March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Alex Rønne Petersen | "Alex Rønne Petersen" <xtzgzorex@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jjg8e8$46e$1@digitalmars.com... > > Personally I'm all for OS X; it's a good UI Compared to CDE, yes. > on top of a Unix shell - what's not to love? > > But I don't intend to start an OS war or anything here... :P > Oh, it's ON! j/k ;) |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Alex Rønne Petersen | On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 19:01:29 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> Personally I'm all for OS X; it's a good UI on top of a Unix shell - what's not to love?
>
> But I don't intend to start an OS war or anything here... :P
On "paper"(based on features) OS X has been my first OS of choice since the day it was launched... yet I never once tried it, as there are no sane hardware options. :(
Since I require a Discrete Graphics Card, "Mac Pro" is the only choice available, but it's a workstation class computer, however considering I don't have any mission critical requirements for my home computer... the 100% price premium is not justified.
|
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Adam D. Ruppe | "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tfdzpwcijnavdalmnzit@forum.dlang.org... > On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 18:57:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: >> It can hardly be called a success technology-wise. > > It is significantly ahead of its competition at the time. And it was a big advancement over 3.1. Pre-emptive multitasking anyone? |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | "Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:jjg7s4$24p$2@digitalmars.com... > On 3/9/2012 10:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Walter Bright"<newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message >>> I'm *still* regularly annoyed by the writefln => writeln change in D1 >>> to >>> D2, and I agreed to that change. Grrrr. >> >> Are you kidding me? I'm *thrilled* with how much of an improvement >> writeln >> is *every time I use it*. >> >> Seriously how the hell did writeln ever hurst *anyone*? We're bitching >> about >> trivialities here. > > I'm not complaining about the functionality improvement - I think that's great. I'm talking about the name change. It's far and away the most common thing I have to edit when moving code from D1 <=> D2. > I still like the name better. Do we really need an alphabet soup appended to "write" just to spit out one string? It's really not a name change at all though: It's a new function. writefln is still there with the same old functionality (which is good, it *is* a good function). It's just that writeln has been added and just happens to be better in every way for the majority of use-cases. |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh | On 3/10/2012 10:58 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Win9x's success is mainly attributable to Microsoft's superior marketing
> strategies. It can hardly be called a success technology-wise.
Oh, I disagree with that. Certainly, Win9x was a compromise, but it nailed being a transition operating system from 16 to 32 bit, and it nailed making Windows an attractive target for game developers.
|
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | On 3/10/2012 11:31 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I still like the name better. Do we really need an alphabet soup appended to
> "write" just to spit out one string?
It's not about whether it was a better name. It was about having to constantly edit code.
|
March 10, 2012 Re: Roadmap (was Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh | On 3/10/2012 11:02 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > Speaking of which, how's our progress on that front? What are the major > roadblocks still facing us? http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:23:15PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Alex Rønne Petersen" <xtzgzorex@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jjg7dq$24q$1@digitalmars.com... > > On 10-03-2012 18:58, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >> > >> Then you must be running a very different Linux from the one I use. In my experience, it's Windows that's an order of magnitude less responsive due to constant HD thrashing (esp. on bootup, and then periodically thereafter) and too much eye-candy. > > > > This. On the other hand, OS X has all the eye candy and is still extremely responsive. ;) > > > > That's because they cram [their] hardware upgrades down your throat every couple years. [...] Yikes. That would *not* sit well with me. Before my last upgrade, my PC was at least 10 years old. (And the upgrade before that was at least 5 years prior.) Last year I finally replaced my 10 y.o. PC with a brand new AMD hexacore system. The plan being to not upgrade for at least the next 10 years, preferably more. :-) (Maybe by then, Intel's currently-experimental 80-core system would be out in the consumer market, and I'll be a really happy geek sitting in the corner watching 1000 instances of povray cranking out images at lightning speed like there's no tomorrow.) T -- "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next. -- (Stolen from the net) |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | On 10-03-2012 20:23, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Alex Rønne Petersen"<xtzgzorex@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:jjg7dq$24q$1@digitalmars.com... >> On 10-03-2012 18:58, H. S. Teoh wrote: >>> >>> Then you must be running a very different Linux from the one I use. In >>> my experience, it's Windows that's an order of magnitude less responsive >>> due to constant HD thrashing (esp. on bootup, and then periodically >>> thereafter) and too much eye-candy. >> >> This. On the other hand, OS X has all the eye candy and is still extremely >> responsive. ;) >> > > That's because they cram [their] hardware upgrades down your throat every > couple years. > > No one forces you to upgrade. -- - Alex |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:27:20PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tfdzpwcijnavdalmnzit@forum.dlang.org... > > On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 18:57:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >> It can hardly be called a success technology-wise. > > > > It is significantly ahead of its competition at the time. > > And it was a big advancement over 3.1. Pre-emptive multitasking anyone? [...] I thought the Unix world has had that years before Windows. But not in the consumer PC market, I suppose. But 3.1 was such a sad mess that just about *anything* would be an improvement on it. T -- ASCII stupid question, getty stupid ANSI. |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation