Is that supposed to be sarcasm? KDE never labeled their releases as beta -- 4.0 was supposed to be a fully usable release, it's just users fled from it in horror. Indeed, either 4.3 or 4.4 was the version that users found actually usable, so this is what was picked up by distributions.
Your saying is stupid, and you are stupid. The design of a project's interface has to be able to fit in the head of a person using it. This is true for any well-designed project, no matter how large -- Linux kernel is among those, for example. A person may have to look up documentation and clearly organized header files to keep track of the details, but if anything beyond that is necessary to work on a project, it means that project has incoherent internal interfaces.
Software is complex. A quick glance at pieces of code that an IDE heuristically fished out of the source tree will only give a programmer the most superficial, and often plain wrong idea of how the code works. So the only real solution is to make it unnecessary to go into details beyond clearly defined interface -- and then the programmer has no business scouring through megabytes of text in the first place, with or without any automation. When a person has to deal with things behind interface, he has to be able to keep those things in his head -- to the points where other interfaces are used. If this is impossible, programmer is dealing with spaghetti code that can not be analyzed properly or modified safely no matter how many doodads his IDE has.
Explanation for retards: "choice" of predefined things is worthless unless one of them is exactly what you want. Freedom offered by Linux is not the "freedom" to choose between it and Windows, it's ability to develop it into any imaginable direction, and ability to develop software for any of systems that share the same Unix-like interface.
No, we know that this is not true in the first place. Except than for childish gestures from then-Linksys ("we will show those hackers! we will switch to the shittiest OS we can find!"), Linux is pretty much everywhere on those devices.
And according to me, Windows accounts for 100% of servers I have seen "shipped" anywhere. And yet overwhelming majority of servers I see, run Debian (AFAIK, no one ever shipped a server with it).
And this is the root of the problem -- if you need an IDE to find names that reflect your code structure, it means that you do not understand how that code works. What means, you are not qualified to modify it in any way.
That's because you are Microsoft user, and this is why I credit Microsoft with destruction of mankind's intellectual potential -- it stuffs terribly wrong ideas into people's heads and keeps a tightly controlled environment where those ideas seem to make sense. Powershell is a great example how Microsoft sees something done in Unix and makes something superficially similar but fundamentally terribly wrong -- in that case, by stuffing it with non-interchangeable interfaces.
Unix shell's strength is in using Unix interprocess communications and files/devices (and later networking) to pass data between completely unrelated pieces of software. It's actually the only its redeeming quality -- the language (all three of them, with all later versions and extensions) is terrible, but this is completely irrelevant because all functionality is provided by utilities called from shell, and Unix is very efficient at dealing with multiple processes communicating with each other. All interfaces can be done by passing streams of data with minimal predefined formatting -- if one cares about complex processing he can write a complex parser in one of the components, but in general it is not expected to be necessary because most operations are operations on plain text that can be parsed with something like awk. If it was important to do more complex text handling, people would use perl as their shell, but it is not, so they don't.
Microsoft, on the other hand, looooooves its internal, non-generalized interfaces, single COM umbrella with absolutely no generalization of data formats inside. No communication is possible unless one side is designed specifically to suck on the teat of the other side. Slapping a "shell" on top of this, provided none of advantages that Unix shell has, it merely connects pre-made pieces to each other -- in fact, that thing would be done easier in GUI without losing any of the functionality.
If all you have to do for "refactoring" is to move functions between classes or substitute names, then all your work is entirely cosmetic. Not that you are supposed to "refactor" code in the first place unless it's poorly designed.
Until it reached the civilians. Then all wars will be about ignoring the opposing military and going straight to civilian massacres -- whoever will get wiped out first, loses, everything else is irrelevant because robots are easy to replace.
Something is seriously... undesirable with this picture.
Slashdot Mirror
But then wouldn't it be more likely that he brought an infected mosquito somewhere in his baggage?
Yeah-yeah.
Is that supposed to be sarcasm? KDE never labeled their releases as beta -- 4.0 was supposed to be a fully usable release, it's just users fled from it in horror. Indeed, either 4.3 or 4.4 was the version that users found actually usable, so this is what was picked up by distributions.
Ooooops. Something is not here.
The page you tried to access was not found.
gb2/b/
Good luck making it talk to the "LabVIEW-supported" devices if you are not running Windows.
But renaming methods and updating references throughout the project is a common task.
Then you are doing it (software design) wrong.
The "choice" of a user is of no concern for me -- or anyone.
Your saying is stupid, and you are stupid. The design of a project's interface has to be able to fit in the head of a person using it. This is true for any well-designed project, no matter how large -- Linux kernel is among those, for example. A person may have to look up documentation and clearly organized header files to keep track of the details, but if anything beyond that is necessary to work on a project, it means that project has incoherent internal interfaces.
Software is complex. A quick glance at pieces of code that an IDE heuristically fished out of the source tree will only give a programmer the most superficial, and often plain wrong idea of how the code works. So the only real solution is to make it unnecessary to go into details beyond clearly defined interface -- and then the programmer has no business scouring through megabytes of text in the first place, with or without any automation. When a person has to deal with things behind interface, he has to be able to keep those things in his head -- to the points where other interfaces are used. If this is impossible, programmer is dealing with spaghetti code that can not be analyzed properly or modified safely no matter how many doodads his IDE has.
Clean interfaces do not suffer from that problem.
Explanation for retards: "choice" of predefined things is worthless unless one of them is exactly what you want. Freedom offered by Linux is not the "freedom" to choose between it and Windows, it's ability to develop it into any imaginable direction, and ability to develop software for any of systems that share the same Unix-like interface.
...Microsoft shills are back!
Oh wait, they never left.
We are so happy, you are retired, then.
This is how progress works, you moron! Supporters of crap don't become convinced that it's crap, they just die out.
No, we know that this is not true in the first place. Except than for childish gestures from then-Linksys ("we will show those hackers! we will switch to the shittiest OS we can find!"), Linux is pretty much everywhere on those devices.
And according to me, Windows accounts for 100% of servers I have seen "shipped" anywhere.
And yet overwhelming majority of servers I see, run Debian (AFAIK, no one ever shipped a server with it).
You are a moron.
If you want a "choice", go vote for some politicians.
And this is the root of the problem -- if you need an IDE to find names that reflect your code structure, it means that you do not understand how that code works. What means, you are not qualified to modify it in any way.
I like it more than Unix shells.
That's because you are Microsoft user, and this is why I credit Microsoft with destruction of mankind's intellectual potential -- it stuffs terribly wrong ideas into people's heads and keeps a tightly controlled environment where those ideas seem to make sense. Powershell is a great example how Microsoft sees something done in Unix and makes something superficially similar but fundamentally terribly wrong -- in that case, by stuffing it with non-interchangeable interfaces.
Unix shell's strength is in using Unix interprocess communications and files/devices (and later networking) to pass data between completely unrelated pieces of software. It's actually the only its redeeming quality -- the language (all three of them, with all later versions and extensions) is terrible, but this is completely irrelevant because all functionality is provided by utilities called from shell, and Unix is very efficient at dealing with multiple processes communicating with each other. All interfaces can be done by passing streams of data with minimal predefined formatting -- if one cares about complex processing he can write a complex parser in one of the components, but in general it is not expected to be necessary because most operations are operations on plain text that can be parsed with something like awk. If it was important to do more complex text handling, people would use perl as their shell, but it is not, so they don't.
Microsoft, on the other hand, looooooves its internal, non-generalized interfaces, single COM umbrella with absolutely no generalization of data formats inside. No communication is possible unless one side is designed specifically to suck on the teat of the other side. Slapping a "shell" on top of this, provided none of advantages that Unix shell has, it merely connects pre-made pieces to each other -- in fact, that thing would be done easier in GUI without losing any of the functionality.
They don't work.
What the fuck are you talking about?
If all you have to do for "refactoring" is to move functions between classes or substitute names, then all your work is entirely cosmetic. Not that you are supposed to "refactor" code in the first place unless it's poorly designed.
My sarcasm detector seems to be broken today. Is this shit for real?
Jacquard cards.
Until it reached the civilians. Then all wars will be about ignoring the opposing military and going straight to civilian massacres -- whoever will get wiped out first, loses, everything else is irrelevant because robots are easy to replace.
Something is seriously... undesirable with this picture.
...and Americans also think they "won" the cold war.
Idiots.
And what made you think that everyone else is as disgusting as your government? Your government's own propaganda?