View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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".
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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.
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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
March 10, 2012
Re: Roadmap (was Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity)
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.
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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.
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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.
March 10, 2012
Re: Roadmap (was Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity)
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.
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
"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.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home