On Monday, 14 July 2014 at 11:50:16 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> I'm getting strange question marks on the right side bar in
> Opera 12/Linux:
> DMD ? Version 1
> DMC ? Digital Mars C and C++ Compiler

I know about that. It's the ndash for the title not being output
correctly. I just haven't fixed it yet.

> Then I wondered if the "Documentation" section should be
> renamed "Language Specifications" and the links renamed to
> "DMD 1" and "DMD 2" or if they should be merged into the
> sections for DMD 1 and DMD 2 respectively, because 7 year old
> DMD 1 specs are now pretty much obsolete? Someone new to the
> web site looking for (current) compiler documentation will
> only get confused.

That's a good shout. I like the "Language Specifications"
suggestion. I'll make a note to change that later.

On 7/14/14, 5:03 AM, w0rp wrote:
>> Then I wondered if the "Documentation" section should be
>> renamed "Language Specifications" and the links renamed to
>> "DMD 1" and "DMD 2" or if they should be merged into the
>> sections for DMD 1 and DMD 2 respectively, because 7 year old
>> DMD 1 specs are now pretty much obsolete? Someone new to the
>> web site looking for (current) compiler documentation will
>> only get confused.
>
> That's a good shout. I like the "Language Specifications"
> suggestion. I'll make a note to change that later.

When I first reorganized the current site I ended up using "Language Reference" and "Library Reference" for the D-spec and Phobos docs, respectively. There was also a collection of articles which fell under documentation, for lack of a better place to put them, and the Documentation section has grown since.

I don't know where the documentation link should take you, but there are a number of sections under the current Documentation (including not one, not two but three "tutorial" links, each named slightly differently and all of which leave dlang.org). I personally think that "Language Specification" is a bit narrow to cover all those topics.

On 7/11/2014 10:38 AM, Wyatt wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 July 2014 at 23:15:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> I'm fairly certain they don't. Heck, I can't even find a 5:4 anymore
>> which at least isn't *as* bad as 16:9. Tolerable, at least.
>>
> If you're willing to pay a bit more, you can get 16:10 which
> is...actually not that bad.  I think it strikes a good balance. Better
> still, Google has some laptops with 3:2 screens that I'd love to have
> elsewhere.
>

Aspect ratios need to start being expressed in decimal form. The "4:3 vs 16:9" is easy to keep track of which is which. But it gets completely out of hand once you also figure in 3:2, 5:4, 16:10, and...this is the one that *really* gets me... 2.1:1 (Seriously?! WhyTF use ratio notation if you're still going to use decimals anyway?!?).

Quick! Sort these narrowest to widest!:

5:4, 2.1:1, 3:2, 16:9, 16:10, 4:3

It's ridiculous. We need to standardize on decimal-notation aspect ratios. Or at least a standardized denominator.

>> But as for *actual* 4:3, or even 5:4, I really do doubt they're still
>> manufactured.
>
> I think there's still a few 5:4? But for the most part, no.  A big part
> of the push comes back to marketing BS:  Display sizes are measured by
> their diagonal, so you can advertise a 20" widescreen for more money,
> even though it cost less to make than a 19" at 4:3 or 5:4.  And it's
> "cinematic"! orz
>

That's another thing. Screen sizes should be measured in viewable 2D units, like square inches. None of this BS about measuring 2D space with a linear diagonal unit, or including part of the frame, or any other such garbage.

And yea, as a gamer, pretty much any argument involving "it's cinematic!" irritates me. And contrary to the manufacturer beliefs, *my* computer is far, far more than just an overpriced DVD player.

>> I think the best bet for 4:3 is to just look for a used CRT. (Heck, at
>> least they can display more than one resolution without looking bad.)
>> I'm kinda jealous of those pro gamedevs with a dual-monitor, one of
>> them being vertical, setup. I should do that. With one of those desks
>> that can adjust to/from standing position. That'd be sweet :)
>>
> If you want a seriously good CRT, you pretty much want a Trinitron.  For
> PCs, my personal recommendation is the G-series. I had a G200 (17" flat
> tube) for about ten years and it could push 1600x1200 at 85Hz and even
> do 2560x1600 at 60Hz.  If you're using old consoles, you can't go wrong
> with a PVM (it works pretty well with a supergun too, though it still
> can't do some of the wacky modes like what Gun Frontier and Metal Black
> use).
>

Yea, Trinitrons were always well-regarded. Too bad they're not made anymore.

Not sure if it was an actual Trinitron or some other brand, but shortly before HD sets, a friend of mine got a flatscreen[1] CRT with progressive scan, component input, and some sort of special improved black levels. It looked absolutely amazing. I suspect that may have subconsciously been part of why I was underwhelmed by HDTVs (that, and my ancient $25 used VGA CRT had *already* been doing HD for years).

As far as I'm concerned, the #1 selling point for 4k[2] is the (theoretical) capability of displaying SD *without* making it look like complete shit compared to a real SD set. Of course, the one 4k set I've seen didn't even have *ANY* inputs other than HDMI, so completely useless as far as I'm concerned, especially considering the price. (Seriously? >$1k and they *still* couldn't toss in some cheap connectors and decoder? Ridiculous. Clearly marketed directly at people with more money than sense.) But I guess they expect me to re-buy all the SD stuff I already own. Fuck that. I'll pirate before I let them pull that shit on me.

[1] People these days don't even know there's a difference between flastscreen and flatpanel. Ugh.

[2] 4k: Can screens EVER standardize on fucking ANYTHING anymore?!? Pick a fucking notation for describing resolutions and STICK WITH IT!!! It's like the freaking "Lenny"/"Mountain Lion"/"Ice Cream Sandwich" bullshit here. I don't *want* to know the correct ordering of snacks/cats/toy story characters, and I'm *certainly* not going to memorize which idiotic (and completely unnecessary) name refers to WHAT freaking version. Idiotic unnecessary indirection.

"Woody/Sarge???" WTF? "SD/1080p/4k???" WTF? Enough redundant naming conventions already.

On Monday, 14 July 2014 at 19:40:53 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> [2] 4k: Can screens EVER standardize on fucking ANYTHING anymore?!? Pick a fucking notation for describing resolutions and STICK WITH IT!!! It's like the freaking "Lenny"/"Mountain Lion"/"Ice Cream Sandwich" bullshit here. I don't *want* to know the correct ordering of snacks/cats/toy story characters, and I'm *certainly* not going to memorize which idiotic (and completely unnecessary) name refers to WHAT freaking version. Idiotic unnecessary indirection.
>
> "Woody/Sarge???" WTF? "SD/1080p/4k???" WTF? Enough redundant naming conventions already.

You think this is bad? Just wait until 4K really gets going in the mainstream and every manufacturer under the sun comes up with their own unique term to differentiate themselves. It'll be 2008 all over again.

On 7/14/2014 3:51 PM, Meta wrote:
> On Monday, 14 July 2014 at 19:40:53 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> [2] 4k: Can screens EVER standardize on fucking ANYTHING anymore?!?
>> Pick a fucking notation for describing resolutions and STICK WITH
>> IT!!! It's like the freaking "Lenny"/"Mountain Lion"/"Ice Cream
>> Sandwich" bullshit here. I don't *want* to know the correct ordering
>> of snacks/cats/toy story characters, and I'm *certainly* not going to
>> memorize which idiotic (and completely unnecessary) name refers to
>> WHAT freaking version. Idiotic unnecessary indirection.
>>
>> "Woody/Sarge???" WTF? "SD/1080p/4k???" WTF? Enough redundant naming
>> conventions already.
>
> You think this is bad? Just wait until 4K really gets going in the
> mainstream and every manufacturer under the sun comes up with their own
> unique term to differentiate themselves. It'll be 2008 all over again.

2008? That stuff's been going on *much* longer than that ;)

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:53:19PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 7/14/2014 3:51 PM, Meta wrote:
> >On Monday, 14 July 2014 at 19:40:53 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >>[2] 4k: Can screens EVER standardize on fucking ANYTHING anymore?!? Pick a fucking notation for describing resolutions and STICK WITH IT!!! It's like the freaking "Lenny"/"Mountain Lion"/"Ice Cream Sandwich" bullshit here. I don't *want* to know the correct ordering of snacks/cats/toy story characters, and I'm *certainly* not going to memorize which idiotic (and completely unnecessary) name refers to WHAT freaking version. Idiotic unnecessary indirection.
> >>
> >>"Woody/Sarge???" WTF? "SD/1080p/4k???" WTF? Enough redundant naming conventions already.
> >
> >You think this is bad? Just wait until 4K really gets going in the mainstream and every manufacturer under the sun comes up with their own unique term to differentiate themselves. It'll be 2008 all over again.
> 
> 2008? That stuff's been going on *much* longer than that ;)

My favorite version numbering scheme is Knuth's scheme of incremental convergence onto an irrational number, like TeX version 3, followed by 3.1, then 3.14, then 3.141, then 3.1415, then 3.14159, etc.. :-)

For me, my favorite irrational number is (1+√5)/2. So I'd number my versions 1, 1.6, 1.61, 1.618, 1.6180, 1.61803, ... etc..


T

-- 
Let's not fight disease by killing the patient. -- Sean 'Shaleh' Perry

On Monday, 14 July 2014 at 19:53:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 2008? That stuff's been going on *much* longer than that ;)

Pick a year. I just remember 2008 was the year that 1080p TVs really became mainstream, and there was no end of terms being thrown around.

On 7/14/2014 4:11 AM, Marco Leise wrote:
> I'm sure most of the NG folks worry about stepping on
> someone's toe by making pull requests for the official
> language website without getting an ok from whoever designed
> it and from Walter and you.

The whole point of PR's is you will NOT be stepping on anyone's toes.

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:31:37PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 7/14/2014 4:11 AM, Marco Leise wrote:
> >I'm sure most of the NG folks worry about stepping on someone's toe by making pull requests for the official language website without getting an ok from whoever designed it and from Walter and you.
> 
> The whole point of PR's is you will NOT be stepping on anyone's toes.

Yeah, how is submitting PR's stepping on anyone's toes? The worst that could happen is that it gets rejected.

The whole point of using github is to solicit PR's, is it not? :-) Otherwise Walter could just keep the code private and only release binaries.


T

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? -- Michael Beibl

On Monday, 14 July 2014 at 15:45:39 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:
> On 7/14/14, 5:03 AM, w0rp wrote:
>>> Then I wondered if the "Documentation" section should be
>>> renamed "Language Specifications" and the links renamed to
>>> "DMD 1" and "DMD 2" or if they should be merged into the
>>> sections for DMD 1 and DMD 2 respectively, because 7 year old
>>> DMD 1 specs are now pretty much obsolete? Someone new to the
>>> web site looking for (current) compiler documentation will
>>> only get confused.
>>
>> That's a good shout. I like the "Language Specifications"
>> suggestion. I'll make a note to change that later.
>
> When I first reorganized the current site I ended up using "Language Reference" and "Library Reference" for the D-spec and Phobos docs, respectively. There was also a collection of articles which fell under documentation, for lack of a better place to put them, and the Documentation section has grown since.
>
> I don't know where the documentation link should take you, but there are a number of sections under the current Documentation (including not one, not two but three "tutorial" links, each named slightly differently and all of which leave dlang.org). I personally think that "Language Specification" is a bit narrow to cover all those topics.

He was actually referring to the subsection in the Downloads page. I made that same mistake myself until I read what he said a couple of times more and then I got what he was saying. Still I understand what you're saying about what should go in there. For the moment on the master branch it takes you right to the library documentation.