On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:23:11PM +0100, so wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 17:51:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >Then again, I never believed in the desktop metaphor, and have never seriously used Gnome or KDE or any of that fluffy stuff. I was on VTWM until I decided ratpoison (a mouseless WM) better suited the way I worked.
> 
> I am also using light window managers. Most of the time only tmux and gvim running. I tried many WMs but if you are using it frequently and don't like falling back to windows and such, you need a WM working seamlessly with GUIs. Gimp is one. (You might not believe in desktop but how would you use a program like Gimp?) Now most of the tiling WMs suck at handling that kind of thing. Using xmonad now, at least it has a little better support.

I don't use tiling WMs.

And frankly, Gimp's multi-window interface (or OpenOffice, I mean, LibreOffice, for that matter) is very annoying. That's why I don't use gimp very much. I just use command-line imagemagick tools to do stuff. And when I need to generate complex images, I use povray. :-P (Or write my own image generating algos.) But I don't do much fancy stuff with images anyway, otherwise I would've figured out a way to make gimp work nicely.

But on the point of WMs, the only *real* GUI app that I use regularly is the browser. (And Skype, only because the people I want to talk to are on the other side of the world and they only have Skype. But this is only once a week as opposed to every day.) I pull up OpenOffice / LibreOffice every now and then, under protest, when it's *absolutely* necessary. Pretty much everything else I do in the terminal. So I don't really use any "desktop" features at all anyway. That's why I like ratpoison: maximize everything, no overlapping/tiling windows, and keyboard controls for everything.


T

-- 
Real Programmers use "cat > a.out".

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.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:44:10PM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 10-03-2012 18:58, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 06:49:02PM +0100, so wrote:
[...]
> >>Design of input handling, the theoretical part is irrelevant. I was solely talking about how they do it in practice. OSs are simply unresponsive and in linux it is more severe. If i am having this issue in practice it doesn't matter if it was the GC lock or an another failure to handle input.
> >
> >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. ;)

But if I wanted eye candy, I'd be using Windows in the first place. :-)


T

-- 
They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work. -- Russian saying

On 3/10/2012 12:06 AM, Gour wrote:
> It would be nice if D would have some kind of roadmap with several
> milestones so that users can have some rough (it's not required that
> milestones are carved in stone) idea when to expect that some things
> will be fixed and/or new features added/implemented.

Right now the priority is eliminating high priority bugs from bugzilla, not implementing new features.

On 3/9/2012 10:48 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> So making improvements that involve trivially-handled breaking changes is
> good for C++ but bad for D?

It's always a judgment call.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:47:54AM -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/9/2012 10:44 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >If we start freezing things now, we're going to be Windows 9x.
> 
> Win9x was incredibly successful (!) We can only hope to be so
> successful.

Win9x's success is mainly attributable to Microsoft's superior marketing strategies. It can hardly be called a success technology-wise.


T

-- 
I am not young enough to know everything. -- Oscar Wilde

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.

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:53:22AM -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 12:06 AM, Gour wrote:
> >It would be nice if D would have some kind of roadmap with several milestones so that users can have some rough (it's not required that milestones are carved in stone) idea when to expect that some things will be fixed and/or new features added/implemented.
> 
> Right now the priority is eliminating high priority bugs from bugzilla, not implementing new features.

Speaking of which, how's our progress on that front? What are the major roadblocks still facing us?


T

-- 
He who does not appreciate the beauty of language is not worthy to bemoan its flaws.

On 10-03-2012 19:54, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 07:44:10PM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> On 10-03-2012 18:58, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 06:49:02PM +0100, so wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Design of input handling, the theoretical part is irrelevant. I was
>>>> solely talking about how they do it in practice. OSs are simply
>>>> unresponsive and in linux it is more severe. If i am having this
>>>> issue in practice it doesn't matter if it was the GC lock or an
>>>> another failure to handle input.
>>>
>>> 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. ;)
>
> But if I wanted eye candy, I'd be using Windows in the first place. :-)
>
>
> T
>

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

-- 
- Alex

"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.