View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
"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
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
"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
"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
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
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)
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
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
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
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.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home