On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:34:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/7/2011 20:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Architecturally they're fairly different, though.
> 
> Yeah. And architecturally, C++ and Java are different, but if you're
> bored of learning new programming languages, looking at Smalltalk or APL
> might be exciting again. :-)

Well, sure.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:37:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/7/2011 20:44, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The standard command interpreter in Windows (cmd.exe, not powershell)
>> does pretty much suck.  bash/tcsh are *far* more powerful. :)
> 
> That wasn't the point, tho. :-) It doesn't really matter how much your
> CLI sucks if the goal is to avoid using it.  Anyway, wsh is probably a
> better comparison to bash than cmd.exe.

Well, no, it's more about advanced usage.  And CLI in Windows these days 
is also for advanced users.

>> But part of the suckage that is the Windows CLI is the registry.  Linux
>> using text files for most configuration means that using the CLI to
>> make changes actually makes a lot of sense.
> 
> Windows has no trouble dealing with the registry from the command line.
> Certainly less than trying to parse Apache config files with bash or
> something. For example:
> 
> http://216.101.58.3/MIS/Articles/RegistryEdit.htm
> 
> Sure, it's an extra install of the free developer tools, but hey.

Like you said, it's an extra install.  sed/grep/awk/perl/vim are standard 
tools in most Linux installs.

I can edit text files without installing tools that are non standard.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/7/2011 12:10 PM, Stephen wrote:
> I'll top post as I'm sure nobody wants to read all that again.
>
> What do you mean?
>
Sorry, much of that was a rant, attached to an initial joke. lol The 
joke being that you old fogies sometimes seem to think toolbars are 
silly, and memorizing 8,000 keyboard combination makes more sense. Some 
of us just don't think that way.

In the case of Blender pre-v2.59, it was like being handed a really odd, 
and complicated, looking tool, and having to spend most of your time 
learning how to hold it properly, which levers do what, etc., when all 
you bloody need to do is remove a screw.

I.e., for someone just trying to "do" something with it, it was a bit 
like the combination Swiss knife, bug zapper, tea stirrer and pez 
dispenser, which, if you hold it wrong, will shave your eye brows off, 
clip the end from your nose, and set the rest of your hair on fire. Or, 
just not do anything useful at all.

There seems to be a really bad habit for this sort of software to get 
written, and the book I just got from Amazon, which ironically is about 
using, the as yet non-existent, Blender 2.6, admits that the result was 
a total bloody mess. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 10/7/2011 3:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 15:04, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> No - that's just poor program design. Everybody has that... ;-)
>
> Actually, I think it stems from programmers targeting in-house experts.
> Remember that Blender started as a custom program.
>
> Ever see a level-builder tool for a game that wasn't expecting to
> release the level-builder tools? They're nightmares too, because it was
> easier to teach the 10 people using it what the hotkeys were than it was
> to design something usable.
>
A quote from "Blender Fundamentals: The Essential Guide to Learning 
Blender 2.6":

pp13 'A Little Bit of History

Some programs don't have any thinking behind their interface. This is 
obvious. The programmers write the functionality, which is operated from 
a command line, and realize at some point that the general public has no 
way of using their wonder-program without a graphical interface. So, 
they learn to create a data entry form, slap it on top of their program, 
and away they go. And it stinks.

A lot of people think that Blender was created in the same fashion, and 
in the very recent past, this was true.'

;) lol

Post a reply to this message

This is why sarcasm needs a tag in printed text people. I missed your 
counter joke entirely. lol

Post a reply to this message

>> Another case is in social interaction. It gives a poor impression if you
>> can't remember who the current prime minister or president is but say
>> just a minute while I Google that.
>
> Sure, amongst our age classes.  Amongst younger age groups, though, value
> knowing how to find out stuff rather than having to remember it all.
> Good or bad, it is what it is.
>

Not sure it was here, or somewhere else, but I seem to remember a 
comment on one of the problems in a class a person was attending, where 
the prof thought it was *way* more important to remember the equation, 
than how to bloody use it for something. Information is so massive at 
this point that its pretty hard to "know" everything, and also have a 
damn clue how to do anything with it. So, knowing where to find it is a 
key skill. Sadly, the problem is not just knowing where to look, but how 
to tell that the source you have found isn't complete garbage, and 
sadly, Google ain't going to do that, if there is a sudden run of pure 
idiocy about the subject under examination that week. :p

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2011 11:45 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 7:36, Invisible wrote:
>> I'm fairly sure Office v2 had that. I may be wrong. Certainly Office 97
>> definitely had that. And that was, what, 14 years ago?
>
> Pretty sure they didn't have .NET integration,

No. But how is that useful?

> integration with SQL server,

I'm fairly sure Office 97 quite happily let you connect to any database 
with an ODBC driver. (That's kind of the whole point of ODBC.)

> or cooperative shared editting.

It's news to me that /any/ version of Office has that.

>> In fairness, I'm not aware of anything else that does what Outlook and
>> Exchange do.
>
> And that is why the world still runs Microsoft. :-)

Well, no, that's /one of/ the reasons...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 08/10/2011 05:34 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 20:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Architecturally they're fairly different, though.
>
> Yeah. And architecturally, C++ and Java are different, but if you're
> bored of learning new programming languages, looking at Smalltalk or APL
> might be exciting again. :-)

*cough* Haskell

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> I especially like the way that installing one GNOME application installs
>> the entire GNOME system, including the GNOME sound daemon. And all I
>> actually wanted to do was run gedit...
>
> Just like installing an app on Windows that requires specific DLLs, which
> require other components, which require .NET 3.5.

If you install something on Windows, one of three things happens:

1. It just installs, and then works.

2. It says "do you want me to download some stuff?" And it does, and 
then it installs.

3. It says "I can't install. Please install .NET 2 first".

I've never figured out how to get out of dependency hell in Linux. Like, 
you ask it to install one tiny application, and it wants to install an 
entire ecosystem to support that. I'm installing a GNOME application 
that doesn't require sound. Why the hell do I need to install the GNOME 
client/server audio transport system? And the GNOME scanner subsystem? 
And the GNOME Samba interface? And Samba? I just want to edit one damned 
text file! That's all I'm trying to do! Jesus...

It's even more fun when it decides it needs a different version of 
"glibc". I have no idea what that is, but I do know that if you change 
it, your Linux will almost certainly never work ever again.

I've never tried to install a Windows application and had to download 8 
GB of data, or had my entire Windows installation completely cease 
functioning to the point where I have to reinstall. About the worst 
thing that can happen is that you need to install the .NET runtime. 
(Obviously, this problem is because .NET exists. If we could get rid of 
that, the problem would go away.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 08/10/2011 05:39 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 20:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sounds *so* familiar. Another reason to use Linux. ;)
>
> How the hell would that help?

Seconded.

> What helped was getting him off dial-up so I could talk to him at the
> same time he's on the net, *and* connect into his computer remotely.

I bought some hardware that lets me remotely connect to my grandparent's 
PC. (Unless, you know, the problem I'm trying to troubleshoot IS the 
Internet connection...)

Unfortunately, there seems to be a bug in the firmware. Certain data 
packets cause the device to stop functioning. Eventually I was forced to 
remove it from my setup because it was pissing me off so much!

Apparently I can buy a cheap Cisco VPN endpoint. If I thought I could 
program it, I might even be tempted...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message