English is a horrible mess that's unsuited to programming. (Which might, arguably, be why AppleScript was so widely disliked. It tried a little too hard to follow the natural language metaphor.)
However, we definitely could do better, and we could make code more explicit and more readable. Sometimes I get the impression that serious computer language geeks are afraid to even talk about syntax. The subject is too lowbrow. We all know that language geekery is all about impressing other language geeks with your knowledge of abstruse comp-sci concepts. (Just scan the other comments on this piece!) Easily readable syntax isn't sexy like that. A highly readable language might even suffer the stigma of being "dumbed down" and unsuited to Real Coders.
I remember reading a comment from Chris Lattner explaining why Swift syntax is so C-like. We could have made it more readable, he said, but we felt it was more important to keep it familiar-looking to C programmers! The implication (to me) was that readable syntax is a frivolous matter, not worth expending any concern or effort on.
The purpose of the EV credit was to jump-start the market and lure manufacturers into the electric car business. It worked! Now that business is established, the vehicles are on the market, the automotive industry is committed to making more of them. And the EV credit should ride off into the sunset. Job well done.
When did the word "dongle" become a synonym for "adapter" instead of referring to a hardware copy protection device? Who made this decision, and why wasn't I sent the memo?
Same old story. Am I the only one who noticed how long it took for Macintosh to support multiple full-screen programs and easy switching between them, which Amiga had already done starting in 1985?
Here's why it seems bonkers to me. . . When you access a website, you are merely sending that site a request for information. That's all. Assuming it responds with the requested information, one must presume that's because the operator (and, by proxy, the owner) of the website set it up for that purpose. So what we have here is effectively. . .
LinkedIn: Don't request information from us!
hiQ: Please send the following information.
LinkedIn: OK, here you go.
LinkedIn: Dammit, you requested information after we told you not to! WE'RE GONNA SUE!!
Why indeed? Well, it's not like this is some new tactic that we've never seen before in the annals of computering.
Why didn't Apple give Mac OS X (AKA NeXTSTEP, AKA macOS) a different name that wouldn't be confused with Mac OS (AKA System, AKA System Softwware), given that they're completely different and basically incompatible operating systems? Could it be that they were deliberately attempting to conflate the two in the minds of their customers? Gasp!
So... Most flowers that look blue are somehow not really "genuine" blue? Could we get some explanation of that? Our local bluebells and bluebonnets look pretty darn blue to my eyes. (I did once find a few mutant "pinkbonnets", by the way! They were cute.)
The word "blue" has held varied meanings, and what computer systems today define as blue -- the B in our RGB scheme -- would have been regarded as indigo or violet in the not-too-distant past.
You can get prescription lenses that fit into the headset. I got a pair for my Vive, and they work well, although there is some distortion that takes a bit of getting used to. (Almost immediately after I got my set, the company I bought them from began offering a new formulation with reduced distortion. D'oh!)
I'm the sole user of this headset, though. Swapping the lenses in and out would be very awkward if other people had to use it too.
The more annoying thing for me is that the Vive requires a set of earbuds or headphones, and accompanying tangle of wires, which complicates getting the headset on and off. I've heard this will most likely be corrected by the Vive 2, which should have them built-in like the Rift does.
Uhhh... I clearly recall buying an Atari 800XL in 1982 for $250 and an Atari 1050 floppy drive for an other $400, and I believe Commodore gear was similarly priced if not a bit cheaper. Apples on the other hand were absurdly costly, something like $1600 for an Apple II if I recall right. And $650 for the Atari was a lot of money to me at the time.
And one could argue that "home" computers really were a niche item prior to the C64.
> But in fact, lexicographers have always intended the dictionary to be more of an archive than an authority. The purpose of the dictionary has always been to record how language is being used...
Au contraire! For a long time dictionaries were more prescriptive than descriptive. They described how words ought to be used in correct or standard English, not how people were actually using (or mis-using) them. A lot of people liked it that way. They liked getting some guidance from their dictionary, and being able to settle questions with it. Now that's out of fashion, and dictionaries have become all about documenting whatever is being written or spoken.
I still keep a copy of Webster's New International Dictionary Second Editon Unabridged with Reference History from 1934 (the notorious "dord" dictionary!) because I like its authoritative stance and its extra material which made it almost like a mini-encyclopedia. (And I still keep a copy of The Elements of Style around too, so everyone will know what a linguistic dinosaur I am.)
I used to feel this way, and I still do to some degree, but I think Linux fragmentation also has some advantages. Many of these obscure distros are trying out new ideas, they're experiments, and that kind of experimentation can't happen in the Windows and Mac worlds.
Also, they give us a way to route around failure. Gnome Shell was not well received by many. So what happened? Ubuntu created the Unity interface. Well, that wasn't well received by many either. So what happened? Mint created Cinnamon, and somebody else forked the Gnome 2 code to create MATE, and now those who don't like Gnome Shell or Unity can shrug and keep on trucking. If you don't like the direction Microsoft or Apple have taken, you're out of luck.
And as for compatibility, it seems like within a given distro family (e.g. Debiant/Ubuntu/Mint) this is not much of a problem.
From my perspective, I've been watching and dabbling with Linux for years and years, and it always seemed half-baked, I always ran into problems. Now, in 2017, I'm finding that some Linux distros (Ubuntu MATE is the one I happened to latch onto) have finally reached a level of functionality that I deem acceptable, while Mac OS X (err, "macOS" now) seems to be backsliding in the other direction.
Maybe the fabled "Year of the Linux Desktop" can only happen after everyone else thinks the desktop doesn't matter anymore.
> Mint appears to force me to have no scrollbar button. I would have to check what distros/environments still have scrollbar buttons and how the hell can you switch scrollbar style or if it's forever forbidden from now on.
I noticed that too when I briefly looked into Mint. What were they thinking? I didn't stick with it long enough to see if I could change that in the theme somehow.
The default theme in Ubuntu MATE provides large, green, always-visible scrollbars. It does make Window resizing very fiddly, though, since you have to hit an exact 1-pixel spot with your pointer -- but that's easily fixed with a tweak to the Metacity theme, or by switching to a different one. I found one called Electronica FX that I rather like.
"...Pop!_OS has established an inviting, modern, and minimalist look..."
Ugly flat interface. Probably with all the drop-down menus removed in favor of dumbed-down controls hidden behind cryptic icons. My experience with "modern" desktops has been uniformly negative. I mean, Windows, Mac, Gnome Shell, Unity...
Am I the only one who thinks the desktop environment and user interface was pretty well figured out and perfected by, say, ten years ago? Since then it's just been change for the sake of change (under the holy banner of "innovation") and misguided efforts to make desktop computers work like phones. The only present-day desktop that I find attractive and comfortable to use has been Ubuntu MATE, and their motto is "for a retrospective future".
If they had any sense, they'd just make an Atari-branded Steam Machine.
Sometimes I think Valve today is the closest thing that exists to the old Atari in its heyday, since they are bridging the gap between consoles and "home computers". Rather than try to compete with that, Atari should partner with them.
It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.
I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.
His assertions stand in stark contrast to what I've heard about developing for Alexa. As I understand, it performs the speech-to-text translation for you, but when it comes to parsing the text and interpreting what it means, you're on your own.
One of the more interesting problems I've encountered with the Vive is. . . What happens when you push your face into a wall?
First I have to say, this is *extremely* counter-intuitive to do at first. Pushing my face into a wall really doesn't come naturally at all.
In some games (or not-exactly-games, like realities.io) you can see what's on the other side of the wall, and you can get glimpses of things you aren't really meant to see -- which can be fun and useful. In other games the display just fades to black, preventing you from "cheating" in this way.
A few days ago I got Compound, which is a simple-but-addictive demo game, where pushing my head into a wall moves the wall. Actually, it moves EVERYTHING. It just nudges the whole virtual world over a few inches. Which is odd, but oddly cool. If I get too close to a *real* wall, I can always step back to the center of my game space, even if it looks like there's a virtual wall in my way.
But you still can't lean against that virtual wall, or set a real object down on that virtual table -- things I've attempted while using the Vive, with predictably humorous results.
Meanwhile, unconfirmed reports of potato-hoarding warlords in the north of Hokkaido have emerged as authorities remain unwilling to even estimate the number of deaths the crisis has caused.
Slashdot Mirror
Or we could just call it the "I Am Root" bug.
English is a horrible mess that's unsuited to programming. (Which might, arguably, be why AppleScript was so widely disliked. It tried a little too hard to follow the natural language metaphor.)
However, we definitely could do better, and we could make code more explicit and more readable. Sometimes I get the impression that serious computer language geeks are afraid to even talk about syntax. The subject is too lowbrow. We all know that language geekery is all about impressing other language geeks with your knowledge of abstruse comp-sci concepts. (Just scan the other comments on this piece!) Easily readable syntax isn't sexy like that. A highly readable language might even suffer the stigma of being "dumbed down" and unsuited to Real Coders.
I remember reading a comment from Chris Lattner explaining why Swift syntax is so C-like. We could have made it more readable, he said, but we felt it was more important to keep it familiar-looking to C programmers! The implication (to me) was that readable syntax is a frivolous matter, not worth expending any concern or effort on.
Do AMD processors have any counterpart of this nonsense?
The purpose of the EV credit was to jump-start the market and lure manufacturers into the electric car business. It worked! Now that business is established, the vehicles are on the market, the automotive industry is committed to making more of them. And the EV credit should ride off into the sunset. Job well done.
When did the word "dongle" become a synonym for "adapter" instead of referring to a hardware copy protection device? Who made this decision, and why wasn't I sent the memo?
Record stores have bounced back, photographic film has bounced back, and telemarketing is (I'm sad to say) still going strong.
quote: "The governor has certainly indicated an interest in why China can do this and not California."
So far the Chinese have shown that they can *talk* about banning combustion cars, not that they can actually make it work.
Same old story. Am I the only one who noticed how long it took for Macintosh to support multiple full-screen programs and easy switching between them, which Amiga had already done starting in 1985?
This article kills my soul.
Here's why it seems bonkers to me. . . When you access a website, you are merely sending that site a request for information. That's all. Assuming it responds with the requested information, one must presume that's because the operator (and, by proxy, the owner) of the website set it up for that purpose. So what we have here is effectively. . .
LinkedIn: Don't request information from us!
hiQ: Please send the following information.
LinkedIn: OK, here you go.
LinkedIn: Dammit, you requested information after we told you not to! WE'RE GONNA SUE!!
Why indeed? Well, it's not like this is some new tactic that we've never seen before in the annals of computering.
Why didn't Apple give Mac OS X (AKA NeXTSTEP, AKA macOS) a different name that wouldn't be confused with Mac OS (AKA System, AKA System Softwware), given that they're completely different and basically incompatible operating systems? Could it be that they were deliberately attempting to conflate the two in the minds of their customers? Gasp!
So... Most flowers that look blue are somehow not really "genuine" blue? Could we get some explanation of that? Our local bluebells and bluebonnets look pretty darn blue to my eyes. (I did once find a few mutant "pinkbonnets", by the way! They were cute.)
The word "blue" has held varied meanings, and what computer systems today define as blue -- the B in our RGB scheme -- would have been regarded as indigo or violet in the not-too-distant past.
You can get prescription lenses that fit into the headset. I got a pair for my Vive, and they work well, although there is some distortion that takes a bit of getting used to. (Almost immediately after I got my set, the company I bought them from began offering a new formulation with reduced distortion. D'oh!)
I'm the sole user of this headset, though. Swapping the lenses in and out would be very awkward if other people had to use it too.
The more annoying thing for me is that the Vive requires a set of earbuds or headphones, and accompanying tangle of wires, which complicates getting the headset on and off. I've heard this will most likely be corrected by the Vive 2, which should have them built-in like the Rift does.
Uhhh... I clearly recall buying an Atari 800XL in 1982 for $250 and an Atari 1050 floppy drive for an other $400, and I believe Commodore gear was similarly priced if not a bit cheaper. Apples on the other hand were absurdly costly, something like $1600 for an Apple II if I recall right. And $650 for the Atari was a lot of money to me at the time.
And one could argue that "home" computers really were a niche item prior to the C64.
> But in fact, lexicographers have always intended the dictionary to be more of an archive than an authority. The purpose of the dictionary has always been to record how language is being used...
Au contraire! For a long time dictionaries were more prescriptive than descriptive. They described how words ought to be used in correct or standard English, not how people were actually using (or mis-using) them. A lot of people liked it that way. They liked getting some guidance from their dictionary, and being able to settle questions with it. Now that's out of fashion, and dictionaries have become all about documenting whatever is being written or spoken.
I still keep a copy of Webster's New International Dictionary Second Editon Unabridged with Reference History from 1934 (the notorious "dord" dictionary!) because I like its authoritative stance and its extra material which made it almost like a mini-encyclopedia. (And I still keep a copy of The Elements of Style around too, so everyone will know what a linguistic dinosaur I am.)
I used to feel this way, and I still do to some degree, but I think Linux fragmentation also has some advantages. Many of these obscure distros are trying out new ideas, they're experiments, and that kind of experimentation can't happen in the Windows and Mac worlds.
Also, they give us a way to route around failure. Gnome Shell was not well received by many. So what happened? Ubuntu created the Unity interface. Well, that wasn't well received by many either. So what happened? Mint created Cinnamon, and somebody else forked the Gnome 2 code to create MATE, and now those who don't like Gnome Shell or Unity can shrug and keep on trucking. If you don't like the direction Microsoft or Apple have taken, you're out of luck.
And as for compatibility, it seems like within a given distro family (e.g. Debiant/Ubuntu/Mint) this is not much of a problem.
From my perspective, I've been watching and dabbling with Linux for years and years, and it always seemed half-baked, I always ran into problems. Now, in 2017, I'm finding that some Linux distros (Ubuntu MATE is the one I happened to latch onto) have finally reached a level of functionality that I deem acceptable, while Mac OS X (err, "macOS" now) seems to be backsliding in the other direction.
Maybe the fabled "Year of the Linux Desktop" can only happen after everyone else thinks the desktop doesn't matter anymore.
> Mint appears to force me to have no scrollbar button. I would have to check what distros/environments still have scrollbar buttons and how the hell can you switch scrollbar style or if it's forever forbidden from now on.
I noticed that too when I briefly looked into Mint. What were they thinking? I didn't stick with it long enough to see if I could change that in the theme somehow.
The default theme in Ubuntu MATE provides large, green, always-visible scrollbars. It does make Window resizing very fiddly, though, since you have to hit an exact 1-pixel spot with your pointer -- but that's easily fixed with a tweak to the Metacity theme, or by switching to a different one. I found one called Electronica FX that I rather like.
"...Pop!_OS has established an inviting, modern, and minimalist look..."
Ugly flat interface. Probably with all the drop-down menus removed in favor of dumbed-down controls hidden behind cryptic icons. My experience with "modern" desktops has been uniformly negative. I mean, Windows, Mac, Gnome Shell, Unity...
Am I the only one who thinks the desktop environment and user interface was pretty well figured out and perfected by, say, ten years ago? Since then it's just been change for the sake of change (under the holy banner of "innovation") and misguided efforts to make desktop computers work like phones. The only present-day desktop that I find attractive and comfortable to use has been Ubuntu MATE, and their motto is "for a retrospective future".
If they had any sense, they'd just make an Atari-branded Steam Machine.
Sometimes I think Valve today is the closest thing that exists to the old Atari in its heyday, since they are bridging the gap between consoles and "home computers". Rather than try to compete with that, Atari should partner with them.
It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.
I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.
I thought Javascript was going to rule the world? Dammit...
His assertions stand in stark contrast to what I've heard about developing for Alexa. As I understand, it performs the speech-to-text translation for you, but when it comes to parsing the text and interpreting what it means, you're on your own.
One of the more interesting problems I've encountered with the Vive is. . . What happens when you push your face into a wall?
First I have to say, this is *extremely* counter-intuitive to do at first. Pushing my face into a wall really doesn't come naturally at all.
In some games (or not-exactly-games, like realities.io) you can see what's on the other side of the wall, and you can get glimpses of things you aren't really meant to see -- which can be fun and useful. In other games the display just fades to black, preventing you from "cheating" in this way.
A few days ago I got Compound, which is a simple-but-addictive demo game, where pushing my head into a wall moves the wall. Actually, it moves EVERYTHING. It just nudges the whole virtual world over a few inches. Which is odd, but oddly cool. If I get too close to a *real* wall, I can always step back to the center of my game space, even if it looks like there's a virtual wall in my way.
But you still can't lean against that virtual wall, or set a real object down on that virtual table -- things I've attempted while using the Vive, with predictably humorous results.
Meanwhile, unconfirmed reports of potato-hoarding warlords in the north of Hokkaido have emerged as authorities remain unwilling to even estimate the number of deaths the crisis has caused.