Am 02.09.2013 05:46, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
> Maybe we should write our own debugger in D ... ;-) (OK, that may be too
> big a chunk to chew off right now. But, one can dream.)
>

There was DDBG by Jascha Wetzel (the domain ddbg.mania.de seems to be down now), but it seems it has been temporarily picked up again a while ago:

http://www.dsource.org/projects/ddbg_continued/browser/src

From what I remember, it worked really well and I always thought it was a shame that it had been abandoned. The big drawback is that it is Windows only in it's current incarnation. No idea how well it is extensible for other debug/object file formats.

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 04:29:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/2/2013 6:13 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> Unless the industry is showing signs of understanding, I'm done with theses
>> stuffs. When amateurs can do better for free, you are not providing any service,
>> you are just scamming your customers.
>
> I don't know about scamming, but I find the business practice of ignoring people who want to throw money at you to be utterly baffling.
>
> For example, I want to watch Forbrydelsen. It's only available as Region 2 DVDs. I have several dvd/bluray players, none will play it. What the hell? It's 6 years old. Who is making money off of me not being able to watch it?
>
> (Amazon sez: "It won't play on standard DVD/Blu-ray players sold in the United States.")
>
> I'm unimpressed.

Region locking exists solely* to protect the distributors so they don't have to compete with one another.  I imagine if they tried pulling this in a single country (rather than across country lines), anti-collusion laws would kick in and they'd be subject to some hefty fines and the practice would be banned.

* I'm sure they have their excuses for how it's good for consumers and protects them from some imagined threat but removing competition among the various distributors does nothing but hurt consumers.

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 04:29:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/2/2013 6:13 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> Unless the industry is showing signs of understanding, I'm done with theses
>> stuffs. When amateurs can do better for free, you are not providing any service,
>> you are just scamming your customers.
>
> I don't know about scamming, but I find the business practice of ignoring people who want to throw money at you to be utterly baffling.
>
> For example, I want to watch Forbrydelsen. It's only available as Region 2 DVDs. I have several dvd/bluray players, none will play it. What the hell? It's 6 years old. Who is making money off of me not being able to watch it?
>
> (Amazon sez: "It won't play on standard DVD/Blu-ray players sold in the United States.")
>
> I'm unimpressed.

It's an issue of rights negotiation.  Someone has to go buy the rights for each of those shows for every region and type of technology, whether broadcast or DVD or internet, each one is handled separately.  Because there's no standardized contracts or pricing, these deals take forever and they simply don't bother if the market is too small, ie you and the three other people who want to watch Forbrydelsen, whatever that is. ;) If it costs them more to hire the high-priced lawyers to cut these deals than they will get from foreign sales, they don't bother.

This is what bit torrent is for:

http://bitsnoop.com/
http://thepiratebay.sx/
http://www.transmissionbt.com/

I've watched the full runs of HBO shows like Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire and any popular movie I want, in HD, through these torrent sites.  I discovered an Australian reality show called My Restaurant Rules through a torrent site, despite never having heard of it anywhere else, and enjoyed it enough that I watched the entire second season through torrent almost a decade ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Restaurant_Rules#Series_two).

I haven't had any cable, HBO, or online video subscription service in more than a decade; I've probably rented one, maybe two, DVD/blurays during that time.  It's all moving online anyway, only a question of when.

On Sep 2, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 9/2/2013 1:36 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> It's things like this "keyhole interface", that caused me to be convinced that the GUI emperor has no clothes, and to turn to CLI-only development.
> 
> One of the giant failures of the GUI interface, and that VS suffers from, too, is when you need to do repetitive operations.
> 
> On the CLI, I constantly use the history list, and I constantly write throwaway scripts to automate what I'm doing at the moment. It makes everything I do, no matter how obscure, only 2 or 3 keypresses.
> 
> With VS, or any GUI, if there's not a button to do it, I'm reduced to:
> 
> move mouse
> click
> move mouse
> click

Most editors these days have an option to record and playback macros.  Does VS really not have this?

> Sounds easy, right? It is easy. Now do it to 1000 photos. With a command line tool:
> 
> write a script that does it to one picture, name it cc.bat

The problem I've encountered on Windows is that its default batch language is terrible.  Any reasonable amount of command-line scripting requires either a different shell or ports of all the Unix tools.

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:26:46 UTC, Ramon wrote:
> Now, if you will excuse me, I'll hurry to debian unstable *g

Latest GDC release is also in the soon-to-be released Ubuntu 13.10, if that's useful to you. And check D.Announce for the latest info on D packages in Arch Linux.

I can't remember if you've tried to build from source, but for what it's worth that's now a fairly straightforward, albeit time-consuming, process. So don't be afraid to do that in order to have the latest release. I can help guide you through it if you like.

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 20:37:40 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/2013 1:36 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> It's things like this "keyhole interface", that caused me to be
>>> convinced that the GUI emperor has no clothes, and to turn to CLI-only
>>> development.
>> 
>> One of the giant failures of the GUI interface, and that VS suffers from, too, is when you need to do repetitive operations.
>> 
>> On the CLI, I constantly use the history list, and I constantly write throwaway scripts to automate what I'm doing at the moment. It makes everything I do, no matter how obscure, only 2 or 3 keypresses.
>> 
>> With VS, or any GUI, if there's not a button to do it, I'm reduced to:
>> 
>> move mouse
>> click
>> move mouse
>> click
>
> Most editors these days have an option to record and playback macros.  Does VS really not have this?
>
>> Sounds easy, right? It is easy. Now do it to 1000 photos. With a command line tool:
>> 
>> write a script that does it to one picture, name it cc.bat
>
> The problem I've encountered on Windows is that its default batch language is terrible.  Any reasonable amount of command-line scripting requires either a different shell or ports of all the Unix tools.

Newer versions of Windows have Powershell, which as a Linux/CLI
guy, I must admit is reasonably close to something like BASH
(perhaps even superior for some tasks), and there are aliases to
many of the Unix commands.   I think it may be the default batch
language in the latest Windows versions.

However, while it has aliases to many Unix-like commands it
doesn't have everything an it also suffers from the Java diseases
of having:

Really.Long.Names.For.Everything

On 4 September 2013 22:08, Craig Dillabaugh <cdillaba@cg.scs.carleton.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 20:37:40 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/2/2013 1:36 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's things like this "keyhole interface", that caused me to be convinced that the GUI emperor has no clothes, and to turn to CLI-only development.
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the giant failures of the GUI interface, and that VS suffers from, too, is when you need to do repetitive operations.
>>>
>>> On the CLI, I constantly use the history list, and I constantly write throwaway scripts to automate what I'm doing at the moment. It makes everything I do, no matter how obscure, only 2 or 3 keypresses.
>>>
>>> With VS, or any GUI, if there's not a button to do it, I'm reduced to:
>>>
>>> move mouse
>>> click
>>> move mouse
>>> click
>>
>>
>> Most editors these days have an option to record and playback macros. Does VS really not have this?
>>
>>
>>> Sounds easy, right? It is easy. Now do it to 1000 photos. With a command line tool:
>>>
>>> write a script that does it to one picture, name it cc.bat
>>
>>
>> The problem I've encountered on Windows is that its default batch language is terrible.  Any reasonable amount of command-line scripting requires either a different shell or ports of all the Unix tools.
>
>
> Newer versions of Windows have Powershell, which as a Linux/CLI guy, I must admit is reasonably close to something like BASH (perhaps even superior for some tasks), and there are aliases to many of the Unix commands.   I think it may be the default batch language in the latest Windows versions.
>
> However, while it has aliases to many Unix-like commands it doesn't have everything an it also suffers from the Java diseases of having:
>
> Really.Long.Names.For.Everything

I thought Powershell got deprecated...

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 20:51:03 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:26:46 UTC, Ramon wrote:
>> Now, if you will excuse me, I'll hurry to debian unstable *g
>
> Latest GDC release is also in the soon-to-be released Ubuntu 13.10, if that's useful to you. And check D.Announce for the latest info on D packages in Arch Linux.
>
> I can't remember if you've tried to build from source, but for what it's worth that's now a fairly straightforward, albeit time-consuming, process. So don't be afraid to do that in order to have the latest release. I can help guide you through it if you like.

Thank you, J R,

for the info and your friendly offer to help. But I'm already
fine and settled thanks to some hints in the GDC forum and in
particular thanks to hints and help from Iain Buclaw (whose help
and work can't be praised enough).

In case someone else runs into similar problems:

debian unstable (or unstable based derivates) offer GDC-4.8
apt-getable .deb (and phobos) which works well right out of the
box.

Thanks and A+ -R

On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 at 21:34:21 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 4 September 2013 22:08, Craig Dillabaugh <cdillaba@cg.scs.carleton.ca> wrote:
clip
>>
>> Really.Long.Names.For.Everything
>
> I thought Powershell got deprecated...

I don't follow Windows much, but a quick check didn't turn up
anything. Maybe some of the Windows guys hanging around will
know. Apparently there is a Powershell 4 coming out

On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 11:00:10PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> I *hate* shell scripting. My rule is if it is more than three lines, do yourself a favor and use a real programming language. This is equally true on unix and windows.

I dunno, I find that windows batch files are so quirky, inconsistent, and straitjacketed that they're nigh unusable for anything but the most trivial uses. *nix shell scripts are a lot better.


> Well, actually, the limit with batch might be one line rather than three. But still, shells are for interactive entry. Doing any scripting on them is a filthy, time wasting, bug-prone hack.

I agree that bash scripting beyond simple uses is fragile and full of unexpected holes (the primary culprit being the shell's over-eager interpolation that sometimes interpolates multiple times per command, and the lack of any usable built-in computational functions).  It's generally pretty good for automating stuff you'd type by hand, but if you need anything more complex like actual computations, data manipulation, or control structures, I'd recommend Perl.

Or rather, D. :)


> (Especially on unix where you get idiocy like "command line too long" even trying to do simple tasks like deleting a bunch of files!

At least bash isn't so stupid as to impose arbitrary command-line length limits. But yeah, on *nixes where there is such a limit (and where it's unreasonably small), it's a royal pain.


> Or the output to a pipe gets truncated due to terminal width - I kid you not, FreeBSD did that to me some years ago when I had to use it on a server. Drove me nuts.)

Hmm. I haven't seen this one before on Linux. A BSD-specific issue maybe?


T

-- 
GEEK = Gatherer of Extremely Enlightening Knowledge