 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/22/2010 4:26 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
> Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load
> in Opera, about 15 in Firefox and about 10 in Chrome, but it seemed to
> not want to display properly in the latter until it had finished
> downloading.
>
It's definitely proof of something. When a puppy leaves a mess like that
on the floor ....
Seriously... SVG was never meant to render photos as vector art..
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>>> Interesting that a group of hackers who don't even have access to the
>>> spec managed to implement it better than the people who invented it, eh?
>>> :-P
>>>
>> You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
>> opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
>> I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
>> a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.
>
> Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language
> which facilitates operational proofs...
nothing prevents you from writing a static analyzer for java code and
work on from there... :p
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Invisible escreveu:
>>> You are assuming that there are no documents that crash in OO while
>>> opening nicely in Word. Unless you can show that such cases do not exist
>>> I will simply assume that both implementations are independent and have
>>> a (hopefully) disjunct set of bugs.
>>
>> Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language
>> which facilitates operational proofs...
>
> nothing prevents you from writing a static analyzer for java code and
> work on from there... :p
Ugh, why do so many people insist OpenOffice is written in Java, and
continue spreading the myth?
It's not Java, it's C++. Specifically, ugly C++ with way too many
abbreviations in function names, and lots of comments in German.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Invisible escreveu:
> >> Dang. If only OpenOffice had been implemented in a programming language
> >> which facilitates operational proofs...
> >
> > nothing prevents you from writing a static analyzer for java code and
> > work on from there... :p
>
> Ugh, why do so many people insist OpenOffice is written in Java, and
> continue spreading the myth?
>
> It's not Java, it's C++. Specifically, ugly C++ with way too many
> abbreviations in function names, and lots of comments in German.
I know that, but the myth is so widespread that for some subconscious reason I
automatically wrote java...
in any case, a static code analyzer for C++ code should be much more of a
challenge... :p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> strangely enough, never experienced a MSOff crash, let alone while
> saving.
It used to be much, much more common before 2000 or so. They apparently
decided to actually spend the effort it took to fix it, and now I often go
several hours without remembering to save stuff.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> in any case, a static code analyzer for C++ code should be much more of a
> challenge... :p
First, you'd have to define the semantics of C++ well enough to write a
formalism for it. And then that would fail to apply to any other C++ compiler.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> cool is that to click on a play button in the taskbar rather than in the
> video window in the page? :p
MS was always more interested in cool IPC stuff than UNIX-based systems,
yes. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load
On my machine, firefox loaded it pretty much instantly. You might need more
memory or something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:01:35 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake thusly:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> Seems to act as a good test of SVG support - it took 50+ seconds to load
>
> On my machine, firefox loaded it pretty much instantly. You might need
> more memory or something.
What 3Gb is not enough :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On my machine, firefox loaded it pretty much instantly. You might need
>> more memory or something.
>
> What 3Gb is not enough :-)
The World Is Not Enough.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
