Sure, it's fancy eye-candy, but having deterministic GUI clickable elements I believe is more important.
No kidding. I installed Stardock's ObjectDock, which gives you the dock for Windows. I found the effect intensely annoying, and decided I'd much rather use the taskbar and the tray. Nothing to do with determinism and such, just that the zoom effect caused so much visual clutter it was distracting. I could see it being useful for something as tiny as the tray or a really cluttered taskbar, but not for most tasks.
This is precisely why Apple's "stoplight" maximize/minimize/close buttons appear on the upper-left side of the window title-bar, so if the window resizes while you're getting ready to click one of them, they don't move out from under your feet.
How often have you seen windows spontaneously resize themselves? I've never seen a dialog automatically resize itself.
> It should be up to ANOTHER judge (or a jury) after the trial is over to make a determination as to whether the suit was meritless and frivolous.
That is indeed how loser-pays works in most countries. It's not automatic. Judges have awesome amounts of power in the parts of Europe where the legal system is not based on the common law (e.g. France). But even in England, the birthplace of common law, judges have discretion over the amount of award, including loser-pays.
Frankly when more than half the country believes that some guy in the sky will pitch us all into fire because we let two guys kiss and didn't throw them in jail for it, I don't think we're ever going to get more nuanced proposals like loser-pays up the steps.
You want an even worse imitation of Luna Silver, try the "Lipstik" theme. It even inverts the gradients of plastik, giving them that concave look of XP. I don't think either of them invert the gradient for the click effect though (which looks like, as one UI person put it, "flexing, like so much cheap plastic"). Plastik's window decoration buttons are also nice and flat, whereas XP's stick out in a style similar to the hideous keramic.
You want screaming garish themes, you know where to go.
The closing tag for LI is optional and always has been. If omitting the closing tag screws up the display, that's the user-agent's fault. TD and TR are now closing -tag optional as well. Of course, TABLE sure as hell ain't -- it won't even render on Netscape 4.x and earlier!
> Group Policy is a 100% must for a windows envrioment, and current FF does NOT natively support it.
Far as I can tell, GPO's are more advisory than mandatory anyway, since one can always subvert them with their own executable that does what it pleases, but if it makes the IT fellas happy, I suppose it's worth it.
So, out of curiosity... how hard would it be to support them? Is there a public API for GPO's and a way to test creating them without needing an AD server? Might be a "fun" project (for some masochistic definition of fun).
So basically you want numerics to show up as the link color, unicode to show up as the visited link color, and you want people to just differentiate this stuff at a glance? Fabulous.
Maybe banks and other sites need to implement real goddam security instead of the rest of the net having to do it for them. Passmark, securid fobs, validators compiled into the client, something other than a bloody username and password.
Right now, these sites want us to authenticate to them, well how about them authenticating to us? Then I don't care how similar a domain name looks.
Yowza, mod parent up into the stratosphere. I stand at least partly corrected, not being aware of generic methods. I know about functors, but the disconnect between them and the actual language just feels so bloody bureaucratic compared to type classes -- which are also in a separate language, but it's a small one in comparison.
I guess I should take another look at Ocaml. My other long-running gripe about ocaml was its lack of machine words (like UInt64), and while I'm not fond of having only a library solution without support for overloaded operators (yes I like my overloading), I'm happy to read that the compiler is actually aware of them and keeps them unboxed wherever possible.
Now I just need a project worth doing... seems everything I do these days is one-offs in perl.:p
> As you pointed out, Haskell doesn't support operator overloading, either,
Erm, it most certainly does support operator overloading. Operators, like in any language of the ML family, are merely functions written infix.
GCaml looks like a nice start, but it looks about as active as O'Haskell. I suppose I can stick with modules and functors or pure OO to get genericity in ocaml... I just get the feeling that I'll never be able to effectively glue these two separate systems together, let alone use them piecemeal.
I also agree that there's awesome power in monads, and they elegantly express complex transformations (sort of... have you ever had to count on your fingers exactly the right the number of liftM calls?) but there's just such a dearth of good example material on all the Control.* monads that do so much of the heavy lifting... I'm in no position to write such material, either, so all I can do really is kvetch about their lack.
Wow, thank you for that eloquent summation. It so well summarizes what I was taught, what I believed, and why I later repudiated utterly the entire belief and community that reinforced this warped worldview.
You want to remove your temptations? Stay the fuck home and leave the rest of us alone then.
Let's lose the weird justifications... I just misspoke and meant to say "carved in stone". Though petrification sounds like a more accurate description of the process for ocaml.
Why is it that I have a hankering for grits now, and want to watch Natalie Portman movies? Strange, that...
> Generic implementations of algorithms? Rare, in my experience.
Sincerely delusional to call it rare. It's an entire paradigm of programming. For example, you cannot generically write a functor that maps over any container structure if the algorithm needs to be aware of every possible type of container. Criminy, those were off the top of my head. How about Socket.read and Pipe.read? (I'm not familiar enough with the standard library). Heck, if python, perl, and even C have polymorphic behavior there, why the hell shouldn't a functional language?
Mind you, Ocaml does have this polymorphism if you use objects, but for some reason, the O in Ocaml gets short shrift in its library.
> It's a trade off. I don't see what Ocaml traded off as that valuable- and what Ocaml got in return is strong type checking and type inference.
Haskell does it with type families and loses nothing. What they traded off is separate compilation, but it doesn't make it impossible, just difficult. I just can't believe I'm hearing someone argue against polymorphism at such length.
Lindt is some pretty mediocre stuff. Sure it's smooth, you can do that to any chocolate. Their dime-a-dozen "truffles" are some of the worst.
I live in San Francisco, so I can find Scharfenberger very easily (they're from Berkeley). That's good chocolate. Of course I also live next to an Italian deli, and when it comes to dark chocolate, the Italians know their damn chocolate. Yum.
Re:Major Features Dropped From GCC 4.0
on
GCC 4.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
If the LLVM developers don't mind having their LLVM code incorporated into GPL code (which isn't required, but it's nice to ask), what the hell can RMS do about it? Does the FSF contribute any code or money to GCC development?
He wrecked emacs for over a decade. Do you want that for gcc?
OpenC++ is nice, but Boost solves some real problems right now. OpenC++ is lacking for any real-world examples. This isn't to say it's useless, as I have seen it used for real projects, but it doesn't exactly have much of a library, whereas Boost *is* a library.
I suspect they would work well together -- imagine something like:
counted vector<int> *foo;
translating with openc++ to use the appropriate code from boost.
Ocaml doesn't support any ad-hoc polymorphism (overloading) whatsoever in functions. Methods on the other hand can be overloaded, but not generic. This sort of thing makes it weaker than even C++ for generic programming, let alone Haskell, though I must admit not having to use template syntax makes me want to claw my eyes out a good deal less when reading it (or my hair when writing). Modules simply don't do it for me. Having to differentiate between HashTable.insert and SkipList.insert sort of defeats the purpose of abstract types, because no one thought to make module signatures themselves first-class (except Alice).
Haskell type families are just elegance and beauty itself, but doing state in Haskell is an exercise in raw tedium. Very localized state (in one function) is easy enough, but anything more pervasive and you soon become more familiar with monads than you ever wanted to be. If you want a haskell program that doesn't suck up more memory than emacs, you have to stay away from many modern features so your program will compile with nhc98.
Ocaml isn't seeing a lot of new work going into it -- the language definition seems to have become cast in stone. Haskell is always evolving, though typically in ways that are really impenetrable to those of us without PhD's in category theory and denotational semantics.
I guess I could search the world over for my holy grail FP language, and always be dissatisfied...
Did I say I was a webmonkey or perl-grinder now? I'm not that insane (though I still end up hacking more perl than is good for me). But I work for one of the largest software companies in the world (not the largest, no), and I don't see anyone using COBOL, RPG, or JCL anywhere in it. Not in my division, not anywhere in the reqs for the whole company. Of course IBM is still selling big iron, but I just don't see a whole lot of of new storage units going to ISAM blocks, know what I mean? At some point, it's really just big scaleable HA hardware, without a lot of skills transferring over from the days of washtub drives. It's not a very gradual evolution either -- the VB6 codemonkeys by comparison just have to learn a little new syntax.
> Kids coming into mainframe at entry level are making 40K,
That's pathetic. I made $45K at entry level for hacking perl. Probably because I worked at another job (support) where I made just slightly more, and I wouldn't take less. I was best qualified, they hired me. Sometimes it is what you know.
I guarantee that mainframe job has no advancement. 'course neither does hacking perl, but I've switched again to a job that's only technical in a secondary sense (business analyst). I have lots of choices. Mainframe guys see more of their hardware carted away every year.
This follows from the fact that what the media originally aired as abuses were merely allegations of abuse at the time. Could it be that there has just been a lot of fuss over nothing?"
The fact that they can put librarians away for even mentioning that such an abuse has taken place might put a damper on their reporting of such abuses. Now, most libraries have taken the sensible step of erasing your records as soon as you check the books back in.
If you just enter "slashdot.org", it would be just as acceptable for a browser to assume FTP as it would be for it to assume HTTP or reject parsing it at all.
It wouldn't be acceptable in the slightest, unless your browser was an FTP client. It would be about as acceptable as making the address bar vertical and written bottom to top.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it's fancy eye-candy, but having deterministic GUI clickable elements I believe is more important.
No kidding. I installed Stardock's ObjectDock, which gives you the dock for Windows. I found the effect intensely annoying, and decided I'd much rather use the taskbar and the tray. Nothing to do with determinism and such, just that the zoom effect caused so much visual clutter it was distracting. I could see it being useful for something as tiny as the tray or a really cluttered taskbar, but not for most tasks.
This is precisely why Apple's "stoplight" maximize/minimize/close buttons appear on the upper-left side of the window title-bar, so if the window resizes while you're getting ready to click one of them, they don't move out from under your feet.
How often have you seen windows spontaneously resize themselves? I've never seen a dialog automatically resize itself.
> It should be up to ANOTHER judge (or a jury) after the trial is over to make a determination as to whether the suit was meritless and frivolous.
That is indeed how loser-pays works in most countries. It's not automatic. Judges have awesome amounts of power in the parts of Europe where the legal system is not based on the common law (e.g. France). But even in England, the birthplace of common law, judges have discretion over the amount of award, including loser-pays.
Frankly when more than half the country believes that some guy in the sky will pitch us all into fire because we let two guys kiss and didn't throw them in jail for it, I don't think we're ever going to get more nuanced proposals like loser-pays up the steps.
You want an even worse imitation of Luna Silver, try the "Lipstik" theme. It even inverts the gradients of plastik, giving them that concave look of XP. I don't think either of them invert the gradient for the click effect though (which looks like, as one UI person put it, "flexing, like so much cheap plastic"). Plastik's window decoration buttons are also nice and flat, whereas XP's stick out in a style similar to the hideous keramic.
You want screaming garish themes, you know where to go.
It also has _tons_ of unclosed LI tags.
The closing tag for LI is optional and always has been. If omitting the closing tag screws up the display, that's the user-agent's fault. TD and TR are now closing -tag optional as well. Of course, TABLE sure as hell ain't -- it won't even render on Netscape 4.x and earlier!
I suppose the next versions we can expect will be Nob, Telegraph, Russian, Sutro, Potrero ...
Funny thing is, Rincon hill is as flat as a pancake. It was scraped away to fill the bay.
> Group Policy is a 100% must for a windows envrioment, and current FF does NOT natively support it.
... how hard would it be to support them? Is there a public API for GPO's and a way to test creating them without needing an AD server? Might be a "fun" project (for some masochistic definition of fun).
Far as I can tell, GPO's are more advisory than mandatory anyway, since one can always subvert them with their own executable that does what it pleases, but if it makes the IT fellas happy, I suppose it's worth it.
So, out of curiosity
So basically you want numerics to show up as the link color, unicode to show up as the visited link color, and you want people to just differentiate this stuff at a glance? Fabulous.
Maybe banks and other sites need to implement real goddam security instead of the rest of the net having to do it for them. Passmark, securid fobs, validators compiled into the client, something other than a bloody username and password.
Right now, these sites want us to authenticate to them, well how about them authenticating to us? Then I don't care how similar a domain name looks.
Yeah, the sugar water king would ever have been that witty. Not only did John nearly butcher Apple, he didn't do much justice to the quote either.
The Newton was Scully's. It turned a profit when the rest of Apple was tanking.
Yowza, mod parent up into the stratosphere. I stand at least partly corrected, not being aware of generic methods. I know about functors, but the disconnect between them and the actual language just feels so bloody bureaucratic compared to type classes -- which are also in a separate language, but it's a small one in comparison.
... seems everything I do these days is one-offs in perl. :p
I guess I should take another look at Ocaml. My other long-running gripe about ocaml was its lack of machine words (like UInt64), and while I'm not fond of having only a library solution without support for overloaded operators (yes I like my overloading), I'm happy to read that the compiler is actually aware of them and keeps them unboxed wherever possible.
Now I just need a project worth doing
> As you pointed out, Haskell doesn't support operator overloading, either,
... have you ever had to count on your fingers exactly the right the number of liftM calls?) but there's just such a dearth of good example material on all the Control.* monads that do so much of the heavy lifting... I'm in no position to write such material, either, so all I can do really is kvetch about their lack.
Erm, it most certainly does support operator overloading. Operators, like in any language of the ML family, are merely functions written infix.
GCaml looks like a nice start, but it looks about as active as O'Haskell. I suppose I can stick with modules and functors or pure OO to get genericity in ocaml... I just get the feeling that I'll never be able to effectively glue these two separate systems together, let alone use them piecemeal.
I also agree that there's awesome power in monads, and they elegantly express complex transformations (sort of
I dunno, but here's where your worldview ends...
Wow, thank you for that eloquent summation. It so well summarizes what I was taught, what I believed, and why I later repudiated utterly the entire belief and community that reinforced this warped worldview.
You want to remove your temptations? Stay the fuck home and leave the rest of us alone then.
> At least if they are not talking about his sig... really interesting sig :)
Try it. It doesn't actually work.
Let's lose the weird justifications ... I just misspoke and meant to say "carved in stone". Though petrification sounds like a more accurate description of the process for ocaml.
Why is it that I have a hankering for grits now, and want to watch Natalie Portman movies? Strange, that...
> Generic implementations of algorithms? Rare, in my experience.
Sincerely delusional to call it rare. It's an entire paradigm of programming. For example, you cannot generically write a functor that maps over any container structure if the algorithm needs to be aware of every possible type of container. Criminy, those were off the top of my head. How about Socket.read and Pipe.read? (I'm not familiar enough with the standard library). Heck, if python, perl, and even C have polymorphic behavior there, why the hell shouldn't a functional language?
Mind you, Ocaml does have this polymorphism if you use objects, but for some reason, the O in Ocaml gets short shrift in its library.
> It's a trade off. I don't see what Ocaml traded off as that valuable- and what Ocaml got in return is strong type checking and type inference.
Haskell does it with type families and loses nothing. What they traded off is separate compilation, but it doesn't make it impossible, just difficult. I just can't believe I'm hearing someone argue against polymorphism at such length.
Lindt is some pretty mediocre stuff. Sure it's smooth, you can do that to any chocolate. Their dime-a-dozen "truffles" are some of the worst.
I live in San Francisco, so I can find Scharfenberger very easily (they're from Berkeley). That's good chocolate. Of course I also live next to an Italian deli, and when it comes to dark chocolate, the Italians know their damn chocolate. Yum.
If the LLVM developers don't mind having their LLVM code incorporated into GPL code (which isn't required, but it's nice to ask), what the hell can RMS do about it? Does the FSF contribute any code or money to GCC development?
He wrecked emacs for over a decade. Do you want that for gcc?
OpenC++ is nice, but Boost solves some real problems right now. OpenC++ is lacking for any real-world examples. This isn't to say it's useless, as I have seen it used for real projects, but it doesn't exactly have much of a library, whereas Boost *is* a library.
I suspect they would work well together -- imagine something like:
counted vector<int> *foo;
translating with openc++ to use the appropriate code from boost.
Ocaml doesn't support any ad-hoc polymorphism (overloading) whatsoever in functions. Methods on the other hand can be overloaded, but not generic. This sort of thing makes it weaker than even C++ for generic programming, let alone Haskell, though I must admit not having to use template syntax makes me want to claw my eyes out a good deal less when reading it (or my hair when writing). Modules simply don't do it for me. Having to differentiate between HashTable.insert and SkipList.insert sort of defeats the purpose of abstract types, because no one thought to make module signatures themselves first-class (except Alice).
Haskell type families are just elegance and beauty itself, but doing state in Haskell is an exercise in raw tedium. Very localized state (in one function) is easy enough, but anything more pervasive and you soon become more familiar with monads than you ever wanted to be. If you want a haskell program that doesn't suck up more memory than emacs, you have to stay away from many modern features so your program will compile with nhc98.
Ocaml isn't seeing a lot of new work going into it -- the language definition seems to have become cast in stone. Haskell is always evolving, though typically in ways that are really impenetrable to those of us without PhD's in category theory and denotational semantics.
I guess I could search the world over for my holy grail FP language, and always be dissatisfied...
Did I say I was a webmonkey or perl-grinder now? I'm not that insane (though I still end up hacking more perl than is good for me). But I work for one of the largest software companies in the world (not the largest, no), and I don't see anyone using COBOL, RPG, or JCL anywhere in it. Not in my division, not anywhere in the reqs for the whole company. Of course IBM is still selling big iron, but I just don't see a whole lot of of new storage units going to ISAM blocks, know what I mean? At some point, it's really just big scaleable HA hardware, without a lot of skills transferring over from the days of washtub drives. It's not a very gradual evolution either -- the VB6 codemonkeys by comparison just have to learn a little new syntax.
> Kids coming into mainframe at entry level are making 40K,
That's pathetic. I made $45K at entry level for hacking perl. Probably because I worked at another job (support) where I made just slightly more, and I wouldn't take less. I was best qualified, they hired me. Sometimes it is what you know.
I guarantee that mainframe job has no advancement. 'course neither does hacking perl, but I've switched again to a job that's only technical in a secondary sense (business analyst). I have lots of choices. Mainframe guys see more of their hardware carted away every year.
This follows from the fact that what the media originally aired as abuses were merely allegations of abuse at the time. Could it be that there has just been a lot of fuss over nothing?"
The fact that they can put librarians away for even mentioning that such an abuse has taken place might put a damper on their reporting of such abuses. Now, most libraries have taken the sensible step of erasing your records as soon as you check the books back in.
USA responds by sending a takedown notice to Canada.
> That one with the pictures were they take them out of 3d space is pretty cool.
That was an awesomely cool visual effect... Of course, I thought it was a Xerox ad. See what I mean?
If you just enter "slashdot.org", it would be just as acceptable for a browser to assume FTP as it would be for it to assume HTTP or reject parsing it at all.
It wouldn't be acceptable in the slightest, unless your browser was an FTP client. It would be about as acceptable as making the address bar vertical and written bottom to top.