On 2013-09-02 22:29, Walter Bright wrote:

> Yeah, they pulled the rug out from us on the downloads. I'd even pay
> them money for that feature.

Release apparently allows one to attach binaries of some sort:

"You can also attach binary assets (such as compiled executables, minified scripts, documentation) to a release. Once published, the release details and assets are available to anyone that can view the repository."

At the bottom of this page:

https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-09-02 23:14, Ramon wrote:

> But for fairness sake: Better Gui Programms (read: way too few) have
> Macro facilities.

And a better operating system has macro facilities, like Mac OS X :). With AppleScript it's possible to script GUI applications. It also has Automator, which is automatic different task. It basically allows you do put together different tasks, similar to piping Unix commands together, but graphically. Basically a GUI application pipe together functions from other GUI applications. It also allows to record tasks.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-09-03 07:39, H. S. Teoh wrote:

> Some GUI apps do have macro facilities. The problem is, *most* GUI apps
> don't, and those that do brew their own and do it their own
> idiosyncratic way. Which means it only works *within* the app. You'd be
> lucky enough to *have* macro facilities in the first place, and now you
> want to interface with an external app? Tough luck. Some macro
> facilities do allow interfacing with CLI scripts and stuff, but wanna
> interface with another GUI app? Not a chance.

I just say: Mac OS X. Have a look at this post:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/CAOC+-J9GUEFN6fSQKM7iNZErAFvE_etDAKmDJ4crh2stDg1pwA@mail.gmail.com?page=15#post-l044rj:24193f:241:40digitalmars.com

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

> Requiring IDE assistance to make code _readable_ seems completely fail to
> me.
> 1) You're not always reading code in your IDE, often in commit logs, diff
> windows, emails, chat clients.
> 2) With so much hate for IDE support, it seems like a massive contradiction
> to say that an IDE should be required to make code readable.
>
> Reading code is the most fundamental task in programming. Anything that
> gets in the way of code readability is an epic fail.

You're still confusing code readability with getting an overview of a class. They are two different things.

If you need an overview that you can view in text, add comments at the top of the class with a method signature on each line. That will give you the overview you need and reproduce the total nightmare of keeping it in sync with the methods. Something you would also have to do with separate declarations and implementations.

On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 22:39:34 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> Had I used GUI tools to do this, I'd be fighting with trying to make ImageEditorPro123 work with VisualWebsite2013, and trying to remember which folders held which version of which image, forgetting which layers to apply in which order to which image, generating images from the wrong version of the source data and having to redo it all, etc.. It'd be a gigantic exercise in micromanagement just to get things to work together properly. The lack of cross-app scriptability really turns this into a full-time job, whereas right now, it's a 5-minute edit and re-run the build script, and I'm up and away.
> 

Indeed.

On a previous site I did, we had a bunch of different audio/video assets for both HTML and Flash. It really wasn't all that many really, but the "art" guy (a manager/designer, not really an art guy anyway) was doing most of it with various Adobe tools, doing it all the "Adobe" way. Trying to manage those assets, especially if anything needed changed, was a royal pain in the ass.

And consistency, forget it. We didn't even end up with a whole lot of consistency despite all the time and effort I put into it (it would have been a *real* mess if I hadn't, though). Trying to get him to use any sort of version management tool would have been wasted effort, which made it all the worse. Not that VCSes are all that great with binary files anyway.

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 01:18:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 3 September 2013 02:19, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 2 September 2013 at 03:14:38 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 September 2013 04:00, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Manu:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Seriously, how do you quickly read and understand the API through the
>>>>
>>>>> noise?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The noise increases if you have to repeat the class name for each method
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Except that you can _read the class definition_.
>>>
>>> Look, I'm just giving an account of the collective experience from our
>>> weekend. None of us could find anything easily in each others classes, or
>>> quickly get a reasonable overview of it's design and how it worked.
>>> This leads to needless conversations, asking the other person about it,
>>> and
>>> all those questions that I should be able to understand at a glance.
>>> This WILL affect productivity in the office.
>>>
>>> The reason was that functions were polluting the class declaration. 9
>>> times
>>> out of 10, when I look at a class declaration, I want to know what it is,
>>> what it has, and what it can do.
>>>
>>
>> Code folding? It's a pretty standard feature of most editors since forever.
>>
>
> I think I've repeated myself 3 or 4 times here, but one more time for good
> measure...
>
> Requiring IDE assistance to make code _readable_ seems completely fail to
> me.
> 1) You're not always reading code in your IDE, often in commit logs, diff
> windows, emails, chat clients.

for some people, all of those things are emacs.

> 2) With so much hate for IDE support, it seems like a massive contradiction
> to say that an IDE should be required to make code readable.

There's a different between and IDE and an editor, but it's a pretty blurry line. There are lots of people here(myself included) who don't feel the need for a full blown IDE, but I'd be surprised if (almost) anyone here used an editor that didn't support such basic things as code folding.


anyway, in the end it's a trade-off.
Definitions inside class:
   -you know where it is (never ends up in a different file etc)
   -declarations always in sync
   -it clutters the signature

   solution: code folding or go-to-next-function or minimal documentation. Worst case you can scroll and you'll know if you've got to the end of the class then it's not there.

Definitions seperate:
   -clear class signature
   -no idea where to find implementation

   solution: go-to-definition. Worst case you have to go through separate files searching for a definition by eye. Even if it has to be in the same file, you have no hint where.

Both cases require some editor features in order to be ideal, but if you don't have those tools (e.g. in all the other places you've mentioned*) then it's just a choice between having to scroll a bit some of the time or having to occasionally go on a blind code-hunt.


*A lot of people use version-control aware editors to do a lot of what you're talking about e.g. view a diff.

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 07:58:43 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-09-02 23:14, Ramon wrote:
>
>> But for fairness sake: Better Gui Programms (read: way too few) have
>> Macro facilities.
>
> And a better operating system has macro facilities, like Mac OS X :). With AppleScript it's possible to script GUI applications. It also has Automator, which is automatic different task. It basically allows you do put together different tasks, similar to piping Unix commands together, but graphically. Basically a GUI application pipe together functions from other GUI applications. It also allows to record tasks.

A sad situation where great effort is expended to solve a problem caused by the poorly constructed previous solution IMO

On 03/09/13 09:39, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Don't you have a region free DVD player? Basically only the first models sold in
> Sweden were tied to a specific region. The rest can play any model.

You must remember that the US has this lovely law called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which puts lots of legal constraints on anything that allows you to bypass copy- and read-protection techniques.

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 07:58:43 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> And a better operating system has macro facilities, like Mac OS X :).

Or Windows! COM and wsh give you access to a lot of gui things in script form.

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 13:26:32 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> The part that irks me most is that I have to have
> yet-another-account-on-the-internet... Does bugzilla support OpenAuth?
>
Haven't seen one for OAuth, but there's a plugin for OpenID:
https://github.com/jalcine/bugzilla-openid

-Wyatt