 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:42:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>
>Should have tried for a free hair cut, after what she offered to pay me
>to do it all for her.
Are you slipping up? :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:43:04 +0000, St. wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote in message
> news:47a21a60$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:58:46 +0000, St. wrote:
>
>> It looks easy, but I'm sure there's a fair bit of code behind these
>> nodes.
>>
>> Yep, and if speed is what you're looking for, this isn't a good way to
>> get it.
>
> What do you mean Jim? Do you mean in a RAM way with these flow
> graphs?
No, I mean in terms of there being a lack of code-level performance
optimisation when programs are built like this.
>> But for quick RAD applications, I really liked it.
>
> I can understand that after experiencing this method too.
Yeah, it was pretty cool. I wish the company that had bought it hadn't
just decided to drop it before they vanished into space (some say
*literally* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Firmage was one of the
founders). There had been some talk back in 2000 about it being released
into the public domain (as the prior owners have moved on to other
careers).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Nothing quite that bad, just the normal family-requiring-tech-support
> that want to know if Windows is so bad and I'm at school learning to
> program why I don't just write a better OS.
Bahahaha!
Some of you may recall I actually started attempting to write my own OS.
I got as far as a boot loader and VGA driver. Hmm, so many ideas, so
little time...
> Should have tried for a free hair cut, after what she offered to pay me
> to do it all for her.
Sweet. LOL!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:30:46 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> I'll never find it now, but there was a Daily WTF article where someone
>> asked for a product feature to be added and some manager said "my
>> sources tell me it only involves adding 1 button", as if programming is
>> only about putting buttons onto a screen or something. (!)
>
> In fairness, there have been rapid-development tools to do this. I used
> to use one called Visual AppBuilder (which then was renamed "Microbrew")
> that consisted of designing a UI in a UI designer, and then building
> program logic flows by building a flow diagram. There was no actual
> coding that took place, and you could do some pretty involved things with
> it. The functionality could be extended by a real developer as well, so
> you weren't limited to just the modules included in the box.
The point being, just because you only have to add "1 button" doesn't
mean it's "easy". There still has to be a whole stack of control logic
behind that one button, you might have to radically restructure the
innards of the program to add this feature, etc. But hey, "anything is
easy for the person who does not have to implement it". ;-)
FWIW, I used something called... uh... I think it was Rational Rose UML
or something. Draw various UML diagrams (class diagrams, use case
diagrams, event and state diagrams, etc.) and it builds runnable code
that does it. (At least, if you pay out enough money.) It's nowhere near
as easy is just *typing* the code yourself though. (Probably makes
refactoring much easier though...)
I think it would be quite neat (and in principle easy) if Haskell had
such a tool. (I.e., a "draw boxes and lines and it makes a runnable
program".) However, there is no pre-existing Haskell compiler or
interpretter that could be easily linked to such a system, and I'm not
aware of any toolkit for doing the whole "drawing boxes and lines" part.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:16:19 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> The point being, just because you only have to add "1 button" doesn't
> mean it's "easy". There still has to be a whole stack of control logic
> behind that one button, you might have to radically restructure the
> innards of the program to add this feature, etc. But hey, "anything is
> easy for the person who does not have to implement it". ;-)
Absolutely, I certainly wouldn't denie that.
> FWIW, I used something called... uh... I think it was Rational Rose UML
> or something. Draw various UML diagrams (class diagrams, use case
> diagrams, event and state diagrams, etc.) and it builds runnable code
> that does it. (At least, if you pay out enough money.) It's nowhere near
> as easy is just *typing* the code yourself though. (Probably makes
> refactoring much easier though...)
I remember reading/hearing about Rational Rose. It sounded fairly
interesting.
> I think it would be quite neat (and in principle easy) if Haskell had
> such a tool. (I.e., a "draw boxes and lines and it makes a runnable
> program".) However, there is no pre-existing Haskell compiler or
> interpretter that could be easily linked to such a system, and I'm not
> aware of any toolkit for doing the whole "drawing boxes and lines" part.
There's a coding project you could play with. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I remember reading/hearing about Rational Rose. It sounded fairly
> interesting.
"Roses are Rational"...
It was an OK product. A little buggy though. Still, I think we had a
fairly old version.
>> I think it would be quite neat (and in principle easy) if Haskell had
>> such a tool. (I.e., a "draw boxes and lines and it makes a runnable
>> program".) However, there is no pre-existing Haskell compiler or
>> interpretter that could be easily linked to such a system, and I'm not
>> aware of any toolkit for doing the whole "drawing boxes and lines" part.
>
> There's a coding project you could play with. :-)
Haskell is somewhat odd in that *parsing* Haskell source code is quite
hard. However, if you're drawing boxes and lines, there's no parsing to
do, so... ;-)
I suspect certain programs are going to come out looking great this way,
while others will come out looking like spaggetti!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:47:08 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> I remember reading/hearing about Rational Rose. It sounded fairly
>> interesting.
>
> "Roses are Rational"...
>
> It was an OK product. A little buggy though. Still, I think we had a
> fairly old version.
If roses are rational, what are violets?
>>> I think it would be quite neat (and in principle easy) if Haskell had
>>> such a tool. (I.e., a "draw boxes and lines and it makes a runnable
>>> program".) However, there is no pre-existing Haskell compiler or
>>> interpretter that could be easily linked to such a system, and I'm not
>>> aware of any toolkit for doing the whole "drawing boxes and lines"
>>> part.
>>
>> There's a coding project you could play with.
>
> Haskell is somewhat odd in that *parsing* Haskell source code is quite
> hard. However, if you're drawing boxes and lines, there's no parsing to
> do, so... ;-)
So have a go at it. If anything, you might learn something from the
effort. :-)
> I suspect certain programs are going to come out looking great this way,
> while others will come out looking like spaggetti!
That certainly was true in AppWare/MicroBrew. Especially with modules
that took multiple inputs and outputs.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:42:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>
>> Should have tried for a free hair cut, after what she offered to pay me
>> to do it all for her.
>
> Are you slipping up? :)
>
No, I was too busy laughing at all the 'Well, see, my hair looks like
this cause I insulted COBOL.' jokes I would be able to make.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike the Elder wrote:
> [ Please accept my profound thanks for putting up with my posting a pet rant. I
> won't do it any more... much ;-) ]
Your Monty Python reference saved you.
--
"A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's
too late." - Frank Sinatra
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:19:09 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:42:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>>
>>> Should have tried for a free hair cut, after what she offered to pay me
>>> to do it all for her.
>>
>> Are you slipping up? :)
>>
>
>No, I was too busy laughing at all the 'Well, see, my hair looks like
>this cause I insulted COBOL.' jokes I would be able to make.
That's funny I generally cry when I leave the hairdresser :(
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
