Oh, shit, I wish I knew. I hated the way that you seemed to have to be a firefox hacker to know how to do this shit. But you don't -- there are lots of examples to learn from now.
And an out-of-date but still informative book (got cheap!).
Some Firefox extensions like venkman (JS Debugger) and one called "Extension Developer" which has a real-time graphical XUL eval thingy that's worth its weight in gold.
Toss in reading about how to create closures in JS (imperative for developing useful OO libraries). And about two serious weeks of sweat equity to get started.
I just wish that FF would let us going document.element instead of force us to write document.getElementById("element") in order to reference DOM objects. the former is less typing than the latter...
That's not a feature, it's a bug. It's not FF, it's the w3c. And it's the right decision. Standards and all that, right?
The document object already has a shitload of properties, and this IE idea doesn't cooperate nicely, since the property namespace clobbers the id namespace. Bad browser-maker! No cookie!
As someone who'd only used Javascript in creating DHTML, I'd worked up a good hate against it. But what I'd hated was really the ridiculously incompatible implementations of the DOM in IE/Netscape. I also hated the embedded space itself--shitty delivery method (encoded or called from HTML, no #include, no namespaces).
Then I started writing extensions for firefox. I'm trying to show my company that (firefox + xul + js) > (ie + activex). I'm mostly successful, since we already have lots of XML over HTTP data services primed for XmlHttpRequest.
But it turns out that the language doesn't suck so bad. Sure the namespace problem is JS's fault, but the rest is the embedding. Using JS for firefox exntensions allows you to code to one platform; make more OO libraries, etc. I even generate classes from the DTDs I make the XML services from.
Who would've thunk it's really a decent language in the dynamic, lambda-toting, functional-ish area?
There's something to be said for having a solution that runs on a RAIJP array (Redundant Array of Inexpensive/Interchangeable Java Programmers).
First of all, I nearly spit coke into the keyboard.
Secondly, ain't that the truth. I design software for a living, and instead of designing for a platform, or a CPU architecture, I have to optimise for maintainability. So I design to a RAIJP.
In a Fortune 500, they make sure they have lots of replaceable cogs in the machine, so I have to design to the LCD. It's a maximiztion exercise, but not of variables that I like to work with; instead it's human frailty.
He said the subpoena was most likely from another time-line, which was transported here when Darl McBride's alien vessel dropped him off here a few years ago. It's not actually a subpoena, but an alien being that just happens to look like subpoenas and hangs around in courtrooms.
Either it's the start of the fourth reich, tracking down all the remaining Jedi^Wfreethinkers and killing them, or it's a normal subpoena request for a normal investigation.
Lots of people have thought about it. Not Very Insightful.
The reason is that if the parser encounters unbalanced end-tags, and they're all just </>, the parser will go farther and get very confused before it dies.
It will be very difficult to pinpoint *which* tag isn't closed, like C's optional {} after an if(), or SGML's optional closing tags.
It's much easier to correct if your parser can say "You forgot to close <account> on line 115" rather than "Something or other is unbalanced somewhere before line 224."
have you ever downloaded any sort of music off the internet without compensating the copyright owner?
No.
When I was young and stupid, the only things on the internet were usenet postings and essays on gopher sites. I never got into the habit of just taking what I want like today's kids seem to do. Hell, after I bought my first linux CD from infomagick, I spent half an hour reading the license and searching usenet postings to see if it was really true that I didn't need a license per computer.
I pay for what I get; I ask payment for what I give. And for GPLed software, the payment I expect is that you don't redistribute it without source.
Those like me who've read and understand the license, use it to make sure the MUSIC we distribute are not redistributed without PERMISSIONe. We *want* that restriction. If you don't like that restriction, feel free to not use the MUSIC and go the hell away.
I don't steal music. I buy CDs or get songs from iTunes.
Since when is it appropriate to just assume (out of nowhere) that someone commits copyright violations and then call them a hypocrite for the imagined violation?
f I was a developer, I'd be very wary around GPL'd code.
Good thing you're not. We don't need any more ignorant developers.
Those like me who've read and understand the license, use it to make sure the programs we distribute are not redistributed without source. We *want* that restriction. If you don't like that restriction, feel free to not use the code and go the hell away.
You plunk a variety of filters over it (I think they have 9?) and you can 'see' from UV down to infra-red.
What I hate is all of the 'science' it takes to make an approximation of what a human would see out of all these 'superior' filters.
There are people still arguing about the color-correction on these photos--which you'd expect to be a simple and straight-forward thing for these scientician-types.
At least with a standard camera we know that its output actually looks right to us. I don't know about the photos from the rover cameras.
If Wiki deleted the article, and we were left with Chris pointing only to Heron and the language pointing only to him, the garbage collector would discard them both!
Not if the GC is a ref-counter. In that case he's a memory leak.
Do not fall into the error of the artisan who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft while in fact he has had only one year of experience-- twenty times.
-- Otake, Shibumi, p105. Trevanian
What a great quote! I'm going to post it on the board at work. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, shit, I wish I knew. I hated the way that you seemed to have to be a firefox hacker to know how to do this shit. But you don't -- there are lots of examples to learn from now.
Plus, I learned with help from da intarweb:
And an out-of-date but still informative book (got cheap!).
Some Firefox extensions like venkman (JS Debugger) and one called "Extension Developer" which has a real-time graphical XUL eval thingy that's worth its weight in gold.
Toss in reading about how to create closures in JS (imperative for developing useful OO libraries). And about two serious weeks of sweat equity to get started.
That's not a feature, it's a bug. It's not FF, it's the w3c. And it's the right decision. Standards and all that, right?
The document object already has a shitload of properties, and this IE idea doesn't cooperate nicely, since the property namespace clobbers the id namespace. Bad browser-maker! No cookie!
As someone who'd only used Javascript in creating DHTML, I'd worked up a good hate against it. But what I'd hated was really the ridiculously incompatible implementations of the DOM in IE/Netscape. I also hated the embedded space itself--shitty delivery method (encoded or called from HTML, no #include, no namespaces).
Then I started writing extensions for firefox. I'm trying to show my company that (firefox + xul + js) > (ie + activex). I'm mostly successful, since we already have lots of XML over HTTP data services primed for XmlHttpRequest.
But it turns out that the language doesn't suck so bad. Sure the namespace problem is JS's fault, but the rest is the embedding. Using JS for firefox exntensions allows you to code to one platform; make more OO libraries, etc. I even generate classes from the DTDs I make the XML services from.
Who would've thunk it's really a decent language in the dynamic, lambda-toting, functional-ish area?
I hope he is successful! I'd sure like to see Windows users have to emerge msoffice2k3 and wait for six days.
Base 30.
That's a lie. Decimal is fine. :-)
The solution to my blurry vision problem is to keep the number of vodka-sodas in the single digits.
Damn I love coding loaded: Best. Comments. Ever.
Luxury.
When I was a lad, we had to align the bits on disk ourselves by waving a magnet over them.
First of all, I nearly spit coke into the keyboard.
Secondly, ain't that the truth. I design software for a living, and instead of designing for a platform, or a CPU architecture, I have to optimise for maintainability. So I design to a RAIJP.
In a Fortune 500, they make sure they have lots of replaceable cogs in the machine, so I have to design to the LCD. It's a maximiztion exercise, but not of variables that I like to work with; instead it's human frailty.
*sigh*
He said the subpoena was most likely from another time-line, which was transported here when Darl McBride's alien vessel dropped him off here a few years ago. It's not actually a subpoena, but an alien being that just happens to look like subpoenas and hangs around in courtrooms.
Either it's the start of the fourth reich, tracking down all the remaining Jedi^Wfreethinkers and killing them, or it's a normal subpoena request for a normal investigation.
I'll go ask Occam and get back to you.
Or just maybe something like
Lots of people have thought about it. Not Very Insightful.
The reason is that if the parser encounters unbalanced end-tags, and they're all just </>, the parser will go farther and get very confused before it dies.
It will be very difficult to pinpoint *which* tag isn't closed, like C's optional {} after an if(), or SGML's optional closing tags.
It's much easier to correct if your parser can say "You forgot to close <account> on line 115" rather than "Something or other is unbalanced somewhere before line 224."
...then you have my sympathy.
Ker-SHIT, that's the sound of me leaving my programming career for a shiny new shack in the mountains.
...that was the sound of me moving from x86 to PPC.
(As long as debian keeps up support.)
No.
When I was young and stupid, the only things on the internet were usenet postings and essays on gopher sites. I never got into the habit of just taking what I want like today's kids seem to do. Hell, after I bought my first linux CD from infomagick, I spent half an hour reading the license and searching usenet postings to see if it was really true that I didn't need a license per computer.
I pay for what I get; I ask payment for what I give. And for GPLed software, the payment I expect is that you don't redistribute it without source.
I don't steal music. I buy CDs or get songs from iTunes.
Since when is it appropriate to just assume (out of nowhere) that someone commits copyright violations and then call them a hypocrite for the imagined violation?
Good thing you're not. We don't need any more ignorant developers.
Those like me who've read and understand the license, use it to make sure the programs we distribute are not redistributed without source. We *want* that restriction. If you don't like that restriction, feel free to not use the code and go the hell away.
It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.
Apologies to Monty Burns.
...but not GPL-compatible. If there is no copyright, then there is also no GPL, and no requirement to distribute code with binaries.
Make no mistake: the GPL is NOT what would happen in a state without copyright. Stallman's ideals *require* copyright to function. Pretty funny.
Someone hunt down and kill that "Me too" guy with AOL CDs.
Not if the GC is a ref-counter. In that case he's a memory leak.
Please list the meds used to come up with that one.
What a great quote! I'm going to post it on the board at work. Thanks.