Used it. Bloated (at some 10M, vs. scite's 0.5M) and doesn't work well. And the 'useful' version (BBEdit) is for-pay. Not willing to pay for something on my Mac that I can get for free on my Win PC/Linux box. Sorry. Having all three means the Mac usually just sits there.
Really, I don't have time to indulge your masochism fetish; I need something that I can just run and use. It's just a text editor, damnit; I shouldn't need a manual.
Kate requires KDELibs. SciTE requires Scintilla, which has not been sufficiently ported. You know of another good one? My requirements are, in order of importance: tabbed editing, code highlighting, regex search/replace, code folding, drag-and-drop editing, optional word wrap, monospace font configuration available, eight spaces equals a tab in mono- or variable-space, maximizes to full screen. Please give me a text editor for mac with those features.
Add the Debug Menu (for all you developers who got Safari for debugging): open "%HOMEPATH%\Application Data\Apple Computer\Safari\Preferences.plist" in scite or another text editor that can handle non-DOS encoding
I doubt URL handling is part of the KHTML/KJS renderer; responsibility for acquiring content in Konqueror is done in KIO, so Apple would have had to implement their own content acquisition scheme.
It is possible that the stack failure is in (KHTML/KJS)/WebKit - but as it's not been shown that these bugs apply to either Konqueror or Mac Safari, it's most unlikely that the stack failures are the result of the open portion of the code.
Anyway, as a news story, this is a null set; it's a public beta. It's there for the public to test it and report bugs. It's not a production browser.
I'd be curious, however, to see if these bugs are Windows-only (for example, Mac OS-X and KDE have a URL handling scheme built into the OS that wouldn't be available in Windows; it would need to be implemented as part of Win Safari), or if they apply equally to Windows and Mac.
It works well enough to test webpages for Macs, yeah?
Then I really don't give a flying fsck about its security. Let Mac fanboys deal with their newfound exposure. I use FFox as my primary browser on my PC, Mac, and Linux box. There's something to be said about 'consistent development environment'.
No, seriously. I'd use my Mac a lot more if there was a reasonably lightweight OSS code editor for it. There's not, so I don't.
Since they operate via surface tension, and would thus have to be horizontally arranged in order to have no distortion, my guess is that using such technology for glasses wouldn't work well.
No one's questioning the effects of signal compression; some of the best mp3's I've got are ripped from vinyl. And, yeah. You don't even need a half decent turntable. My old quarter-decent one worked well until it finally died.
You can pretty clearly hear the difference between the original and the 'remastered' CD. It's louder, and the signal compression type the studios use almost always pushes a lot of mid-volume detail to the nigh-inaudible level. MP3 compressing it just removes that nigh-inaudible level.
But DCT compression at a good bitrate from a good source is indistinguishable from that source except by audiophiles that have fooled themselves into believing that their $40 centimeter-thick cables get crisper sound.
I'm all for superior equpiment, honestly: A nice sound card, preferably one that resides outside the box; a pair of high-quality headphones; a good set of speakers with a quality subwoofer (and shut off the stupid signal tweak they have built in); perhaps a standalone EQ are all you need.
I don't work for a company. I'm a freelancer. And myself and my ilk are the only ones that end up seeing the code.
Mind you, those comments don't stay in the final product, just in my copies; it's all web stuff, so we strip out comments and syntactically compress everything before it goes live.
Meanwhile, I do vent to my clients once in a while. This particular one was a valid complaint; the older code I was working on had a 15-part loop unrolled with full inline javascript/CSS declarations, and the same PHP code repeated in each iteration. Like the bastard did it on purpose. It took me two HOURS to clean that mess up into a single loop, and to fit everything into reusable functions and CSS declarations. Went from 150k of redundant code to about 9k.
And I don't even *know* Gonzo. He was the guy my client used for devel before G decided to go out and start a business doing this (to people). Last I heard, he was attempting to charge someone $20,000 for a relatively simple CMS.
In US law, only false claims of fact are actionable as slander or libel. The output of a rating algorithm can't really be considered a fact; it's the sum of opinions of the algorithm's designer as applied to a given data set.
My guess is that the courts will dismiss, on the grounds that suing over a bad rating on Avvo is no different than trying to sue Zagat over saying your restaurant sucks.
Funny thing that. My girlfriend always gets out of jury duty by opening her blues up big and saying, 'Hey, if the cops went to all the trouble, they gotta be guilty, right?'
It helps that she looks like a good respectable blueblooded girl.
Well, just the act of suing an independant rating system for giving him a bad rating (rather than deciding, for the good of his industry, to give some counseling on how lawyers likely should be rated), shows a certain amount of petulance and a certain amount of wanting his reputation to remain unquantized.
"I always laugh when a programmer tells me, 'there's a bug in my program.' My first questions is always, 'well, who put that bug there?' Programmers talk of bugs as if they just magically appear, and are not the result of the programmer's error(s)."
Wow. That's probably the most erroneous thing anybody's ever said about coding.
Between undocumented API 'features', poorly documented bugs, faulty frameworks, and others in the development pipeline of varying skill, you'd think it's enough to track down a bug, let alone assign blame.
You should read some of the ones I write while fixing other people's source. I'm particularly mean./* Another goddamn unrolled loop without abstraction. Not to self: Find Gonzo and shoot him in the face. The man's an insult to software design */
Sure you can. And every person named Peter can call you a fake, and every person who sees your method can tell the world that you're a fake.
The problem here isn't the math, or the low ratings. The problem is idiots like you who don't understand that an industry rating depends on the faith of the people and the respect of the industry.
If the site gets no faith or respect, the site will fail.
The funniest thing is Browne's claim that his rating and the publicity surrounding his complaint (which wouldn't exist if he weren't being a little bitch about it) are damaging his practice.
If so, fucking good. The cream rises to the top, you whiny little system manipulator.
I doubt it though. Even obvious sharks get work, and enough of it, apparently, to run commercials.
Slashdot Mirror
Used it. Bloated (at some 10M, vs. scite's 0.5M) and doesn't work well. And the 'useful' version (BBEdit) is for-pay. Not willing to pay for something on my Mac that I can get for free on my Win PC/Linux box. Sorry. Having all three means the Mac usually just sits there.
How is it that eevry time the term 'code editor' is brought up, vi and emacs are mentioned?
They suck, the both of them. I mean, saving a file *alone* in either is ridiculously unintuitive.
Yes, I want a damned menu. Hell, DOS's edit is a more friendly, if less powerful experience. qEdit, back in its heyday waas pretty awesome.
Honestly, what's wrong with sparing a line at the top of the screen to make things simple?
vi and emacs belong to the (now dead) era of OSS developers coding for other developers. Nowadays, even developers require a bit of user friendliness.
A tool that's unintuitive isn't useful to me.
Really, I don't have time to indulge your masochism fetish; I need something that I can just run and use. It's just a text editor, damnit; I shouldn't need a manual.
vi:(scite|kate)::stick:sword
How about saying something useful?
Kate requires KDELibs. SciTE requires Scintilla, which has not been sufficiently ported. You know of another good one? My requirements are, in order of importance: tabbed editing, code highlighting, regex search/replace, code folding, drag-and-drop editing, optional word wrap, monospace font configuration available, eight spaces equals a tab in mono- or variable-space, maximizes to full screen. Please give me a text editor for mac with those features.
Add the Debug Menu (for all you developers who got Safari for debugging):
open "%HOMEPATH%\Application Data\Apple Computer\Safari\Preferences.plist" in scite or another text editor that can handle non-DOS encoding
Add:
<key>IncludeDebugMenu</key>
<string>1</string>
Slashdot stripped my XML. The line to add is, IncludeDebugMenu1
Offtopic:
I, like a lot of other web developers out there, wanted Safari for the purpose of adapting web pages to Yet Another Popular Browser's bugs.
So, what did I find when I downloaded Safari? The ridiculously useful debug menu was gone!
Now, all the docs on how to enable it are for Safari on the Mac, understandbly. What to do?
Kill Safari
Open C:\documents and Settings\[You]\Application Data\Apple Computer\Safari\Preferences.plist
Add, in what appears to be the logical place: IncludeDebugMenu1
Load Safari. Now developer-useful things like the Javascript Console are available to you.
I doubt URL handling is part of the KHTML/KJS renderer; responsibility for acquiring content in Konqueror is done in KIO, so Apple would have had to implement their own content acquisition scheme.
It is possible that the stack failure is in (KHTML/KJS)/WebKit - but as it's not been shown that these bugs apply to either Konqueror or Mac Safari, it's most unlikely that the stack failures are the result of the open portion of the code.
Anyway, as a news story, this is a null set; it's a public beta. It's there for the public to test it and report bugs. It's not a production browser.
I'd be curious, however, to see if these bugs are Windows-only (for example, Mac OS-X and KDE have a URL handling scheme built into the OS that wouldn't be available in Windows; it would need to be implemented as part of Win Safari), or if they apply equally to Windows and Mac.
It works well enough to test webpages for Macs, yeah?
Then I really don't give a flying fsck about its security. Let Mac fanboys deal with their newfound exposure. I use FFox as my primary browser on my PC, Mac, and Linux box. There's something to be said about 'consistent development environment'.
No, seriously. I'd use my Mac a lot more if there was a reasonably lightweight OSS code editor for it. There's not, so I don't.
Since they operate via surface tension, and would thus have to be horizontally arranged in order to have no distortion, my guess is that using such technology for glasses wouldn't work well.
No one's questioning the effects of signal compression; some of the best mp3's I've got are ripped from vinyl. And, yeah. You don't even need a half decent turntable. My old quarter-decent one worked well until it finally died.
You can pretty clearly hear the difference between the original and the 'remastered' CD. It's louder, and the signal compression type the studios use almost always pushes a lot of mid-volume detail to the nigh-inaudible level. MP3 compressing it just removes that nigh-inaudible level.
But DCT compression at a good bitrate from a good source is indistinguishable from that source except by audiophiles that have fooled themselves into believing that their $40 centimeter-thick cables get crisper sound.
I'm all for superior equpiment, honestly: A nice sound card, preferably one that resides outside the box; a pair of high-quality headphones; a good set of speakers with a quality subwoofer (and shut off the stupid signal tweak they have built in); perhaps a standalone EQ are all you need.
I don't work for a company. I'm a freelancer. And myself and my ilk are the only ones that end up seeing the code.
Mind you, those comments don't stay in the final product, just in my copies; it's all web stuff, so we strip out comments and syntactically compress everything before it goes live.
Meanwhile, I do vent to my clients once in a while. This particular one was a valid complaint; the older code I was working on had a 15-part loop unrolled with full inline javascript/CSS declarations, and the same PHP code repeated in each iteration. Like the bastard did it on purpose. It took me two HOURS to clean that mess up into a single loop, and to fit everything into reusable functions and CSS declarations. Went from 150k of redundant code to about 9k.
And I don't even *know* Gonzo. He was the guy my client used for devel before G decided to go out and start a business doing this (to people). Last I heard, he was attempting to charge someone $20,000 for a relatively simple CMS.
I don't like little kids. I mean, at all. Can't stand 'em.
My girlfriend and I have a 'no baby' rule, and I don't run any activities for children.
I'll leav the answer to your question to preists and boy scout councellors.
Agreed. This article's pointless.
Like you can't just strip out the metadata. Unless Apple embeds it in the audio data itself, they're not actually trying to catch anyone.
In US law, only false claims of fact are actionable as slander or libel. The output of a rating algorithm can't really be considered a fact; it's the sum of opinions of the algorithm's designer as applied to a given data set.
Aww, man. If I hadn't already posted here... I've got the mod points, that'd get funny all over it.
We'll see in the lawsuit. Or not.
My guess is that the courts will dismiss, on the grounds that suing over a bad rating on Avvo is no different than trying to sue Zagat over saying your restaurant sucks.
Funny thing that. My girlfriend always gets out of jury duty by opening her blues up big and saying, 'Hey, if the cops went to all the trouble, they gotta be guilty, right?'
It helps that she looks like a good respectable blueblooded girl.
Well, just the act of suing an independant rating system for giving him a bad rating (rather than deciding, for the good of his industry, to give some counseling on how lawyers likely should be rated), shows a certain amount of petulance and a certain amount of wanting his reputation to remain unquantized.
In short: I'm never hiring this asshole.
"I always laugh when a programmer tells me, 'there's a bug in my program.' My first questions is always, 'well, who put that bug there?' Programmers talk of bugs as if they just magically appear, and are not the result of the programmer's error(s)."
Wow. That's probably the most erroneous thing anybody's ever said about coding.
Between undocumented API 'features', poorly documented bugs, faulty frameworks, and others in the development pipeline of varying skill, you'd think it's enough to track down a bug, let alone assign blame.
You should read some of the ones I write while fixing other people's source. I'm particularly mean. /* Another goddamn unrolled loop without abstraction. Not to self: Find Gonzo and shoot him in the face. The man's an insult to software design */
Sure you can. And every person named Peter can call you a fake, and every person who sees your method can tell the world that you're a fake.
The problem here isn't the math, or the low ratings. The problem is idiots like you who don't understand that an industry rating depends on the faith of the people and the respect of the industry.
If the site gets no faith or respect, the site will fail.
Well, law is a kind of special case here:
Lawyers, as a general rule, will object mightily to being rated, even if it's 100% accurate.
They don't want people to know how good or bad they are; it's disruptive to their practice.
The funniest thing is Browne's claim that his rating and the publicity surrounding his complaint (which wouldn't exist if he weren't being a little bitch about it) are damaging his practice.
If so, fucking good. The cream rises to the top, you whiny little system manipulator.
I doubt it though. Even obvious sharks get work, and enough of it, apparently, to run commercials.