I need to know how it does it in order to fix it or add features. You don't get that from running it.
Surely once you verify a function does what it is supposed to do you don't keep going back and stepping through it again, though? (referring to Eric the expert's eye movements here). What's the point in that?
Adding to my own comment. There's only one condition to remember; I was getting confused with the inline version of the novice. Why he keeps looking back over their code/implementation is bizarre to me... it kind of defies the point of functions in the first place. I'm not an expert but I reckon he's not an expert either.
Although I don't necessarily agree with your Python joke (pretty funny, though) your comment does provoke me to wonder if Eric really is an "expert" programmer. His eyes go all over the place even when they don't have to. There's only 2 conditions to remember and one "function" (set intersection). His eyes skip all over the place. Further, after the two sets are formed (he's written them in the box and he's already determined what common() does) why is he even looking at the function common() again? Maybe it's to double check, but surely remembering two conditions and a set intersection (3 operations) is well within the grasp of human short-term memory and surely you'd only look at the function name (what it does was verified earlier). Personally after I'd glanced at between() and common() to confirm they did what they suggest they do, I'd never look at them again. But his "expert" eyes keep going back to them while he is forming his output.
I just watched Eric's video. Which is different code (wtf?). Even then I wouldn't read it like he does. They definitely need to refine their experiment's methodology a little bit (ok, a lot) and get a bigger sample group.
Is that video real time (adjusted for the 300Hz sample rate)? I ask because I'm not a Python programmer (I do know C, C++, asm) but about 10 seconds into the video I knew what the program would print and yet the video went on for 3 minutes. Something does not add up.
The word, if you're referring to a standard of measurement, is metre(s). A meter is a device that measures things and also a term used in music. I know that American spelling uses meter but they really are two different things and deservedly have two different words internationally.
Fonts on Linux these days look better than Windows 7 (in my opinion) and on par or better than OSX. If you want to tweak to your hearts content (or just set an aesthetically pleasing default) then use Infinality.
Tessellation means to cover a polygon with smaller polygons.
Actually, no. Tiles may be polygons but they're not always.
From wikipedia:
More formally, a tessellation or tiling is a partition of the Euclidean plane into a countable number of closed sets called tiles, such that the tiles intersect only on their boundaries.
Infinality does *much more* than re-activate the previously patented code. Infinality makes fonts on Linux look GOOD. Without it I doubt I could stand using Linux for any substantial period.
The code was written by the freetype author, not Adobe or Google (i.e. they employed the freetype author for a little while to implement the changes they wanted into freetype).
A (very) belated response. I echo your sentiments. Small steps do make a difference. If this specific project doesn't make a difference, then so be it. But, the steps are being made and others can follow those few "small" and tentative steps into the unknown. So, even if the project is a "flop" it's not a failure. It's time for change and I think (I really do) that the momentum has been gathered and more and more progress will be made in this revolution of education, access to knowledge and learning. What a wonderful time to be alive.
My thoughts exactly. Which is why I didn't hesitate to pledge. As I said in my comment I don't really care about the final quality of the book (well, I do, but it's not my main reason for pledging). I put my $ into the project because of each point you listed. I support the idea, the ethos and those behind the project. In my opinion text books should no longer be expensive and "closed". I feel the same way about academic journal papers. So, my pledge was not so much about getting this book done but, instead, a vote for the idea.
So this is the third time I've "put my money where my mouth says." I wrote a book and published it as CC also (and it took about 9 months to write) and I am proud to support this shift in direction for academic and textbook publishing.
Pledged ($50). I don't care if the book turns out crap or not; more people should release books in this manner (IMO) so the decision to pledge was very easy.
So, Akonadi and Nepomuk are the reasons you don't use KDE4? Just disable them. I have to admit that I used Linux almost exclusively from 1994 until 2005 and semi-exclusively from 2006-2007 (I needed to dualboot 2005, 2007 because apps I needed were not up-to-scratch in Linux as I changed hobbies and got very much into photography). I kept Linux installed from 2007-2010 but my primary OS was Windows. I couldn't use Linux because I hated Gnome and KDE was a little bit unstable. In 2011 I deleted Linux from my machine altogether -- it was like saying goodbye to an old friend. In 2012 I just couldn't resist installing it again and did so. I tried Ubuntu at first. Gnome. Hate it. Did I say how much I hate Gnome? I've hated it since the year 1999 or whenever it was I first encountered the horrid beast. In 2000 you installed it and there was a huge fucking foot (maybe 64x64 pixels) placed by default in the lower left-hand corner of the screen. Fortunately there was Windowmaker and KDE. I couldn't entirely commit to KDE at that time because of licensing concerns, but it was a darn sight better than Gnome. Anyway at that time I used neither and just stuck with windowmaker. I think it was around 2006 that I switched to KDE. Not sure of the exact year and used it happily until KDE 4 came along. No big deal, I thought -- I'll just stick with version 3. But no, it was all a big trainwreck with (kde-based) distros requiring unstable and useless and shit KDE 4. It was basically impossible to use KDE3. But, KDE did and has basically matured. I use it daily now. It's relatively fast, looks nice (to me) and does what I want it to. I hope the KDE4-5 transition is a lot less painful compared to the KDE3-4 transition.
So, I glance through the article and notice: [...]so KDE Applications are now less “special” in the Qt world — a good thing for portability.[...]. Without even having to scroll and just 2 paragraphs later I see there is a cool embedded video. Might be interesting. But, I gaze at it.
We have different goals and expectations, that's all. For playing music and looking websites or reading some text, sure lump them together. For other tasks I am going to choose quality over quantity (of features) every time. YMMV:)
Slashdot Mirror
I need to know how it does it in order to fix it or add features. You don't get that from running it.
Surely once you verify a function does what it is supposed to do you don't keep going back and stepping through it again, though? (referring to Eric the expert's eye movements here). What's the point in that?
Adding to my own comment. There's only one condition to remember; I was getting confused with the inline version of the novice. Why he keeps looking back over their code/implementation is bizarre to me... it kind of defies the point of functions in the first place. I'm not an expert but I reckon he's not an expert either.
Although I don't necessarily agree with your Python joke (pretty funny, though) your comment does provoke me to wonder if Eric really is an "expert" programmer. His eyes go all over the place even when they don't have to. There's only 2 conditions to remember and one "function" (set intersection). His eyes skip all over the place. Further, after the two sets are formed (he's written them in the box and he's already determined what common() does) why is he even looking at the function common() again? Maybe it's to double check, but surely remembering two conditions and a set intersection (3 operations) is well within the grasp of human short-term memory and surely you'd only look at the function name (what it does was verified earlier). Personally after I'd glanced at between() and common() to confirm they did what they suggest they do, I'd never look at them again. But his "expert" eyes keep going back to them while he is forming his output.
I just watched Eric's video. Which is different code (wtf?). Even then I wouldn't read it like he does. They definitely need to refine their experiment's methodology a little bit (ok, a lot) and get a bigger sample group.
Is that video real time (adjusted for the 300Hz sample rate)? I ask because I'm not a Python programmer (I do know C, C++, asm) but about 10 seconds into the video I knew what the program would print and yet the video went on for 3 minutes. Something does not add up.
Yep. gcc -O2 makes a huge difference.
The word, if you're referring to a standard of measurement, is metre(s). A meter is a device that measures things and also a term used in music. I know that American spelling uses meter but they really are two different things and deservedly have two different words internationally.
http://blog.lxde.org/?p=990
You should read your signature.
Fonts on Linux these days look better than Windows 7 (in my opinion) and on par or better than OSX. If you want to tweak to your hearts content (or just set an aesthetically pleasing default) then use Infinality.
Actually, cyphertext is perfectly reasonable. But I agree that it should (probably) be one word.
Look! http://www.wikipaintings.org/en/m-c-escher/horseman-1
A tessellation that is not made up of polygons. Dang.
Tessellation means to cover a polygon with smaller polygons.
Actually, no. Tiles may be polygons but they're not always.
From wikipedia:
More formally, a tessellation or tiling is a partition of the Euclidean plane into a countable number of closed sets called tiles, such that the tiles intersect only on their boundaries.
Infinality does *much more* than re-activate the previously patented code. Infinality makes fonts on Linux look GOOD. Without it I doubt I could stand using Linux for any substantial period.
$50 a day? How does that work?
The code was written by the freetype author, not Adobe or Google (i.e. they employed the freetype author for a little while to implement the changes they wanted into freetype).
I do believe that the patches from http://www.infinality.net/blog/infinality-freetype-patches/ are being slowly merged into freetype. In the meantime, use the infinality patches. They make a huge, huge difference.
I agree. This is me playing the new Tomb Raider: http://mathsci.ucd.ie/~plynch/eniac/ENIAC.jpg
It's slow as shit :(
Score: 0 out of 6.
A (very) belated response. I echo your sentiments. Small steps do make a difference. If this specific project doesn't make a difference, then so be it. But, the steps are being made and others can follow those few "small" and tentative steps into the unknown. So, even if the project is a "flop" it's not a failure. It's time for change and I think (I really do) that the momentum has been gathered and more and more progress will be made in this revolution of education, access to knowledge and learning. What a wonderful time to be alive.
My thoughts exactly. Which is why I didn't hesitate to pledge. As I said in my comment I don't really care about the final quality of the book (well, I do, but it's not my main reason for pledging). I put my $ into the project because of each point you listed. I support the idea, the ethos and those behind the project. In my opinion text books should no longer be expensive and "closed". I feel the same way about academic journal papers. So, my pledge was not so much about getting this book done but, instead, a vote for the idea.
So this is the third time I've "put my money where my mouth says." I wrote a book and published it as CC also (and it took about 9 months to write) and I am proud to support this shift in direction for academic and textbook publishing.
Pledged ($50). I don't care if the book turns out crap or not; more people should release books in this manner (IMO) so the decision to pledge was very easy.
So, Akonadi and Nepomuk are the reasons you don't use KDE4? Just disable them. I have to admit that I used Linux almost exclusively from 1994 until 2005 and semi-exclusively from 2006-2007 (I needed to dualboot 2005, 2007 because apps I needed were not up-to-scratch in Linux as I changed hobbies and got very much into photography). I kept Linux installed from 2007-2010 but my primary OS was Windows. I couldn't use Linux because I hated Gnome and KDE was a little bit unstable. In 2011 I deleted Linux from my machine altogether -- it was like saying goodbye to an old friend. In 2012 I just couldn't resist installing it again and did so. I tried Ubuntu at first. Gnome. Hate it. Did I say how much I hate Gnome? I've hated it since the year 1999 or whenever it was I first encountered the horrid beast. In 2000 you installed it and there was a huge fucking foot (maybe 64x64 pixels) placed by default in the lower left-hand corner of the screen. Fortunately there was Windowmaker and KDE. I couldn't entirely commit to KDE at that time because of licensing concerns, but it was a darn sight better than Gnome. Anyway at that time I used neither and just stuck with windowmaker. I think it was around 2006 that I switched to KDE. Not sure of the exact year and used it happily until KDE 4 came along. No big deal, I thought -- I'll just stick with version 3. But no, it was all a big trainwreck with (kde-based) distros requiring unstable and useless and shit KDE 4. It was basically impossible to use KDE3. But, KDE did and has basically matured. I use it daily now. It's relatively fast, looks nice (to me) and does what I want it to. I hope the KDE4-5 transition is a lot less painful compared to the KDE3-4 transition.
So, I glance through the article and notice: [...]so KDE Applications are now less “special” in the Qt world — a good thing for portability.[...]. Without even having to scroll and just 2 paragraphs later I see there is a cool embedded video. Might be interesting. But, I gaze at it.
I'm not going to press play. I just stare.
void main (void) { gl_FragColor = vec4(0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.6); }
I am so glad they are focussing on portability.
We have different goals and expectations, that's all. For playing music and looking websites or reading some text, sure lump them together. For other tasks I am going to choose quality over quantity (of features) every time. YMMV :)