Yes, it does support formatting elements that.doc doesn't support. My problem is that it pops up that dialog whether or not any of those elements are present.
For example, the screenshot was taken after opening a new OpenOffice Writer instance, typing the letter a, then saving as a.doc file.
Word only does it when something in the document is incompatible with the format you're saving it in. Your first screenshot even tells you what it is, so you can change it.
OpenOffice, on the other hand, popped up that dialog when my entire document consisted of a single character in 12pt Times New Roman font.
My biggest beef with OpenOffice is the FUD box I get whenever I try to save a file in.doc format.
If your average user saw this screen, what conclusion would they draw?
Heck, I work in programming, and the conclusion I drew after I started to read this dialog is that OO.org doesn't work well with.doc files and I probably shouldn't switch to it.
Changing it to be a passthrough only works if ActiveSupport::Multibyte and the Ruby implementation are identical. dwerg has implied that they are, but since he's not part of the Rails Core Team, I have to take what he said with a grain of salt.
Encapsulation is good, yes. However, all classes should be encapsulated, so that when their internals change, their external interfaces do not.
OK, the problem presented here is what happens with ActiveSupport::Multibyte when Ruby 2.0 comes out. Since you can't force everyone to upgrade Ruby when it comes out, you have to do one of the following: 1. Support two versions of ActiveSupport::Multibyte 2. Write additional code to determine if multi-byte support is present in Ruby 3. Not use Ruby's multi-byte support in ActiveSupport::Multibyte at all
That's why it's a Bad Engineering(tm) decision. Even if the final decision is #2, ActiveSupport::Multibyte then becomes an Unnecessary Layer of Abstraction(tm)/Indirection(tm) of Ruby's multi-byte support on systems that support it, serving no purpose than to slow nice, compiled language calls with calls to Ruby code.
Pandora, you can open that box if you want, but I'm not touching it.
I actually mentioned UCS-2 because Microsoft has historically used it, although it has been superceded (and replaced in newer Windows versions) by UTF-16. Side note: Java also uses UTF-16 internally.
Let me guess - you're one of those that would have waited for jet powered air travel to be invented instead of taking the luxurious ocean liner?
That analogy falls flat on its face, because: 1. Ocean liner travel and jet travel came out over a century apart. I'll be dead in a century, but probably not in a year. 2. Jets are considerably faster than ocean liners, taking hours instead of days. As far as we know, Ruby's multi-byte support will be faster than ActiveSupport::Multibyte, but we have no idea on the order of magnitude that it's faster. 3. The world didn't know about jets when ocean liners were introduced. On the other hand, we know Ruby is gaining multi-byte support in the next major release. 4. There are other benefits for taking a luxurious ocean liner, particularly if it's a cruise ship. What's the advantage to using ActiveSupport::Multibyte? Release date. That's it.
Developers need to choose the tools they feel will best help them get the job done in the time allotted and in their estimation will also allow them an upgrade path at an acceptable level of pain as things (inevitably) change.
Yes, and I'm free to point out in a public forum that the method presented will be obsolete within a year. The difference is that mine is (afaik) a fact, not an opinion.
Re:I never quite understood the benefit of Rails
on
Ruby On Rails 1.2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
DBA's may hate the way Rails uses databases. The framework isn't focused on "computer ease of computing", but on "developer ease of developing". So, it may not fit for a huge company, w/ hundreds of offshore developers, SA's and DBA's. It is specially useful for small companies/teams, where speed of innovation is their key to get into the market. Example: to start building Rails applications, one just needs to download the ruby interpreter (port install ruby), rubygems (port install rb-rubygems), install rails (gem install rails), and start the application (rails MyApplication). Try that:-)
The last time I used Rails (0.9ish), it wouldn't let you connect to more than one database per application. This is unacceptable in my environment, so I had to throw it out as a prospective tool.
Rails (or rather ActiveRecord) has all the same problems that all ORMs do. The first of which is optimizing for ease of development, not memory footprint. Even medium size applications can suffer from this.
A second problem is the "more information than I asked for" problem. SELECT * should be used sparingly in favor of just grabbing the information that you need. ORMs have no idea of what information you want, so they just grab everything. The more information in your table (i.e. large text fields), the bigger problem that is.
There are other problems as well, but it's 7am here and I need desperately need my morning caffeine fix.
I did read the article. The problem is, the Rails team has created a module that, by their own admission, will be obsolete within a year.
This alone is a bad engineering practice, but there's also the possibility that the two multibyte systems are incompatible. What if one uses UTF-8 and the other UCS-2? Or UTF-32? All of those are multi-byte. All of them are Unicode. None of them use the same encoding.
Since Rails is commonly used with a database backend, any incompatibilies will cause major upgrade headaches in the future.
This is the sort of thing that gives developers a bad name.
Perhaps its because political speech is all about lies. If they weren't registered, who's to say that they couldn't actually held liable for the libel and slander they spread?
Now take it one step further. Why shouldn't I be able to pay someone to record The Office using his VCR, and bring the tape over for me to watch? It saves him the hassle of coming over to my house just to push a few buttons on my VCR, and the end result is the same: I watch the show later, on tape, instead of live.
As I understand it, this is actually still illegal in the US, despite it being declared legal for you to tape it yourself.
While we're at it, Microsoft should copyright "windows."
Oh wait, they can't because it's a common word. Hence why it's "Microsoft Windows."
You could argue that "i" is just a letter, but I(tm) beg to differ. Besides, if you think that common words aren't allows, do you really think they'd allow a single letter?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it does support formatting elements that .doc doesn't support. My problem is that it pops up that dialog whether or not any of those elements are present.
.doc file.
For example, the screenshot was taken after opening a new OpenOffice Writer instance, typing the letter a, then saving as a
Word only does it when something in the document is incompatible with the format you're saving it in. Your first screenshot even tells you what it is, so you can change it.
OpenOffice, on the other hand, popped up that dialog when my entire document consisted of a single character in 12pt Times New Roman font.
(In case you're curious, it was a lower-case a.)
My biggest beef with OpenOffice is the FUD box I get whenever I try to save a file in .doc format.
.doc files and I probably shouldn't switch to it.
If your average user saw this screen, what conclusion would they draw?
Heck, I work in programming, and the conclusion I drew after I started to read this dialog is that OO.org doesn't work well with
Changing it to be a passthrough only works if ActiveSupport::Multibyte and the Ruby implementation are identical. dwerg has implied that they are, but since he's not part of the Rails Core Team, I have to take what he said with a grain of salt.
Encapsulation is good, yes. However, all classes should be encapsulated, so that when their internals change, their external interfaces do not.
OK, the problem presented here is what happens with ActiveSupport::Multibyte when Ruby 2.0 comes out. Since you can't force everyone to upgrade Ruby when it comes out, you have to do one of the following:
1. Support two versions of ActiveSupport::Multibyte
2. Write additional code to determine if multi-byte support is present in Ruby
3. Not use Ruby's multi-byte support in ActiveSupport::Multibyte at all
That's why it's a Bad Engineering(tm) decision. Even if the final decision is #2, ActiveSupport::Multibyte then becomes an Unnecessary Layer of Abstraction(tm)/Indirection(tm) of Ruby's multi-byte support on systems that support it, serving no purpose than to slow nice, compiled language calls with calls to Ruby code.
Pandora, you can open that box if you want, but I'm not touching it.
I actually mentioned UCS-2 because Microsoft has historically used it, although it has been superceded (and replaced in newer Windows versions) by UTF-16. Side note: Java also uses UTF-16 internally.
All in one page for those of us who hate ad-spammy articles.
That analogy falls flat on its face, because:
1. Ocean liner travel and jet travel came out over a century apart. I'll be dead in a century, but probably not in a year.
2. Jets are considerably faster than ocean liners, taking hours instead of days. As far as we know, Ruby's multi-byte support will be faster than ActiveSupport::Multibyte, but we have no idea on the order of magnitude that it's faster.
3. The world didn't know about jets when ocean liners were introduced. On the other hand, we know Ruby is gaining multi-byte support in the next major release.
4. There are other benefits for taking a luxurious ocean liner, particularly if it's a cruise ship. What's the advantage to using ActiveSupport::Multibyte? Release date. That's it.
Yes, and I'm free to point out in a public forum that the method presented will be obsolete within a year. The difference is that mine is (afaik) a fact, not an opinion.
The last time I used Rails (0.9ish), it wouldn't let you connect to more than one database per application. This is unacceptable in my environment, so I had to throw it out as a prospective tool.
Rails (or rather ActiveRecord) has all the same problems that all ORMs do. The first of which is optimizing for ease of development, not memory footprint. Even medium size applications can suffer from this.
A second problem is the "more information than I asked for" problem. SELECT * should be used sparingly in favor of just grabbing the information that you need. ORMs have no idea of what information you want, so they just grab everything. The more information in your table (i.e. large text fields), the bigger problem that is.
There are other problems as well, but it's 7am here and I need desperately need my morning caffeine fix.
I did read the article. The problem is, the Rails team has created a module that, by their own admission, will be obsolete within a year.
This alone is a bad engineering practice, but there's also the possibility that the two multibyte systems are incompatible. What if one uses UTF-8 and the other UCS-2? Or UTF-32? All of those are multi-byte. All of them are Unicode. None of them use the same encoding.
Since Rails is commonly used with a database backend, any incompatibilies will cause major upgrade headaches in the future.
This is the sort of thing that gives developers a bad name.
I would think that improved multi-byte support would need to be in Ruby, not in Rails.
Actually, we like Japan and China. After all, they make everything sold in stores here!
Perhaps its because political speech is all about lies. If they weren't registered, who's to say that they couldn't actually held liable for the libel and slander they spread?
I hate to nitpick, but actually, it's Alderaan.
Why is this still being called Oasis OpenDocument? Have you already forgotten that it's an ISO standard?
As I understand it, this is actually still illegal in the US, despite it being declared legal for you to tape it yourself.
Photoshop? Premiere? Flash? Dreamweaver?
All those are expensive programs that a lot of people seem to want.
"Get a life, will you people? I...I...I mean... I... I... I... mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show!"
(Mmm, parody)
Unless that distributor has an office or store in the state you're in.
Which pretty much lets out all the big chain stores.
Oh, and Amazon for California residents, iirc.
er... trademark "windows." Too used to arguing about copyrights, I guess.
While we're at it, Microsoft should copyright "windows."
Oh wait, they can't because it's a common word. Hence why it's "Microsoft Windows."
You could argue that "i" is just a letter, but I(tm) beg to differ. Besides, if you think that common words aren't allows, do you really think they'd allow a single letter?
Europe and America? I'll agree to that!
98SE was nothing more than Windows 98 with a collection of updates that you could already download from the Windows Update site pre-applied to it.
ME, on the other hand...
By bringing the OS in to the picture again, you've shown that you apparently don't understand, as this has nothing to do with OSes.
WoW doesn't appear to be going down that road, thankfully.
You forgot to mention that you can now get up to level 70, and that between 60 and 70, there are bunch of new spells/abilities for each class.