On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 04:49:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Those cross platform libraries never work cross platform without far more pain than just rolling your own.

Aye, and you've really gotta understand what's going on anyway to use the library effectively. Why doesn't it do this? Why is this code buggy? By the time you've figured that out, you've done the same work as diy anyway!

On 2013-09-14 16:14, deadalnix wrote:

> Why not sublime if you use it on other plateforms ?

I like it better. See my reply to Peter as well:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/fxuwovrirseuatzeeprb@forum.dlang.org?page=16#post-l120af:241qtj:241:40digitalmars.com

It's more adapted to Mac OS X. Basically all cross-platform applications fails on Mac OS X.

I only use Sublime on the other platforms because TextMate doesn't exist on them.

I do all my coding on Mac OS X, cross-platform. It's only when need to compile for another platform, when doing a release, I switch to another platform. Then it's usually only minor tweaks which is necessary to get it to run properly, hopefully :).

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 15:38:54 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> My new motherboard is weird. PCM does virtually nothing. Master works well from about 20 to 80, but setting it to zero doesn't actually silence it (usually) and going to 100 just distorts it. I guess distortion is expected with digital audio maxing out, but my old mobo didn't do it.

Something is very wrong there. There's very little excuse for a digital master volume control that can cause clipping.

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 05:58:51 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Those exist?
> 
> I've long heard stories about such things, but they seem to be like unicorns or mermaids or bigfoot...fantasy creatures you only ever hear tales "through the grapevine" about. Not so much real evidence or first-hand accounts.

Lenovo and Dell certainly used to, but I don't know about right now. One company that's definitely still doing it though is System76 (who is one of the Linux Action Show's sponsors). _All_ of the systems that they build are built specifically for Linux (both desktop and laptop). They don't even sell anything with Windows on it. I always build my own desktops, but the next time that I'm in the market for a laptop, I'll probably end up getting one from them.

www.system76.com

- Jonathan M Davis

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 05:43:14 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> The best I've found so far is KDE4's Dolphin, but it's still no
> Explorer rival, has nothing like Tortoise (to my knowledge), it still
> has some irritating goofiness (ex: the horizontal scrolling in the
> tree-view panel is every bit as broken-by-design as in Vista's
> Explorer), and there's some other things, plus I don't like
> KDE4 :(   (And I'd rather not have to pull in the bloat of KDE4 just for
> a file manager.)

I'm a diehard Konqueror fan myself, but I also use KDE as my DE and really like it. I'd probably be a bit lost without Konqueror, because then I'd have to find separate programs for all of the various protocols that Konqueror supports on top of file:// (e.g. ftp and samba). It'll also do svn, cvs, and the like if you want to, though I never use GUIs for source control.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:35:26AM +0200, Robert Clipsham wrote:
> On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:00:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:40:02PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
> >wrote:
> >Syntax highlighting hurts my eyes. I've been using vim in
> >black-on-white for more than a decade now. (Well, more accurately,
> >black on an almost fully saturated off-white, but that's irrelevant.)
> >
> >
> >T
> 
> Have you taken a look at solarized? I used to find my eyes straining after a few hours with syntax highlighting until I started using it, now I can stare for days at a time without issue.
> 
> http://ethanschoonover.com/solarized
[...]

Nah, it's still too rainbow-y for me. I still prefer no syntax highlighting.


T

-- 
LINUX = Lousy Interface for Nefarious Unix Xenophobes.

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:11:59 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Nah, it's still too rainbow-y for me. I still prefer no syntax highlighting.

Whereas I would feel almost like I was walking around blind if there were no syntax highlighting. I can certainly read code without syntax highlighting, but it's much harder. To each their own I guess.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:25:43PM +0200, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 07:28:33 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >
> >Any time I use a debugger I get sooo sick of having to reset and hit "step" a million times (or muck around with conditional breakpoints, which never seem to be intuitive - *if* they even work at all) every single time I want to see (or remember) what happened *before*.  But with writeln - I already see the whole relevant trace at a glance, and all with exactly the same tools and interfaces I'm already using.
> >
> >Writeln debugging rocks my world.
> 
> Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain point, and I'll take that: until this, I still need a debugger for following the program flow.

I'm pretty sure this is possible with a little effort. In fact, this would be a game-changer to writeln debugging. I should take a look at the stack unwinding code in druntime sometime and see if I can knock something together that does this.

One trick my coworkers like to use sometimes (with C/C++) is to insert an infinite loop into the program at the suspected problem spot, then at runtime when it reaches 99% CPU, kill -11 to force a segfault to generate a stack trace (we have a stacktrace generator hooked up to the signal handler). I've used that a couple o' times, and it's surprisingly effective, I must say. We found that sometimes this is the only approach that is effective, since the path to get to the problem spot may be completely non-trivial to reach from a debugger (may involve fork()'s, dynamically-loaded .so's, and event loops dispatches triggered by real-time network data that would be excruciatingly slow to step through manually in a debugger).

Still, if there was a way to print a stacktrace *without* terminating the program, that would be an invaluable addition to our toolset.


> And no, adding a writeln everywhere you call that function is not a solution.
[...]

True, this is one of the weak points of writeln debugging. Though I usually start from the top-level, so generally by the time I get to a specific function I already know how it got there.

OTOH, even displaying callstack may not help if your code is heavy on callbacks (or in D, delegates) invoked from event loops. The original context that registered the callback is long gone by the time the function actually runs, so the callstack only goes down to the event dispatcher, which is no help.


T

-- 
It said to install Windows 2000 or better, so I installed Linux instead.

On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 12:25:44 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
> Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain

Challenge accepted:


import std.stdio;

string getStackTrace() {
         import core.runtime;

         version(Posix) {
                 // druntime cuts out the first few functions on
the trace as they are internal
                 // so we'll make some dummy functions here so our
actual info doesn't get cut
                 Throwable.TraceInfo f5() { return
defaultTraceHandler(); }
                 Throwable.TraceInfo f4() { return f5(); }
                 Throwable.TraceInfo f3() { return f4(); }
                 Throwable.TraceInfo f2() { return f3(); }
                 auto stuff = f2();
         } else {
                 auto stuff = defaultTraceHandler();
         }

         return stuff.toString();
}


void foo() {
         writeln("on foo");
         bar();
}

void bar() {
         writeln("on bar");
         omg();
}

void omg() {
         writeln("on omg");

         writeln(getStackTrace());
}

void main() {
         omg();

         writeln("\n****\n");
         foo();
}

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 01:49:43PM +0200, Namespace wrote:
> I never thought that this becomes a discussion about windows versus linux. :o

Didn't you know? An IDE/editor religious flamewar inevitably devolves into an OS religious flamewar?  Just give it another week or so to devolve further, and I'm pretty sure we'll be able to invoke Godwin's Law. :-P


T

-- 
Why do conspiracy theories always come from the same people??