 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Anti-aliasing means blur. No AA means crisp. ;)
>
> OMG, you can *not* say things like that, in the POV-Ray forums of all
> places! :-P
>
> As you [I hope] know, AA means adding _extra information_ to the image. It
> is not merely a bluring step (which _removes_ information).
Especially using something like MS ClearType, which actually uses the known
RGB sub-pixel structure of LCDs to get extra resolution when rendering text.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Are speeds in the range of 2-5x slower than C/C++ acceptable?
For most of the stuff I write, no.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> One could make similar sarcastic remarks about the population at large
>> refusing to learn Haskell even though it is clearly and obviously the
>> most powerful programming language ever devised.
>
> Well, so long as you don't need any decent execution speed :-)
You can have decent execution speed, it just takes work. Same as any
other language.
Premature optimisation is the root of all evil. Make the program _work
properly_ first, optimise it after that if it's actually too slow.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> OK. Who let the vi guy in the Emacs thread?
LOL! Well, of course Vi is the other editor that people claim is
all-powerful...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:20:37 -0500, Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> True, but my point (somewhere in this thread) was that in the 70's it
>may not have been common parlance in _computers._
>
I doubt that it was in common usage then. It is just over 10 years ago that I
heard someone mention a C: drive, in the street. Other than that it was only at
work did I hear geek talk. :)
>--
>Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Typical royal family, actually ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Ah, nothing more fake than programming in assembly disguised in your fav
> programming language... :P
OTOH haskell, at least when using ghc, is nothing more than a wrapper
around C, so when you write a haskell program you are *really* writing
a C program, just with some fancy features.
Nothing more fake than claiming a language is about as fast as C, when
in fact it's *compiled as C*, in the first place.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Btw, another difference between emacs and notepad (and a lot of other
Windows text editors):
If I need to edit a file remotely through SSH, emacs will do the job
(regardless of which OS I'm using, because emacs will be running on the
remote computer), notepad won't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>> Ah, nothing more fake than programming in assembly disguised in your fav
>> programming language... :P
>
> OTOH haskell, at least when using ghc, is nothing more than a wrapper
> around C, so when you write a haskell program you are *really* writing
> a C program, just with some fancy features.
>
> Nothing more fake than claiming a language is about as fast as C, when
> in fact it's *compiled as C*, in the first place.
...so if I use the native code generator instead, does that count as
different then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Btw, another difference between emacs and notepad (and a lot of other
> Windows text editors):
>
> If I need to edit a file remotely through SSH, emacs will do the job
> (regardless of which OS I'm using, because emacs will be running on the
> remote computer), notepad won't.
Yes, it does seem that just about every Linux install known includes
Emacs by default. (Although not so many include SSH by default.)
One of the things I always liked about YaST is that it works in console
mode as well as on X Windows.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> ...so if I use the native code generator instead, does that count as
> different then?
At least that's what eg. Java does.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
