That's where you are wrong. It was never about 'liking' the ending - to have a 'Shepherd rides off into the sunset happily ever after' ending would be terrible, as it doesn't fit the games. It's about an ending that gives you closure, shows you what happened after and how the choices you made affected the world. That's what they are adding, and they are doing it right in that way.
An ending you don't like is a fact of any work - be it a book, film or game. An ending that doesn't fulfill is another thing, and that's what people have a problem with. It's the rough equivalent of Sam and Frodo getting to Mt. Doom and it just ending as the ring falls in. Sure, you know it ended, you know the main thing, but all of the little stuff surrounding it, the characters you got invested in, the places and events you cared about, you want to know how it all mattered in the end.
I didn't see any hate there, just surprise that a company was contributing to what is essentially a rival product. That's pretty reasonable, and doesn't portray Microsoft in a bad light at all.
Ah, but that's the issue. Python is designed to be obvious - most of Python works how you'd expect it to, not as a programmer, but as a person. Haskell is very much a language you need to learn - and while I don't claim any great level of experience with it, I have done enough with it to know this much - it's simply not as clear. Sure, after a lot of time learning it and getting used to it and the concepts behind it, it might be easy to work with, but it's not clear at that starting level.
Which is more obvious [number+1 for number in numbers if not x == 0] compared to [number+1 | number ? The Python reads better. This may not be too important for a single line of code, but reading through an entire application, Python is much easier to work with.
Moving on from that, while functional languages allow for graceful descriptions of some problems, they don't express most problems in a way I find natural, and others I have talked to agree with me on this. Again, you can teach yourself to think in the right way, but why?
Python also provides a lot of flexibility and power, there is a massive standard library to do a variety of complex tasks (everything from pulling web pages; parsing XML, JSON, CSV; through to decompressing data) very easily. Python makes writing applications to do what you want extremely quick and easy, and then keeps them easy to maintain and update.
I'm not saying it's the only language worth using, I'm not saying that it's perfect for every job, but Python is an excellent language that more than justifies it's slower execution speed - which is a minor problem in most cases.
I'm sorry, are you actually trying to say Haskell is as easy to read and write as Python? I can't even begin to describe how much I disagree with that.
What I really want is a tiling window manager that doesn't rely on keyboard shortcuts - I get it, it's faster if you know them, but I don't, and I don't want to take that hit in being able to do stuff to get used to it.
KDE is actually offering this in 4.x, as an option - but it's really buggy and only works with one monitor at the moment, which puts me out with my triple monitor setup.
The main issue was they bought other companies, and didn't close any stores. They bought out Electronics Boutique years ago, and then GameStation slightly later. They turned the EB Games stores into Game stores, but kept GS as a separate brand. This lead to you often having 3 (sometimes more) stores owned by game very close together.
And you are saying without GPS those idiots would choose a better route? Come on. GPS Navigation systems are a tool like any other - and a useful one. Yes, you can be stupid with them, like anything. Doesn't make them any less useful. Why draw a pencil sketch when more accurate data is provided for me?
Not to mention, not every trip can be planned down to the letter, GPS navigation units provide a solution there too.
Really, why? If you can't think of a good reason for someone to use it - it's probably not for them. I've been a Linux desktop user for ages, and I'd find Windows horrible to go back to now, but I get that it's not the same for everyone.
Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't let people know Linux exists and show them how it could help them, but don't get obsessive about it.
You just need to click on the cashew (or right click, panel settings - if there is no cashew, unlock the panel first) then drag the stoppers to change the size. As to dragging a widget, you can do that from the same view by dragging, and you can add an application launcher widget and point it to your custom binary or script. All of this stuff has been in there from the first KDE 4.x builds I used, even the really buggy first ones.
Nope, duals are really well supported these days, it's the triple that's the problem. XRandR (the good way to do it) only supports dual monitors - so you have to revert to Xinerama (which means no 3D accelleration). It's partly also down to the fact I have to have two graphics cards. I hear good things about Eyefinity - as it presents the three (or more) monitors to the OS as a single large screen - but this isn't availible on low end card (which I use both for cost and noise/heat reasons - my gaming PC is separate). I hear wayland also has much better support for multiple monitors, but that's a long way off.
In short: Dual monitors are really well supported. XRandR is great, but it doesn't generalise to three monitors. Also there is the proprietary nVidia Twinview, which again is great for dual setups with nVidia cards. KDE's 4.x support is great, as was Gnome 2.x (3.x has no support for triples and poor support for duals).
That's weird - I've found KDE to have the best support. You can actually manually assign the size of the desktops (mainly designed for stuff like Eyefinity where the displays are presented to the system as a single display) which may solve the issue for you, albeit at the cost of doing it manually.
Really? Instead of having to make 50 interfaces, I just have to say 'any class that acts like x' - that's easier to maintain. No, it doesn't *force* you to maintain it, but do you really need to be forced to write good code?
OK, I admit to careless reactionary phrasing, but still, the point stands. The phrasing of the original post implied that KDE 'lacks the simplest functions' - which is untrue, hence the rubbish comment. The feature is there, and if it doesn't work for them, that's a bug, not lacking the feature itself.
Well, it just seems highly unlikely that it wouldn't work for anyone else. I mean, it's a pretty basic feature and if I can do it with my pretty unusual and normally troublesome setup (triple monitors are not that well supported, although KDE does a good job), then I'd expect it to work with most people's. My point is, if it doesn't work for you, then it's a bug, so submit a bug report.
That's rubbish. I have a triple monitor setup and KDE will happily let me make a panel 100% of any one screen, or 100% of all three (if you wanted to do that for some insane reason) at any orientation.
Python isn't just fast to write though - it's fast and easy to read and understand, to work with, and it's very easy to keep code clear and well documented. I'm not saying these things are impossible in other languages, but in Python it is effortless, and enocouraged by the language. There are big benefits to using it besides simply 'fast to write'.
Title is kinda silly.. as the basic referenced statement is that in some cases python _is_ too slow but that one can work around that using hacks (or a language agnostic component oriented architecture).
I don't really see it as a hack - it just means that Python can get on and do what it does well - letting the developer focus on the important higher-level stuff, and then if you need to focus on the lower-level to optimise, you do it in something designed for it.
A lot of the (common) libraries out there are poorly documented, inconsistent, buggy, or incomplete.
Really? I have never found this - generally I've found everything Python I've ever used to be really well documented - not that I often need to stray outside the standard library, but Sphinx provides a good toolset for creating really good custom documentation.
As a Gentoo user, the python 2/3 thing is also especially annoying. Obviously this isn’t really python’s fault.. but it still gives me a bad taste about python.
I presume you mean the default version of Python being 3 - maybe it's different under Gentoo, but I've found Arch Linux has handled this really well. Python 3 is the default and I havn't noticed any issues.
Sky (on an LLU) offer a truly unlimited service, no FUP at all. ADSL24 also offer true unlimited packages on LLUs and unlimited off-peak (midnight-8am and weekends) on fibre and normal ADSL/2/+.
Developers already do this. They target graphics for the lowest common denominator, the rubbish PCs and the consoles. The only difference is that on PC they allow you to adjust the settings. The Steam Box would change nothing, excpet maybe raising the bar for PCs, and making it a more targetable platform.
The point is that most people don't have a PC good enough, and don't like the idea of not being sure if a game will run. You get a steam box and you plug it into your TV (most people don't want to play on their small monitor or move a PC around, hell, most don't have an HDMI port and most people don't know DVI->HDMI is easy) and you load up the browser, and can play any game with 'works on steambox v1.0' stamped on it, and know it'll work, just like with a console, at a similar price point to a console.
No, it's not for people who are currently PC gamers, it's to try and make PC gaming viable to the console crowd, because then Valve don't have to play nice with M$, Sony and Nintendo to get their games to them. It makes complete sense, and is actually a really good idea. Why create an open console platform when we already have one - the PC.
Python has really good language design, and has very few quirks. Scoping isn't weird in Python at all, and significant whitespace makes a ton of sense - encouraging good readability while reducing the insane amount of curly braces in most languages. Please give some explanation of what problems are actually there in the language.
I don't get why Python isn't the choice here. Javascript, I find, is a horribly ugly language, harder to understand and code in than most, and with more quirks, special cases, and generally horrible-to-work in language design choices than pretty much any other language in common use today.
Python does it right for learning. It teaches good practices (indentation, code readability), it aims to not surprise the user, it's a well designed language which is very good at being consistant, and in general is nice to learn in. Not only that, but it avoids the low-level stuff (which isn't that relevant when you are first learning to code) and instead teaches you the higher-level concepts which are more important. It's also got a large, well documented standard library, and is interpreted, so you can use it as a prompt, and don't have to worry about compiling. It's also cross platform, free and open.
I'm not going to lie, I don't like JavaScript, and I've never got why people like it. I can understand using it - it's the only real choice for scripting on the web - but to use it out of choice, or teach in? I don't get it. Fun and graphical? Not really - then it requires an understanding of HTML and CSS too, which is either going to be done wrong or be too much.
My main problem is the line
Resig admits JavaScript, as a language, has its warts and issues, but so do all languages.
- This is true, but some languages try really hard to avoid them, and some fix them. Python is an example of both - Python 3 fixes a number of issues with the language, and in general, with the process of PEPs and not being afraid of pushing the language forward, Python has turned into an extremely polished language with very few issues. JavaScript on the other hand, is full of them - and there is no real effort to fix them, as far as I know of, at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
That's where you are wrong. It was never about 'liking' the ending - to have a 'Shepherd rides off into the sunset happily ever after' ending would be terrible, as it doesn't fit the games. It's about an ending that gives you closure, shows you what happened after and how the choices you made affected the world. That's what they are adding, and they are doing it right in that way.
An ending you don't like is a fact of any work - be it a book, film or game. An ending that doesn't fulfill is another thing, and that's what people have a problem with. It's the rough equivalent of Sam and Frodo getting to Mt. Doom and it just ending as the ring falls in. Sure, you know it ended, you know the main thing, but all of the little stuff surrounding it, the characters you got invested in, the places and events you cared about, you want to know how it all mattered in the end.
It's tagged as rackspace. http://www.rackspace.com/
I didn't see any hate there, just surprise that a company was contributing to what is essentially a rival product. That's pretty reasonable, and doesn't portray Microsoft in a bad light at all.
Ah, but that's the issue. Python is designed to be obvious - most of Python works how you'd expect it to, not as a programmer, but as a person. Haskell is very much a language you need to learn - and while I don't claim any great level of experience with it, I have done enough with it to know this much - it's simply not as clear. Sure, after a lot of time learning it and getting used to it and the concepts behind it, it might be easy to work with, but it's not clear at that starting level.
Which is more obvious [number+1 for number in numbers if not x == 0] compared to [number+1 | number ? The Python reads better. This may not be too important for a single line of code, but reading through an entire application, Python is much easier to work with.
Moving on from that, while functional languages allow for graceful descriptions of some problems, they don't express most problems in a way I find natural, and others I have talked to agree with me on this. Again, you can teach yourself to think in the right way, but why?
Python also provides a lot of flexibility and power, there is a massive standard library to do a variety of complex tasks (everything from pulling web pages; parsing XML, JSON, CSV; through to decompressing data) very easily. Python makes writing applications to do what you want extremely quick and easy, and then keeps them easy to maintain and update.
I'm not saying it's the only language worth using, I'm not saying that it's perfect for every job, but Python is an excellent language that more than justifies it's slower execution speed - which is a minor problem in most cases.
I'm sorry, are you actually trying to say Haskell is as easy to read and write as Python? I can't even begin to describe how much I disagree with that.
What I really want is a tiling window manager that doesn't rely on keyboard shortcuts - I get it, it's faster if you know them, but I don't, and I don't want to take that hit in being able to do stuff to get used to it.
KDE is actually offering this in 4.x, as an option - but it's really buggy and only works with one monitor at the moment, which puts me out with my triple monitor setup.
The main issue was they bought other companies, and didn't close any stores. They bought out Electronics Boutique years ago, and then GameStation slightly later. They turned the EB Games stores into Game stores, but kept GS as a separate brand. This lead to you often having 3 (sometimes more) stores owned by game very close together.
And you are saying without GPS those idiots would choose a better route? Come on. GPS Navigation systems are a tool like any other - and a useful one. Yes, you can be stupid with them, like anything. Doesn't make them any less useful. Why draw a pencil sketch when more accurate data is provided for me? Not to mention, not every trip can be planned down to the letter, GPS navigation units provide a solution there too.
Really, why? If you can't think of a good reason for someone to use it - it's probably not for them. I've been a Linux desktop user for ages, and I'd find Windows horrible to go back to now, but I get that it's not the same for everyone.
Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't let people know Linux exists and show them how it could help them, but don't get obsessive about it.
You just need to click on the cashew (or right click, panel settings - if there is no cashew, unlock the panel first) then drag the stoppers to change the size. As to dragging a widget, you can do that from the same view by dragging, and you can add an application launcher widget and point it to your custom binary or script. All of this stuff has been in there from the first KDE 4.x builds I used, even the really buggy first ones.
Nope, duals are really well supported these days, it's the triple that's the problem. XRandR (the good way to do it) only supports dual monitors - so you have to revert to Xinerama (which means no 3D accelleration). It's partly also down to the fact I have to have two graphics cards. I hear good things about Eyefinity - as it presents the three (or more) monitors to the OS as a single large screen - but this isn't availible on low end card (which I use both for cost and noise/heat reasons - my gaming PC is separate). I hear wayland also has much better support for multiple monitors, but that's a long way off. In short: Dual monitors are really well supported. XRandR is great, but it doesn't generalise to three monitors. Also there is the proprietary nVidia Twinview, which again is great for dual setups with nVidia cards. KDE's 4.x support is great, as was Gnome 2.x (3.x has no support for triples and poor support for duals).
That's weird - I've found KDE to have the best support. You can actually manually assign the size of the desktops (mainly designed for stuff like Eyefinity where the displays are presented to the system as a single display) which may solve the issue for you, albeit at the cost of doing it manually.
Really? Instead of having to make 50 interfaces, I just have to say 'any class that acts like x' - that's easier to maintain. No, it doesn't *force* you to maintain it, but do you really need to be forced to write good code?
OK, I admit to careless reactionary phrasing, but still, the point stands. The phrasing of the original post implied that KDE 'lacks the simplest functions' - which is untrue, hence the rubbish comment. The feature is there, and if it doesn't work for them, that's a bug, not lacking the feature itself.
Well, it just seems highly unlikely that it wouldn't work for anyone else. I mean, it's a pretty basic feature and if I can do it with my pretty unusual and normally troublesome setup (triple monitors are not that well supported, although KDE does a good job), then I'd expect it to work with most people's. My point is, if it doesn't work for you, then it's a bug, so submit a bug report.
That's rubbish. I have a triple monitor setup and KDE will happily let me make a panel 100% of any one screen, or 100% of all three (if you wanted to do that for some insane reason) at any orientation.
[Python is sometimes faster to write in.]
Python isn't just fast to write though - it's fast and easy to read and understand, to work with, and it's very easy to keep code clear and well documented. I'm not saying these things are impossible in other languages, but in Python it is effortless, and enocouraged by the language. There are big benefits to using it besides simply 'fast to write'.
Title is kinda silly.. as the basic referenced statement is that in some cases python _is_ too slow but that one can work around that using hacks (or a language agnostic component oriented architecture).
I don't really see it as a hack - it just means that Python can get on and do what it does well - letting the developer focus on the important higher-level stuff, and then if you need to focus on the lower-level to optimise, you do it in something designed for it.
A lot of the (common) libraries out there are poorly documented, inconsistent, buggy, or incomplete.
Really? I have never found this - generally I've found everything Python I've ever used to be really well documented - not that I often need to stray outside the standard library, but Sphinx provides a good toolset for creating really good custom documentation.
As a Gentoo user, the python 2/3 thing is also especially annoying. Obviously this isn’t really python’s fault.. but it still gives me a bad taste about python.
I presume you mean the default version of Python being 3 - maybe it's different under Gentoo, but I've found Arch Linux has handled this really well. Python 3 is the default and I havn't noticed any issues.
Didn't know that about ADSL24, that sucks.
Sky (on an LLU) offer a truly unlimited service, no FUP at all. ADSL24 also offer true unlimited packages on LLUs and unlimited off-peak (midnight-8am and weekends) on fibre and normal ADSL/2/+.
Developers already do this. They target graphics for the lowest common denominator, the rubbish PCs and the consoles. The only difference is that on PC they allow you to adjust the settings. The Steam Box would change nothing, excpet maybe raising the bar for PCs, and making it a more targetable platform.
The point is that most people don't have a PC good enough, and don't like the idea of not being sure if a game will run. You get a steam box and you plug it into your TV (most people don't want to play on their small monitor or move a PC around, hell, most don't have an HDMI port and most people don't know DVI->HDMI is easy) and you load up the browser, and can play any game with 'works on steambox v1.0' stamped on it, and know it'll work, just like with a console, at a similar price point to a console.
No, it's not for people who are currently PC gamers, it's to try and make PC gaming viable to the console crowd, because then Valve don't have to play nice with M$, Sony and Nintendo to get their games to them. It makes complete sense, and is actually a really good idea. Why create an open console platform when we already have one - the PC.
Python has really good language design, and has very few quirks. Scoping isn't weird in Python at all, and significant whitespace makes a ton of sense - encouraging good readability while reducing the insane amount of curly braces in most languages. Please give some explanation of what problems are actually there in the language.
I don't get why Python isn't the choice here. Javascript, I find, is a horribly ugly language, harder to understand and code in than most, and with more quirks, special cases, and generally horrible-to-work in language design choices than pretty much any other language in common use today.
Python does it right for learning. It teaches good practices (indentation, code readability), it aims to not surprise the user, it's a well designed language which is very good at being consistant, and in general is nice to learn in. Not only that, but it avoids the low-level stuff (which isn't that relevant when you are first learning to code) and instead teaches you the higher-level concepts which are more important. It's also got a large, well documented standard library, and is interpreted, so you can use it as a prompt, and don't have to worry about compiling. It's also cross platform, free and open.
I'm not going to lie, I don't like JavaScript, and I've never got why people like it. I can understand using it - it's the only real choice for scripting on the web - but to use it out of choice, or teach in? I don't get it. Fun and graphical? Not really - then it requires an understanding of HTML and CSS too, which is either going to be done wrong or be too much.
My main problem is the line
Resig admits JavaScript, as a language, has its warts and issues, but so do all languages.
- This is true, but some languages try really hard to avoid them, and some fix them. Python is an example of both - Python 3 fixes a number of issues with the language, and in general, with the process of PEPs and not being afraid of pushing the language forward, Python has turned into an extremely polished language with very few issues. JavaScript on the other hand, is full of them - and there is no real effort to fix them, as far as I know of, at the moment.
Python uses 'None'.