there's no reason why the IDE release cycle has to be tied to the compiler release cycle..
There's Intellisense which, you may have heard, is kind of a big deal about Visual Studio. If the language adds new constructs (which is does), and the IDE isn't updated to cope with that, then you end up with useless, or even worse-than-useless, Intellisense.
What they could do is have the language team produce and release a patch for Intellisense to correspond to their language releases, but then you get into the nasty situation where the language team has to build and QA patches for 3 or 4 versions of Visual Studio-- bugs would creep in, undoubtedly.
I want a spatial file browser. Mac Classic had the only one that was ever worth a damn. Now nobody does. (Sadly, GNOME is as close as they come.)
However currently both my computers are Mac's running OS X. Why? well OS X has some problems they are a lot easier to live with than any other OS's problems.
Call me ridiculous, but version 10 of a product should not have fewer features than version 9. When Apple decided it was ok to just arbitrarily remove features from their OS, I jumped ship-- screw them.
Linux still doesn't support modern things like rotate and resize on the fly, or the ability to plug any monitor in and automatically adjust the settings accordingly.(before any one suggests otherwise, I try every new linux release waiting for xrandr to support my monitors, I can only ever get them to work through xconfig, and then I lose xrandr support.)
That's why I use Windows. It gets stuff right all of the time, and frankly, at least as often than Apple does IMO. (Although admittedly I haven't tried 10.5, I jumped ship a few months after 10.4 came out.) OS X might be more Unix-compatible, but I don't really give a crap about that.
Yes, yes, I know this is Slashdot and we're all required by Slashdot Law to hate Windows, but frankly Vista and Windows 7 are really good products. Given the choice between OS X and Windows 7, I'll choose Windows 7 every time.
I haven't played much with Windows 7 yet however Windows always seems to get in my way when i am trying to work.
As a general rule, I think people with extremely vague complaints like this probably have no actual reasons for their opinion. I could be wrong, but if you had a real reason, I assume you'd actually bring it up.
I mean, what does "always seems to get in my way" even mean in concrete terms?
it's like it is feature complete but lacking ease of use polish.
I think Windows 7 is more polished than OS X. At least, it has a more consistent look-and-feel.
Maybe they think it's more valuable to identity what data was being smuggled (and by whom) than just blocking it outright. More to the point, since they've been using this for years, and since they created the specs for it, I'm sure it already does exactly what they want it to-- so why question it?
Constant change is good for everyone but fanatics, and morons.
Please, buddy. You're on Slashdot, where the average poster things that the Linux CLI is already perfect and no change could possibly make it better.
Change means that when PPC was better than 68k the 68k could be dropped. When Intel finally caught up with PPC that shift could happen too. In 10-15 more years when ARM chips are out performing Intel x86 chips Apple can switch to that.
I understand Apple changing things when they have to, but the problem is that they make too many changes on a whim. Hell, OS X 10.2 shipped with two entirely different window styles-- why? Which are are you supposed to use? How does the user benefit from having two? It was just change for change sake, that's the thing I'm griping about.
The CPU changes, fine, bad example-- those were necessary. (Well, the change to x86 was. PPC I don't think ever really lived up to the hype, but Apple can't predict the future.)
If you don't like change go back to using a punch card and a dot matrix printer for your interface.
I actually would prefer to go back to Mac Classic for my interface, but I can't because Apple doesn't give me the choice. With Microsoft products, I can still make Windows 7 look and act damned-close to Windows 95 if I want.
It has to do better than previous Windows mobile phones (can't possibly do worse) but this is by far no threat to the iPhone or even Android, imo.
It's not intended to be. It's clearly not in the same market as the iPhone and Android are-- when Microsoft announces their Windows Mobile 7 phones, *then* you can compare them to iPhone and Android.
The Kin here is more like a Sidekick, that's who they're competing with.
What are you referring to, specifically? Would you say the same thing about, say, Motorola had they introduced a phone with this featureset and form-factor?
I mean, I agree that I don't find this announcement compelling, but then again I'm also not the audience for the phone.
I'm also all for griping about Microsoft, but at least give us some substance! What about this announcement are we supposed to hate, exactly?
I would live to see msft mange a major processor shift. It would take 10 years.
It takes 10 years for Apple, too... and some apps *never* work on the new CPU.
But the real response is, "because Microsoft is smart enough not to do that." Apple's shit changes so often that a significant portion of Adobe's development time is just dealing with Apple's shit changing. Classic to Carbon to Cocoa. 68k to PPC to x86. Constant. Fucking. Change. Most of which offers nothing new.
Specifically the Quick Time team should sue the iPhone and iPod OS team for not putting Quick Time support in the OS. Seriously, why must we all convert our Quick Time movies? Is it really that hard to support their own format on their own device?
Let me get this straight: you want to see more Quicktime in the world? Not less?
No it's not. The spec has a spelling error in it which, unfortunately, has become a standard. However, that doesn't mean it's the correct spelling-- it isn't and never has been.
It's really just yet one more example of how much the W3C sucks at their job.
1) The Slashdot summary says "Review", which is clearly wrong. 2) Even for an overview, it was disappointing. They could have dropped a single sentence saying, "the CS4 interface is back in all apps" and I'd have been satisfied.
Everyone who knows the Adobe Suite doesn't use the UI that much anyway. They know the keyboard shortcuts.
As long as you ignore that Flash is part of the Adobe Suite, I'm with you-- unfortunately, it is, it requires a mouse, and it sucks shit. Even worse than Macromedia's already-sucktastic version.
Re:your first sentence is technically flawed
on
Ubuntu on a Dime
·
· Score: 1
Moreover, IBM has never demonstrated the capability to write an actually usable application UI. They'd have lasted 3 years before a competitor came along with the exact same features, but a UI that didn't suck.
Until the last 3 years (5 to be generous), Unix UIs all stank. There's no reason to think IBM would have done better in the mid-80s, especially given that current Unix UIs have Apple and Microsoft to thank for establishing expectations in the first place.
I can't comment on Maya (maybe it's worse, I dunno), but Adobe's current set of projects are pretty damned horrible.
Take a look at this blog (not mine): http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ Even ignoring the stuff that plain does not work at all (the majority of the Fireworks entries), there are tons of extremely obvious errors in the UI.
The only part of the suite I use is Flash, which is why the UI stuff annoys me. Flash's UI was poor before, now it's godawful. And this is one app the keyboard can't save you from.
The good news is that I can edit ActionScript in another IDE. The bad news is that Flash has zero integration with external tools.
It's only the second post on the topic, and it's the first one that talks about the UI of the product. How exactly is it redundant? Where's the redundancy? How about if you want to abuse the mod system you do so in a less blatantly-obvious way?
It's not an overview, it's a gushing, excited press release. And it doesn't even drop one word on my most important concern: is Adobe continuing their trend of writing awful, inconsistent, ugly, usually-slow UIs?
The fact that that, after Macromedia's was acquired, I'd actually pay extra to get Flash 8's UI back... well, that tells you something. How the hell do you write a UI worse than Macromedia's? That takes the kind of talent only Adobe can offer I guess... IBM should hire these guys to do Lotus Notes next.;)
Most states (if not all) already have seatbelt laws. It's a hell of a lot easier to see if someone is using their phone through a window on the freeway then to see if they're wearing a seatbelt... and nobody's been complaining about that law, so I doubt anybody's going to take on your claim either.
That's for emergencies. Military leadership has said time and time and time again that the volunteer military works significantly better than the drafted military. Unless the mainland US gets invaded or the nukes go flying, those Selective Service cards are never going to be called in.
The public prefers a volunteer service. Military leadership prefers a volunteer service. Political leadership prefers a volunteer service. Citing an emergency measure as if it's going to be used tomorrow is ridiculous.
1) Our military is all volunteer now; there's no draft, there's no plans for a draft.
2) The current wars are less costly by orders of magnitude than Korea and Vietnam were.
3) I would wager that there is significantly more public support for the current wars than supported Vietnam. (Although I am somewhat impressed at the half-dozen or so people who protest in front of the Seattle Federal Building every single day. I'd rather them have a *job*, but I'm impressed at their dedication.)
4) The press isn't really covering the current wars in any useless fashion. They're certainly not covering it the way Vietnam was covered. Sadly, while the Internet is making in-roads, the mainstream media is still the primary driver of opinion.
Also, it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. If you follow lhmhi's advice above, you're unlikely to get into trouble. However, if you go out of your way to ask permission from the original game developers and they say no, then what? You're screwed. If you go ahead and develop it anyways they could take you to court and show the judge that you anticipated possible infringement yet went ahead even after you didn't obtain permission.
If you ask, and they say "no", then don't make it. If you don't respect their wishes, and you were asking only as a formality, you're just being an asshole and the court deserves to ding you when you get sued.
Believe me, there are thousands of games that could work well if remade. Here's what you do:
1) Pick a game 2) Ask its creator if you can remake it (don't be an asshole) 3) If they say no, go to step 1.
Slashdot Mirror
there's no reason why the IDE release cycle has to be tied to the compiler release cycle..
There's Intellisense which, you may have heard, is kind of a big deal about Visual Studio. If the language adds new constructs (which is does), and the IDE isn't updated to cope with that, then you end up with useless, or even worse-than-useless, Intellisense.
What they could do is have the language team produce and release a patch for Intellisense to correspond to their language releases, but then you get into the nasty situation where the language team has to build and QA patches for 3 or 4 versions of Visual Studio-- bugs would creep in, undoubtedly.
That's the problem why would you want to?
I want a spatial file browser. Mac Classic had the only one that was ever worth a damn. Now nobody does. (Sadly, GNOME is as close as they come.)
However currently both my computers are Mac's running OS X. Why? well OS X has some problems they are a lot easier to live with than any other OS's problems.
Call me ridiculous, but version 10 of a product should not have fewer features than version 9. When Apple decided it was ok to just arbitrarily remove features from their OS, I jumped ship-- screw them.
Linux still doesn't support modern things like rotate and resize on the fly, or the ability to plug any monitor in and automatically adjust the settings accordingly.(before any one suggests otherwise, I try every new linux release waiting for xrandr to support my monitors, I can only ever get them to work through xconfig, and then I lose xrandr support.)
That's why I use Windows. It gets stuff right all of the time, and frankly, at least as often than Apple does IMO. (Although admittedly I haven't tried 10.5, I jumped ship a few months after 10.4 came out.) OS X might be more Unix-compatible, but I don't really give a crap about that.
Yes, yes, I know this is Slashdot and we're all required by Slashdot Law to hate Windows, but frankly Vista and Windows 7 are really good products. Given the choice between OS X and Windows 7, I'll choose Windows 7 every time.
I haven't played much with Windows 7 yet however Windows always seems to get in my way when i am trying to work.
As a general rule, I think people with extremely vague complaints like this probably have no actual reasons for their opinion. I could be wrong, but if you had a real reason, I assume you'd actually bring it up.
I mean, what does "always seems to get in my way" even mean in concrete terms?
it's like it is feature complete but lacking ease of use polish.
I think Windows 7 is more polished than OS X. At least, it has a more consistent look-and-feel.
Maybe they think it's more valuable to identity what data was being smuggled (and by whom) than just blocking it outright. More to the point, since they've been using this for years, and since they created the specs for it, I'm sure it already does exactly what they want it to-- so why question it?
Constant change is good for everyone but fanatics, and morons.
Please, buddy. You're on Slashdot, where the average poster things that the Linux CLI is already perfect and no change could possibly make it better.
Change means that when PPC was better than 68k the 68k could be dropped. When Intel finally caught up with PPC that shift could happen too. In 10-15 more years when ARM chips are out performing Intel x86 chips Apple can switch to that.
I understand Apple changing things when they have to, but the problem is that they make too many changes on a whim. Hell, OS X 10.2 shipped with two entirely different window styles-- why? Which are are you supposed to use? How does the user benefit from having two? It was just change for change sake, that's the thing I'm griping about.
The CPU changes, fine, bad example-- those were necessary. (Well, the change to x86 was. PPC I don't think ever really lived up to the hype, but Apple can't predict the future.)
If you don't like change go back to using a punch card and a dot matrix printer for your interface.
I actually would prefer to go back to Mac Classic for my interface, but I can't because Apple doesn't give me the choice. With Microsoft products, I can still make Windows 7 look and act damned-close to Windows 95 if I want.
It has to do better than previous Windows mobile phones (can't possibly do worse) but this is by far no threat to the iPhone or even Android, imo.
It's not intended to be. It's clearly not in the same market as the iPhone and Android are-- when Microsoft announces their Windows Mobile 7 phones, *then* you can compare them to iPhone and Android.
The Kin here is more like a Sidekick, that's who they're competing with.
This is the cellphone space. All their competitors have names like, "Envy", or "Cliq" or "Devour" or "Neon" or "Magnet" or "Curve" or "Reveal."
Microsoft's naming here is no worse than any other cell maker.
What are you referring to, specifically? Would you say the same thing about, say, Motorola had they introduced a phone with this featureset and form-factor?
I mean, I agree that I don't find this announcement compelling, but then again I'm also not the audience for the phone.
I'm also all for griping about Microsoft, but at least give us some substance! What about this announcement are we supposed to hate, exactly?
I would live to see msft mange a major processor shift. It would take 10 years.
It takes 10 years for Apple, too... and some apps *never* work on the new CPU.
But the real response is, "because Microsoft is smart enough not to do that." Apple's shit changes so often that a significant portion of Adobe's development time is just dealing with Apple's shit changing. Classic to Carbon to Cocoa. 68k to PPC to x86. Constant. Fucking. Change. Most of which offers nothing new.
Apple has nobody to blame except themselves.
Specifically the Quick Time team should sue the iPhone and iPod OS team for not putting Quick Time support in the OS. Seriously, why must we all convert our Quick Time movies? Is it really that hard to support their own format on their own device?
Let me get this straight: you want to see more Quicktime in the world? Not less?
Freak.
No it's not. The spec has a spelling error in it which, unfortunately, has become a standard. However, that doesn't mean it's the correct spelling-- it isn't and never has been.
It's really just yet one more example of how much the W3C sucks at their job.
Firefox has everything to lose. IE9 is going to hit them hard when it comes out.
I wouldn't be surprised if Chrome in 2 years is where Firefox is now, and Firefox had half its current share.
True, but two points:
1) The Slashdot summary says "Review", which is clearly wrong.
2) Even for an overview, it was disappointing. They could have dropped a single sentence saying, "the CS4 interface is back in all apps" and I'd have been satisfied.
Everyone who knows the Adobe Suite doesn't use the UI that much anyway. They know the keyboard shortcuts.
As long as you ignore that Flash is part of the Adobe Suite, I'm with you-- unfortunately, it is, it requires a mouse, and it sucks shit. Even worse than Macromedia's already-sucktastic version.
Moreover, IBM has never demonstrated the capability to write an actually usable application UI. They'd have lasted 3 years before a competitor came along with the exact same features, but a UI that didn't suck.
Until the last 3 years (5 to be generous), Unix UIs all stank. There's no reason to think IBM would have done better in the mid-80s, especially given that current Unix UIs have Apple and Microsoft to thank for establishing expectations in the first place.
I can't comment on Maya (maybe it's worse, I dunno), but Adobe's current set of projects are pretty damned horrible.
Take a look at this blog (not mine): http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ Even ignoring the stuff that plain does not work at all (the majority of the Fireworks entries), there are tons of extremely obvious errors in the UI.
The only part of the suite I use is Flash, which is why the UI stuff annoys me. Flash's UI was poor before, now it's godawful. And this is one app the keyboard can't save you from.
The good news is that I can edit ActionScript in another IDE. The bad news is that Flash has zero integration with external tools.
Redundant how?
It's only the second post on the topic, and it's the first one that talks about the UI of the product. How exactly is it redundant? Where's the redundancy? How about if you want to abuse the mod system you do so in a less blatantly-obvious way?
It's not an overview, it's a gushing, excited press release. And it doesn't even drop one word on my most important concern: is Adobe continuing their trend of writing awful, inconsistent, ugly, usually-slow UIs?
The fact that that, after Macromedia's was acquired, I'd actually pay extra to get Flash 8's UI back... well, that tells you something. How the hell do you write a UI worse than Macromedia's? That takes the kind of talent only Adobe can offer I guess... IBM should hire these guys to do Lotus Notes next. ;)
Seriously. Well, now there's like 19 or 20, but still: seriously.
I don't really have any complaint with this, but it's a teeny bit early to begin bragging about how much better than Wikipedia you are, eh?
http://www.delimiter.com.au/wiki/index.php?title=Neptune_Informatics - Look now they've been trolled, too. Rock.
Now they have seat belt roadblocks....
Who is "they"? I've never heard of it.
Most states (if not all) already have seatbelt laws. It's a hell of a lot easier to see if someone is using their phone through a window on the freeway then to see if they're wearing a seatbelt... and nobody's been complaining about that law, so I doubt anybody's going to take on your claim either.
That's for emergencies. Military leadership has said time and time and time again that the volunteer military works significantly better than the drafted military. Unless the mainland US gets invaded or the nukes go flying, those Selective Service cards are never going to be called in.
The public prefers a volunteer service. Military leadership prefers a volunteer service. Political leadership prefers a volunteer service. Citing an emergency measure as if it's going to be used tomorrow is ridiculous.
Some points:
1) Our military is all volunteer now; there's no draft, there's no plans for a draft.
2) The current wars are less costly by orders of magnitude than Korea and Vietnam were.
3) I would wager that there is significantly more public support for the current wars than supported Vietnam. (Although I am somewhat impressed at the half-dozen or so people who protest in front of the Seattle Federal Building every single day. I'd rather them have a *job*, but I'm impressed at their dedication.)
4) The press isn't really covering the current wars in any useless fashion. They're certainly not covering it the way Vietnam was covered. Sadly, while the Internet is making in-roads, the mainstream media is still the primary driver of opinion.
Also, it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. If you follow lhmhi's advice above, you're unlikely to get into trouble. However, if you go out of your way to ask permission from the original game developers and they say no, then what? You're screwed. If you go ahead and develop it anyways they could take you to court and show the judge that you anticipated possible infringement yet went ahead even after you didn't obtain permission.
If you ask, and they say "no", then don't make it. If you don't respect their wishes, and you were asking only as a formality, you're just being an asshole and the court deserves to ding you when you get sued.
Believe me, there are thousands of games that could work well if remade. Here's what you do:
1) Pick a game
2) Ask its creator if you can remake it (don't be an asshole)
3) If they say no, go to step 1.
Ah, man, I thought you meant AlleyKat and got excited for nothing.
What's worse? Making the Friends reference? Or being the one other guy (apparently) who recognizes that it's a Friends reference?