On 14/03/2012 07:14 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 3/13/2012 3:11, Invisible wrote:
>> just runs the downloader for the /real/ installation program.
>
> At least MS gives you a choice. They do that because you can pick to
> download C++, C#, the IDE, and the SQL server, and it'll download just
> the parts you need without duplicating them. Plus it downloads the right
> version for your OS, etc.

Usually if you hunt around the MS site, you can find the "network 
administrator" download, "for IT professionals", which /actually/ 
downloads enough data for offline installation. Because, let's face it, 
only an IT professional would have the technical skill to know that 
there's a difference between downloading an installer and downloading a 
downloader for an installer... oh, wait.

> Only 200? I think the Eclipse at work takes 550M to 600M to start up.

> Try Eclipse. Try pasting a comment from one part of the file to the
> other making it go "unresponsive" long enough that Gnome asks if you
> want to kill it.

Oh, that's cute. No wonder I hear nothing but good things about 
Eclipse... I gather there's even a Haskell plugin for it. (I bit it 
doesn't /do/ anything though.)

>> (Apparently there's an Ant
>> script somewhere too... whatever the hell that is.)
>
> It's an attempt at improving Make without actually fixing the major
> problems with Make.

Well, they fixed /one/ major problem: Text processing tools which turn 
tabs into spaces. ;-)

> Wait until you get into the generics

Uh, yeah.

It seems either they implemented everything twice (once with, and once 
without generics), or it's actually legal to not specify type parameters 
and then they default to Object. Which, either way, is highly 
counter-intuitive...

> It was like surfacing from under quicksand to use VS
> instead of Eclipse. I hadn't realized just *how* much Eclipse kills me
> at work compared to something designed by CHI experts instead of hackers.

I don't know about CHI experts - more like unpaid beta testers. ;-)

> I have a big text file with all my Eclipse hates on my desktop, just
> keeping track for a good rant some day.

And by "rant" you of course mean "shotgun rampage"? ;-)

>> So there we are. I doubt I'd remember much about the AWT (although,
>> didn't they deprecate that in favour of Swing?),
>
> Yes, in spite of promising on day 1 that they'd never do that.

Ah, but did they formally deprecate it, or just "strongly encourage you 
not to use it"? ;-)

Post a reply to this message