990s simply didn't want to make the compromises needed to have a mainstream language. I think that in many ways Haskell has taken the role that LISP used to play in terms of language of the future.
If by mainstream you mean educational. It is a pity. Racket is fantastic for educational scheme. The AP exam is based on Java, but arguably that's a chicken and egg thing.
I use Haskell which has infix and prefix and does a pretty good job of letting your pass between the two
i.e. you can take infix star and write ((*) 2 3) for (2*3)
and you can take prefix f (a `f` b) for (f a b)
That being said what makes LISP, LISP is the complete lack of syntactic structures that parsing is trivial. The fact that you can write in a LISP evaluator in a few hundred lines and thus whip up a DSL inside of anything is what makes LISP. I don't mind curly braces. I don't mind Clojures additions but ultimately I think those things absolutely should just be macros that all resolve to infix notation.
I understand your point and it is possible. That's Apple's position on the matter that the way we interact with phones is fundamentally different than the way we interact with computers. Computers need to house document authoring systems and mobile devices display and light editing system. Light editing and authoring are fundamentally different.
I can understand that objection. But it is different then accusing Windows 8 of being change for the heck of it.
For the reason I said above. To make large numbers of clusters of objects visible by making them further away. And 2D GUIs do use the same concept sometimes: mini icons on folders in iOS for example. 3D normalizes that where the computer can generate clusterings thus using more parts of the brain's ability to visualize.
Seeing behind isn't the goal.
You move the foreground object out of the way. In general though the layout is designed so things aren't hidden behind one another.
I can't look behind things that are far away with real 3D. Unless they are clear they block the things behind them.
What happens is you select and the area grows relative to the other areas. So what was central gets "further away" smaller and less detailed while new stuff you want to focus on gets "closer" larger and more detailed. The close stuff can be mostly 2Dish.
But they don't expand to the same size they used to be. So they don't agree.
That's a setting "Sidebar icon size". Set it to large and it is rather fat.
because it is easier to discern different-colored objects from one another than it is gray objects. That was my point: gray objects are a step backward, from an efficient interface point of view.
I'm not a UI expert so I'm parroting. My understanding though is the easiest interfaces to understand are ones in which new controls that need to draw your attention use a color scheme against a washed out grey interface. So for example if the web browser is grey the controls on the webpage in color are easier to see than if the browser used color controls. Since users are familiar with the browser interface they don't need to have their attention drawn.