Funny, I feel the same way about VIM, I tried to learn it, after all a lot of people use it, and finally gave up after trying to remember 5 or 6 mode change seemingly random ctrl + : + ???? key stroke combinations.
Thats a fair answer, and a fair criticism of Emacs. Nearly everyone I've talked to who uses VIM, like I said just uses it because someone told them to in the past and have never tried anything else.
I used to use (also in Emacs):
1: Java
2: C#
3: Fortran
Emacs works for just about any language out there, I use variety of languages and a variety of different platforms, Emacs is the same on all of them and just works.
2:
Just a question. Is there anyone out there younger than around 40 who uses VIM because of their own choice? By that I mean, they at first turned on a Unix/Linux box, investigated some editors and chose VIM. Nearly everyone I know who uses VIM uses it because someone else originally made them use it and they stuck with it. I know this sounds like flamebait, but seriously, its an honest question.
It just seems like Emacs is a lot easier to learn because it one keystroke to get to a menu, and just another to get to a help system.
Apple is probably the king of the designated editor group, with microsoft coming in at a close second. These are relatively closed stacks and have purpose built (and pretty decent) tools to work with them, so most people do
If anything, Windows is the absolute king of languages that CAN ONLY BE USED IN THIER IDE. Take a look at Visual Basic, completely tied the VB mouse clicky clicky IDE, then of course there used to be a company called Borland which also made mouse clicky clicky languages like Delphi, a variant of Pascal that was locked to an IDE, I think they also tried to do the same with a version of C++. Then of course, there was Microsoft MFC which was so bad that that they had to write an IDE to even use it.
Once the app is up, if done right, performance can be decent for most things, pretty comparable to C++.
The big thing is once it's up. The REAL killer of any c#/.net app (or any env that requires a VM like Java) is the load times. Even tiny c# apps take forever to load.
So I would really recommend c++. I know if you really wanted you can do cross platform with mono but it's a lot easier with c++, especially if you use a framework like SDL.
Wrong.
If Unisys mainframes are anything like IBM s390, then almost everything is written in assembler. So, unless they have a whole hardware translation / emulation layer, you can't just re-compile.
Going to a new processor architecture if everything is written in assembler, its much easier just to throw everything out and re-start.
The article says chromecast is only being developed for mobile Firefox. Is there any technical reason why the desktop Firefox can't / won't support ChromeCast???
Ugh, yes single treaded. Multiple-processes, yes, but only one thread in can run at a time in single address space.
Re:There is something called multi-process you kno
on
Python 3.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Of course I know about multiprocessing. Why have one copy of the interpreter and libraries loaded when you can have N, plus its so much more efficient to marshal data across process boundaries than to access a global shared memory block.
I've heard this processes are so much better because we can't do threads for so long. Kind of like if I cut off my right arm, its so much better to only have a left arm because you only need to move 5 fingers instead of 10.
2. The only reason it's hard to fix is because certain parts of Python are overly dynamic. Since they broke backwards compatibility in Python 3 it would have been the perfect time to fix it. Instead they broke backwards compatibility for stuff 99% of the community doesn't give a fuck about and now nobody is upgrading even though Python 3 has been out for over 5 years.
That is really insightful, seriously. Python 3 did break backwards computability, this really would have been the time to fix some original design flaws, but they didn't, instead, they focused on stuff, like you said 99% of the people out there don't care about, hence why so many use 2.7 today and how many new projects are even started with 2.7.
There's nothing wrong with design flaws, we all make them, you just at some point have to go back and realize you made a mistake and fix it.
And therein likes the problem: python is a "incredibly dynamic language" which makes any sort of performance difficult if not impossible. The problem is Python is so dynamic that its impossible to perform any sort of meaningful validation before the code is actually run.
I never said it was easy removing the GIL, nor do I know how to do it and meet all of Guido's requirements.
The GIL is a design flaw of the language. If Python remained just a way to add quick scripting to existing programs, just like TCL, I would have no problem with its design. But I do have problems with Python becoming a systems language. Its far far far too dynamic for its own good, it should not encourage dynamically replacing bits of the runtime at runtime. The GIL really shows the age and intent of Python.
These sort of ultra dynamic language may be good at writing quick and dirty scripts, but such dynamic features make maintaing and understanding any large system a nightmare. After all, bugs are so much more fun to find months after you've released an app that right away that a static analyzer could have found.
I could not agree more. Its virtually impossible to perform any sort of type inference in Python, hence there are no viable JITs. Basically the whole design of Python was so any part of the runtime can be overwritten at runtime, i.e. monkey patching.
I think the big problem with Python is all the hacker types who think it so cool to swap out bits bits of the runtime at runtime just because you can. Now this leads to some truly incomprehensible and unmaintainable code.
Dynamic typing is OK, at least its done correctly in JavaScript so one can actually perform type inference and JIT compile it.
I really wish some other languages like Scala would gain more traction.
Yup, Global Interpreter Lock so Python is still fundamentally single threaded -- only a single thread can be executing any python code at any given instance.
Its 2014 and we still can't have a multi-threaded python, this is ridiculous.
If you read Guido's criteria for getting rid of the GIL, he lists so many things that are specific to the current single threaded system (which is evidently perfect) that the only solution that meets his criteria is the current system.
I guess the only solution is to either live with single threaded system or fork it.
There is no such thing as a Windows Exodus, just a bunch of windows users bitching that OMG, OMG, SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT!!!
Like with every Windows version, there will lots of bitching and complaining, then eventually, they will be good little Windows users and simply accept whatever Microsoft tells them to use.
Wasn't there some legal issue where you could not use ZFS with Linux, where you are breaking the law by doing so?
Couldn't Oracle or FSF, or someone else sue you for using ZFS on Linux?
1. they dont' want input from users. they don't want users tweaking its innards. users are expected to update their workflows and expectations to the 'one true path.'
you know this because?
2. sure there is. if gnome 3 is going the flat-learning-curve/flat-power-curve route...
I agree, Gnome 3 with the defaults sucks, WTF could they not have made tweak tool part of the control panel??? or at least default install. But just grab tweak tool and some extensions and Gnome3 is nice.
3. no they couldn't, well, not as easily. gnome2 is say 90% of what modern users want. it's easier to add the 10% and get it working well, than rewriting half of gnome3 and resyncing their changes with every gnome release.
No need to 're-write' it, just use the components, and tie them together differently, basic simple javascript.
4. talk to the gnome3 devs.. their demagoguery is the problem. their slavish apple chasing attitude is another.
A thousand developers all going a thousand different directions.
?
One of Gnome3 biggest failures is they provide very little documentation on how to customize / modify it. Gnome3 is a actually a dammed good design and provides for immense customizability. Want it to behave like Gnome2, all you have to do is write a bit of JavaScript and glue the bits together is a Gnome2 style, thats it. I truly have no idea why the Gnome3 developers want to hide all the great work they have done. Its so easy to write themes / extension, but why do we have to install these fucking 3rd party tools like Gnome Tweak Tool, WTF is it not built into Gnome3???
There is no fucking need to waste everyones time extending Gnome2.
If these MATE clowns would have just taken a look at Gnome3, they could have made it work exactly like Gnome2 without introducing all this insane complexity of maintaining another dammed desktop.
I'm sorry, but these MATE clowns really piss me off, they could have worked with the Gnome3 developers to fix the problems with Gnome3, but instead, they go off their own way, and create duplicate dead effort.
So, how many God dammed desktops does Linux have now? do we really need so many? The look / feel of just about any of these desktops can be achieved with a custom shell built on Gnome3, much like Mint.
So what does this MATE shit do for developers like me, now they expect me to support GTK3 and GTK2??
Why can't these desktop developers learn to get along or at least take a look at Gnome3 and see what you can build on it.
Sorry for this rant, but this complete and total inability to get along, work with, or at least look at what other developers are doing is so fucking ridiculous. We don't need another desktop, we just need to fix the ones we have.
The 4.3 vortech V6 is not bad, little over 200HP I think, which is way better than those castrated 70's 7:1 compression V8s. I think my old POS '76 Camaro with a 305 was rated around 130HP. And as you said, you would get way better milage with the 4.3 (or any other modern decent compression) motor. The 4.3 should pretty much be a bolt in swap also.
How about swapping in an LS engine out of a newish GM. You get an all aluminum block, and kick ass fuel injection. Some suspension and brake upgraded would also be nice, again off a newish GM truck.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I feel the same way about VIM, I tried to learn it, after all a lot of people use it, and finally gave up after trying to remember 5 or 6 mode change seemingly random ctrl + : + ???? key stroke combinations.
Thats a fair answer, and a fair criticism of Emacs. Nearly everyone I've talked to who uses VIM, like I said just uses it because someone told them to in the past and have never tried anything else.
1: C++, C, Objective-C
2: LaTeX
3: Python
4: Bash
5: Text files
I used to use (also in Emacs):
1: Java
2: C#
3: Fortran
Emacs works for just about any language out there, I use variety of languages and a variety of different platforms, Emacs is the same on all of them and just works. 2:
Just a question. Is there anyone out there younger than around 40 who uses VIM because of their own choice? By that I mean, they at first turned on a Unix/Linux box, investigated some editors and chose VIM. Nearly everyone I know who uses VIM uses it because someone else originally made them use it and they stuck with it. I know this sounds like flamebait, but seriously, its an honest question.
It just seems like Emacs is a lot easier to learn because it one keystroke to get to a menu, and just another to get to a help system.
Apple is probably the king of the designated editor group, with microsoft coming in at a close second. These are relatively closed stacks and have purpose built (and pretty decent) tools to work with them, so most people do
If anything, Windows is the absolute king of languages that CAN ONLY BE USED IN THIER IDE. Take a look at Visual Basic, completely tied the VB mouse clicky clicky IDE, then of course there used to be a company called Borland which also made mouse clicky clicky languages like Delphi, a variant of Pascal that was locked to an IDE, I think they also tried to do the same with a version of C++. Then of course, there was Microsoft MFC which was so bad that that they had to write an IDE to even use it.
Once the app is up, if done right, performance can be decent for most things, pretty comparable to C++. The big thing is once it's up. The REAL killer of any c#/.net app (or any env that requires a VM like Java) is the load times. Even tiny c# apps take forever to load. So I would really recommend c++. I know if you really wanted you can do cross platform with mono but it's a lot easier with c++, especially if you use a framework like SDL.
Wrong. If Unisys mainframes are anything like IBM s390, then almost everything is written in assembler. So, unless they have a whole hardware translation / emulation layer, you can't just re-compile. Going to a new processor architecture if everything is written in assembler, its much easier just to throw everything out and re-start.
The article says chromecast is only being developed for mobile Firefox. Is there any technical reason why the desktop Firefox can't / won't support ChromeCast???
Does the video play for anyone (without Windows?) Won't load flash on Firefox, Chrome or Safari...
Ugh, yes single treaded. Multiple-processes, yes, but only one thread in can run at a time in single address space.
Of course I know about multiprocessing. Why have one copy of the interpreter and libraries loaded when you can have N, plus its so much more efficient to marshal data across process boundaries than to access a global shared memory block.
I've heard this processes are so much better because we can't do threads for so long. Kind of like if I cut off my right arm, its so much better to only have a left arm because you only need to move 5 fingers instead of 10.
And therein likes the problem: python is a "incredibly dynamic language" which makes any sort of performance difficult if not impossible. The problem is Python is so dynamic that its impossible to perform any sort of meaningful validation before the code is actually run.
I never said it was easy removing the GIL, nor do I know how to do it and meet all of Guido's requirements.
The GIL is a design flaw of the language. If Python remained just a way to add quick scripting to existing programs, just like TCL, I would have no problem with its design. But I do have problems with Python becoming a systems language. Its far far far too dynamic for its own good, it should not encourage dynamically replacing bits of the runtime at runtime. The GIL really shows the age and intent of Python.
These sort of ultra dynamic language may be good at writing quick and dirty scripts, but such dynamic features make maintaing and understanding any large system a nightmare. After all, bugs are so much more fun to find months after you've released an app that right away that a static analyzer could have found.
I could not agree more. Its virtually impossible to perform any sort of type inference in Python, hence there are no viable JITs. Basically the whole design of Python was so any part of the runtime can be overwritten at runtime, i.e. monkey patching.
I think the big problem with Python is all the hacker types who think it so cool to swap out bits bits of the runtime at runtime just because you can. Now this leads to some truly incomprehensible and unmaintainable code.
Dynamic typing is OK, at least its done correctly in JavaScript so one can actually perform type inference and JIT compile it.
I really wish some other languages like Scala would gain more traction.
Yup, Global Interpreter Lock so Python is still fundamentally single threaded -- only a single thread can be executing any python code at any given instance.
Its 2014 and we still can't have a multi-threaded python, this is ridiculous.
If you read Guido's criteria for getting rid of the GIL, he lists so many things that are specific to the current single threaded system (which is evidently perfect) that the only solution that meets his criteria is the current system.
I guess the only solution is to either live with single threaded system or fork it.
General rule of thumb is when a library defines their own types like string, vector, hash map, list, etc, ... run, don't walk away from it.
Seriously, WTF is wrong with just plain old STL???
Lets implement our own string class so we can be completely incompatible with everything else.
It seems like every first year CS student writes their own string and list classes (I know I did when I started).
There is no such thing as a Windows Exodus, just a bunch of windows users bitching that OMG, OMG, SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT!!! Like with every Windows version, there will lots of bitching and complaining, then eventually, they will be good little Windows users and simply accept whatever Microsoft tells them to use.
Wasn't there some legal issue where you could not use ZFS with Linux, where you are breaking the law by doing so? Couldn't Oracle or FSF, or someone else sue you for using ZFS on Linux?
Have you actually spoken with them, or just parroting what someone allegedly said? I've submitted some patches just fine.
1. they dont' want input from users. they don't want users tweaking its innards. users are expected to update their workflows and expectations to the 'one true path.'
you know this because?
2. sure there is. if gnome 3 is going the flat-learning-curve/flat-power-curve route...
I agree, Gnome 3 with the defaults sucks, WTF could they not have made tweak tool part of the control panel??? or at least default install. But just grab tweak tool and some extensions and Gnome3 is nice.
3. no they couldn't, well, not as easily. gnome2 is say 90% of what modern users want. it's easier to add the 10% and get it working well, than rewriting half of gnome3 and resyncing their changes with every gnome release.
No need to 're-write' it, just use the components, and tie them together differently, basic simple javascript.
4. talk to the gnome3 devs.. their demagoguery is the problem. their slavish apple chasing attitude is another.
Again, you know this because?
A thousand developers all going a thousand different directions.
? One of Gnome3 biggest failures is they provide very little documentation on how to customize / modify it. Gnome3 is a actually a dammed good design and provides for immense customizability. Want it to behave like Gnome2, all you have to do is write a bit of JavaScript and glue the bits together is a Gnome2 style, thats it. I truly have no idea why the Gnome3 developers want to hide all the great work they have done. Its so easy to write themes / extension, but why do we have to install these fucking 3rd party tools like Gnome Tweak Tool, WTF is it not built into Gnome3???
There is no fucking need to waste everyones time extending Gnome2.
If these MATE clowns would have just taken a look at Gnome3, they could have made it work exactly like Gnome2 without introducing all this insane complexity of maintaining another dammed desktop.
I'm sorry, but these MATE clowns really piss me off, they could have worked with the Gnome3 developers to fix the problems with Gnome3, but instead, they go off their own way, and create duplicate dead effort.
So, how many God dammed desktops does Linux have now? do we really need so many? The look / feel of just about any of these desktops can be achieved with a custom shell built on Gnome3, much like Mint. So what does this MATE shit do for developers like me, now they expect me to support GTK3 and GTK2?? Why can't these desktop developers learn to get along or at least take a look at Gnome3 and see what you can build on it.
Sorry for this rant, but this complete and total inability to get along, work with, or at least look at what other developers are doing is so fucking ridiculous. We don't need another desktop, we just need to fix the ones we have.
KDE is about as close as you can get to a Windows clone. I know some people who use Kubuntu and seem to like it, and they are primarily Windows users.
The 4.3 vortech V6 is not bad, little over 200HP I think, which is way better than those castrated 70's 7:1 compression V8s. I think my old POS '76 Camaro with a 305 was rated around 130HP. And as you said, you would get way better milage with the 4.3 (or any other modern decent compression) motor. The 4.3 should pretty much be a bolt in swap also.
How about swapping in an LS engine out of a newish GM. You get an all aluminum block, and kick ass fuel injection. Some suspension and brake upgraded would also be nice, again off a newish GM truck.