Re:Perl 6: The Language of the Future (... Forever
on
State of the Onion 11
·
· Score: 1
Thankfully, Perl 6 follows the same principle as previous Perls: you don't need to know the whole language to use it -- kinda like spoken language. There's more than one way to do it, and those who can't hang with this design goal have plenty of pattern-rigid, syntax-poor dynamic languages to choose from (Python, Ruby, Esperanto...).
Yup... and he doesn't apologize for it
on
State of the Onion 11
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The Perl 6 community is more focused on getting it right than getting it into the marketplace ASAP. While this is frustrating for many -- it seems like every other day, there's a Perl 6 feature I want to use in my Perl 5 program -- it has contributed positively to the development of Perl 5 and Perl 6 alike. Perl 6 is painstakingly designed and planned as truly a next-generation dynamic language, and as features are completed, they often spill down into Perl 5. (See the perldelta for v5.10, out very soon, for some good examples.)
Unless someone is willing to finance full-time development on Perl 6, this is the best we get. I think it's pretty good.
Oh, I get it -- I am responsible for developers twisting my words. Thank you for elucidating, and please do not hesitate to sit on a dick, eat a bag of shit and shoot yourself in the head.
Sorry, there goes my pottymouth again.
I guess what I meant was that I don't give a sideways sympathy-fuck if devs get all butthurt when I say I don't like the crap-ass code they wrote.
You're only "curious" because you want to sound smart. I know what a light year is, and in the context of my original post, its actual meaning doesn't matter at all; it's idiomatic.
In the future I will be sure specify units which repel toss-in comments from pedantic shrimptoasts like you.
I tell you again: I dislike and disagree with its rootless interface (using the X root as its root doesn't make it 'rooted'... it makes it 'rootless'). I consider its features harder to reach than Photoshop's. I think GIMP makes poor use of contextual menus. And I consider making assumptions about focus behavior and virtual desktops, on Unix (where the only interface guarantee is no guarantee at all), a bug.
You may note that I wasn't telling anyone what to do with their time; rather it was being suggested to me that because I prefer Photoshop and dislike GIMP's UI, I should redesign it myself. I guess I got a little pissy. Are you reading any of this?
I use focus-follows-mouse on all Unix machines; I am quite satisfied with this interface. I do not agree that it is "far superior" to other schemes; I mainly use it because I have used it for a very long time, and my muscles expect it that way.
However, given that GIMP could use a rooted UI and avoid all problems with focus inconsistencies, and given that GIMP was designed for deployment in Unix environments where there is no guarantee of focus behavior, I do blame GIMP for not dealing with this issue.
I wield language more precisely than you may think. I choose not to restrict myself to highbrow constructions, though, because that is just as limiting as cleaving to the gutter. These aren't my first downmods resulting from color; I ain't skeered.
Read paragraph 2 of this post for but one example of GIMP's UI travesty.
To me, the GIMP UI is just too clumsy and labyrinthine to prefer it over Photoshop. Just about all the features I want exist in GIMP; getting to them and using them is where I get angry. This mostly stems from GIMP's rootless design, a central decision which has hindered GIMP's adoption more than any other single attribute of the program.
Again, I would like to make clear that I am glad GIMP exists. In fact, I will even go so far as to say that Script-Fu kicks huge ass, and I miss its absence in Photoshop. I just find the GIMP to be a far less user-efficient tool than Photoshop in all other cases.
Then fix it. That's why it's open source; if you don't like it don't complain, fix it yourself, or at least make a detailed layout so coders can do it for you.
Are you retarded? Do you really think of what you just said as a valid rebuttal?
Open source isn't about "fix it or shut up". It's about scratching your itch, and releasing your code so that other people can treat the same itch without having to write it themselves.
Photo editing isn't my itch. I have no need or want to scratch it. For the times when I need to do something, I use Photoshop. I do not have the time or desire to improve GIMP.
However, when I got the itch for a distributed CD reencoder and nothing was there for me, I scratched that itch. Same with wanting an improved/usr/bin/dc. Same with wanting a web board software package with specific features. Same with a program which can pressure-test a Slash site (not gonna tell you which). In each case, I wrote a program to scratch my itch, and released it under an open source license.
I have noticed also that the people who treat OSS as "fix it or shut up" software usually haven't written a line of free code in their lives. I guess OSS isn't hard to understand from within; it's outsiders to the process who have trouble.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with you that learning multiple tools is far preferable to learning only one; however, the reality of teaching dictates that there usually isn't time for that.
I just think that to choose the GIMP is a contrived, pious decision which short-changes the students in order to blindly "stick it to the man". I used to be a GIMP supporter as well. In 1997 we all wanted the GIMP to succeed. Ten years later, the GIMP UI is still uglier than a meth whore and there is still a legion of FOSS-zealot GIMP apologists. I appreciate that it's better to have a bad OSS alternative rather than none at all, but I have to call a spade a spade, even when it sends me into -1, Troll city.
GIMP has certainly advanced over the years, but retains a fundamental brokenness of UI design. If the UI were fed into a chipper-shredder and some good human interface designers stepped in, GIMP might well roll over Photoshop, or at least come to be considered a legitimate alternative to Photoshop, rather than a Photoshopalike For Zealots.
I'm not talking about CinePaint, the benefits of open source code, or Disney, so I fail to see how your comment was any more worth hearing than a good after-dinner belch.
The only problem with it is if you think the Windows way of thinking is the only way to think.
Look, if you want to get out the ruler and compare dicks, I am not afraid. I have never owned a Windows machine, I've been running BSD Unix for over ten years, and I was using Photoshop on my Mac SE when you were still shitting in diapers and gumming your mom's baggy teat.
Separation from the "Windows way of thinking" is not GIMP's only problem. If anything, that's one of its strong points. It still doesn't change the fact that Photoshop is both the industry standard, and more powerful than its competition (not to mention easy to use, though your FOSS Elite Freethinking mind disagrees).
Your students are far better off using tools that people used 8 years ago, than tools that no one uses today.
In particular, anyone who suggests using the GIMP over any moderately recent version of Photoshop for serious work should be sacked, tarred, feathered and shipped to Guantanamo. Photoshop 7 is light years ahead of GIMP today, and I will bet anyone here $5 that it's way ahead of where GIMP will be in ten years. (GIMP will then be twice as old, and if it's twice as good then it will still suck rod.)
Dreamweaver and Flash are also non-negotiable components of any web authoring introduction.
The students who are good candidates for open-source software will usually find their own way there. Don't force them to use OSS tools which are practically assured of leaving a bad taste in their mouths.
I am not forgetting the polymorphic nature of Warden; I just don't give a shit. There are plenty of polymorphic programs around, and if a haxor wants to use one to house his malicious code, he's got a bunch of skeletons to choose from (like the Sony rootkit, for example).
Since you mention a fear of such things, I would like to remind you that WoW itself runs with high privileges and receives commands from the Internet. I'd be a lot more afraid of Windows Update pulling crazy shit than WoW Warden.
Summary of TFA: WoW Warden now selects one of many hash algorithms and uses it in server communication. Blog author gets his panties in a bunch because Blizzard could replace one of these hash algorithms with something that collects PRIVATE PERSONAL DATA, and NO ONE WOULD EVER KNOW. A misleading Slashdot headline and poorly-written blurb is generated, and the rest is academic.
Wrong about the GBL part. The chemical was actually 1,4-butanediol, used commercially in plastics processing. 1,4-B is converted to GHB in the body, but again has more toxic effects than GHB alone. Apparently the factory was supposed to use 1,5-pentanediol instead but the almighty yuan triumphed (again).
Slashdot Mirror
Thankfully, Perl 6 follows the same principle as previous Perls: you don't need to know the whole language to use it -- kinda like spoken language. There's more than one way to do it, and those who can't hang with this design goal have plenty of pattern-rigid, syntax-poor dynamic languages to choose from (Python, Ruby, Esperanto...).
The Perl 6 community is more focused on getting it right than getting it into the marketplace ASAP. While this is frustrating for many -- it seems like every other day, there's a Perl 6 feature I want to use in my Perl 5 program -- it has contributed positively to the development of Perl 5 and Perl 6 alike. Perl 6 is painstakingly designed and planned as truly a next-generation dynamic language, and as features are completed, they often spill down into Perl 5. (See the perldelta for v5.10, out very soon, for some good examples.)
Unless someone is willing to finance full-time development on Perl 6, this is the best we get. I think it's pretty good.
Oh, I get it -- I am responsible for developers twisting my words. Thank you for elucidating, and please do not hesitate to sit on a dick, eat a bag of shit and shoot yourself in the head.
Sorry, there goes my pottymouth again.
I guess what I meant was that I don't give a sideways sympathy-fuck if devs get all butthurt when I say I don't like the crap-ass code they wrote.
Dammit, one more try:
Nah, never mind. That last one was ok.
Thus far all I'm hearing is it is bad because it is not photoshop.
That's all you're hearing, but people are saying a lot more.
You're only "curious" because you want to sound smart. I know what a light year is, and in the context of my original post, its actual meaning doesn't matter at all; it's idiomatic.
In the future I will be sure specify units which repel toss-in comments from pedantic shrimptoasts like you.
So tell me again, what's wrong with the GIMPs UI?
I tell you again: I dislike and disagree with its rootless interface (using the X root as its root doesn't make it 'rooted'... it makes it 'rootless'). I consider its features harder to reach than Photoshop's. I think GIMP makes poor use of contextual menus. And I consider making assumptions about focus behavior and virtual desktops, on Unix (where the only interface guarantee is no guarantee at all), a bug.
You may note that I wasn't telling anyone what to do with their time; rather it was being suggested to me that because I prefer Photoshop and dislike GIMP's UI, I should redesign it myself. I guess I got a little pissy. Are you reading any of this?
To the moderator who modded me down,
Dude, you dissed GIMP. On Slashdot.
Grab your ankles and get comfortable.
That is not what I mean, but thank you for typing all that.
No problem; I don't run Linux.
I use focus-follows-mouse on all Unix machines; I am quite satisfied with this interface. I do not agree that it is "far superior" to other schemes; I mainly use it because I have used it for a very long time, and my muscles expect it that way.
However, given that GIMP could use a rooted UI and avoid all problems with focus inconsistencies, and given that GIMP was designed for deployment in Unix environments where there is no guarantee of focus behavior, I do blame GIMP for not dealing with this issue.
I wield language more precisely than you may think. I choose not to restrict myself to highbrow constructions, though, because that is just as limiting as cleaving to the gutter. These aren't my first downmods resulting from color; I ain't skeered.
Read paragraph 2 of this post for but one example of GIMP's UI travesty.
To me, the GIMP UI is just too clumsy and labyrinthine to prefer it over Photoshop. Just about all the features I want exist in GIMP; getting to them and using them is where I get angry. This mostly stems from GIMP's rootless design, a central decision which has hindered GIMP's adoption more than any other single attribute of the program.
Again, I would like to make clear that I am glad GIMP exists. In fact, I will even go so far as to say that Script-Fu kicks huge ass, and I miss its absence in Photoshop. I just find the GIMP to be a far less user-efficient tool than Photoshop in all other cases.
Then fix it. That's why it's open source; if you don't like it don't complain, fix it yourself, or at least make a detailed layout so coders can do it for you.
/usr/bin/dc. Same with wanting a web board software package with specific features. Same with a program which can pressure-test a Slash site (not gonna tell you which). In each case, I wrote a program to scratch my itch, and released it under an open source license.
Are you retarded? Do you really think of what you just said as a valid rebuttal?
Open source isn't about "fix it or shut up". It's about scratching your itch, and releasing your code so that other people can treat the same itch without having to write it themselves.
Photo editing isn't my itch. I have no need or want to scratch it. For the times when I need to do something, I use Photoshop. I do not have the time or desire to improve GIMP.
However, when I got the itch for a distributed CD reencoder and nothing was there for me, I scratched that itch. Same with wanting an improved
I have noticed also that the people who treat OSS as "fix it or shut up" software usually haven't written a line of free code in their lives. I guess OSS isn't hard to understand from within; it's outsiders to the process who have trouble.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with you that learning multiple tools is far preferable to learning only one; however, the reality of teaching dictates that there usually isn't time for that.
I just think that to choose the GIMP is a contrived, pious decision which short-changes the students in order to blindly "stick it to the man". I used to be a GIMP supporter as well. In 1997 we all wanted the GIMP to succeed. Ten years later, the GIMP UI is still uglier than a meth whore and there is still a legion of FOSS-zealot GIMP apologists. I appreciate that it's better to have a bad OSS alternative rather than none at all, but I have to call a spade a spade, even when it sends me into -1, Troll city.
GIMP has certainly advanced over the years, but retains a fundamental brokenness of UI design. If the UI were fed into a chipper-shredder and some good human interface designers stepped in, GIMP might well roll over Photoshop, or at least come to be considered a legitimate alternative to Photoshop, rather than a Photoshopalike For Zealots.
I'm not talking about CinePaint, the benefits of open source code, or Disney, so I fail to see how your comment was any more worth hearing than a good after-dinner belch.
The only problem with it is if you think the Windows way of thinking is the only way to think.
Look, if you want to get out the ruler and compare dicks, I am not afraid. I have never owned a Windows machine, I've been running BSD Unix for over ten years, and I was using Photoshop on my Mac SE when you were still shitting in diapers and gumming your mom's baggy teat.
Separation from the "Windows way of thinking" is not GIMP's only problem. If anything, that's one of its strong points. It still doesn't change the fact that Photoshop is both the industry standard, and more powerful than its competition (not to mention easy to use, though your FOSS Elite Freethinking mind disagrees).
Your students are far better off using tools that people used 8 years ago, than tools that no one uses today.
In particular, anyone who suggests using the GIMP over any moderately recent version of Photoshop for serious work should be sacked, tarred, feathered and shipped to Guantanamo. Photoshop 7 is light years ahead of GIMP today, and I will bet anyone here $5 that it's way ahead of where GIMP will be in ten years. (GIMP will then be twice as old, and if it's twice as good then it will still suck rod.)
Dreamweaver and Flash are also non-negotiable components of any web authoring introduction.
The students who are good candidates for open-source software will usually find their own way there. Don't force them to use OSS tools which are practically assured of leaving a bad taste in their mouths.
I know it! Next thing you know, PETA is going to be ham-fisting their objectives too. Hell in a handbasket, I tell you.
I am not forgetting the polymorphic nature of Warden; I just don't give a shit. There are plenty of polymorphic programs around, and if a haxor wants to use one to house his malicious code, he's got a bunch of skeletons to choose from (like the Sony rootkit, for example).
Since you mention a fear of such things, I would like to remind you that WoW itself runs with high privileges and receives commands from the Internet. I'd be a lot more afraid of Windows Update pulling crazy shit than WoW Warden.
Anyone sufficiently clever could hackify any host program they wanted.
Summary of TFA: WoW Warden now selects one of many hash algorithms and uses it in server communication. Blog author gets his panties in a bunch because Blizzard could replace one of these hash algorithms with something that collects PRIVATE PERSONAL DATA, and NO ONE WOULD EVER KNOW. A misleading Slashdot headline and poorly-written blurb is generated, and the rest is academic.
Wrong about the GBL part. The chemical was actually 1,4-butanediol, used commercially in plastics processing. 1,4-B is converted to GHB in the body, but again has more toxic effects than GHB alone. Apparently the factory was supposed to use 1,5-pentanediol instead but the almighty yuan triumphed (again).
Sadly, ZFS did not quite make it into 10.5 (ZFS read support is there, read/write support is experimental and present only in developer versions).