 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't read these groups regularly these days so perhaps this was posted
before.
Just in case Andrew didn't see it: this guy makes music by coding in
Haskell... live!
http://yaxu.org/category/livecoding/
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran escreveu:
> I don't read these groups regularly these days so perhaps this was
> posted before.
> Just in case Andrew didn't see it: this guy makes music by coding in
> Haskell... live!
> http://yaxu.org/category/livecoding/
bah, these Haskell guys are always late and derivative in the ideas:
http://www.imagine27.com/articles/2009-04-09-010147_live_lisp_art_opengl_synth_sound.html
http://impromptu.moso.com.au/gallery.html
perhaps they've spent too much time in compiling and getting the types
right? ;)
BTW, a very interesting topic no doubt. More info on it:
http://toplap.org/index.php/Main_Page
I always felt like old music composers such as Bach to be programmers by
nature...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2012 03:59 PM, nemesis wrote:
> bah, these Haskell guys are always late and derivative in the ideas
That's like saying that every 20th century novelist is "late and
derivative in the ideas" because there were writers in the 19th century
also. :-P
> perhaps they've spent too much time in compiling and getting the types
> right? ;)
That's like saying "perhaps the Lisp guys spent too much time in getting
the brackets right?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> On 25/01/2012 03:59 PM, nemesis wrote:
>
>> bah, these Haskell guys are always late and derivative in the ideas
>
> That's like saying that every 20th century novelist is "late and
> derivative in the ideas" because there were writers in the 19th century
> also. :-P
well, and they largely are.
Like, after watching the latest Sherlock Holmes movie I noticed how the
character has come a full circle: its popularity spawned many imitators
in cheap magazines and it eventually led to cheap, pulp fiction, which
eventually led to super hero comic books which eventually led to Batman,
"the greatest detective of all time", according to DC Comics. And
indeed, there is Batman on the screen, except for no cape or batbelt
(actually, in the first movie, he carries some belt full of tools).
>> perhaps they've spent too much time in compiling and getting the types
>> right? ;)
>
> That's like saying "perhaps the Lisp guys spent too much time in getting
> the brackets right?"
but they spend none at all, given the text editors do that for them, and
much to their advantage BTW. You can see that in the video of the Lisp
guy livecoding and extracting, editing and rearranging large chuncks of
code easily, because they are bracketed and the editor handles any of
that in a breeze. ;)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2012 5:30, nemesis wrote:
> but they spend none at all, given the text editors do that for them
Yeah. I use Eclipse at work, and I'll call BS on that one. I spend way more
time taking out the stupid shit Eclipse inserts than I do inserting
punctuation myself.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> On 1/26/2012 5:30, nemesis wrote:
> > but they spend none at all, given the text editors do that for them
>
> Yeah. I use Eclipse at work, and I'll call BS on that one. I spend way more
> time taking out the stupid shit Eclipse inserts than I do inserting
> punctuation myself.
Welcome back! I see you're motivated. :)
Good to know you're programing in Lisp, but you should rather try emacs+slime.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2012 04:28 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Yeah. I use Eclipse at work, and I'll call BS on that one. I spend way
> more time taking out the stupid shit Eclipse inserts than I do inserting
> punctuation myself.
Heh, and I thought Eclipse was supposed to be the best IDE ever. :-P
But yeah, that sounds more or less like every IDE I've ever used... I
guess that's why I don't use an IDE very often? (Apart from the extreme
cost. And the lack of support for the formats I want to work with...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 04:28 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> > Yeah. I use Eclipse at work, and I'll call BS on that one. I spend way
> > more time taking out the stupid shit Eclipse inserts than I do inserting
> > punctuation myself.
>
> Heh, and I thought Eclipse was supposed to be the best IDE ever. :-P
>
> But yeah, that sounds more or less like every IDE I've ever used... I
> guess that's why I don't use an IDE very often? (Apart from the extreme
> cost. And the lack of support for the formats I want to work with...)
Fighting the IDE is not a good idea. It's only inserting stupid shit because
your stupid shit language demands it. That and "best enterprise practices". If
you waste time and energy removing boilerplate that is the very goal of an IDE,
you'd rather just use a simpler language and straight text editor... of course,
if there's no bossy whip behind you...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Heh, and I thought Eclipse was supposed to be the best IDE ever. :-P
>>
>> But yeah, that sounds more or less like every IDE I've ever used... I
>> guess that's why I don't use an IDE very often? (Apart from the extreme
>> cost. And the lack of support for the formats I want to work with...)
>
> Fighting the IDE is not a good idea. It's only inserting stupid shit because
> your stupid shit language demands it. That and "best enterprise practices". If
> you waste time and energy removing boilerplate that is the very goal of an IDE,
> you'd rather just use a simpler language and straight text editor... of course,
> if there's no bossy whip behind you...
I think you just said "if you need an IDE, your language sucks". ;-)
That said, my development environment tends to consist of having an
editor window open, and a command prompt open, and repeatedly jabbing
the up array until the command I want appears. It would be nice if
somebody could invent the simple idea of being able to define the
commands a want in a small text file, and give me a row of buttons (or
better yet, keyboard shortcuts) to execute those commands...
...oh, wait. Somebody already did. It's called Emacs. >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2012 2:50, nemesis wrote:
> Welcome back! I see you're motivated. :)
Oh, I just have much less time to BS here, I fear. :-)
> Good to know you're programing in Lisp, but you should rather try emacs+slime.
I'm programming in Java. I just felt the need that day to gripe about Eclipse.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2012 3:43, Invisible wrote:
> Heh, and I thought Eclipse was supposed to be the best IDE ever. :-P
It sucks pretty hard, actually. It's not even really an IDE as much as it is
an IDE builder framework thing. Of course, people have built a lot of
languages into it and stuff (and Google has plug-ins for the google-specific
languages and such), but for something like Java it seems way more annoying
than something like VS is for C#.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2012 4:41, nemesis wrote:
> Fighting the IDE is not a good idea. It's only inserting stupid shit because
> your stupid shit language demands it.
No. I mean I have something like
mystream.write(myobject);
and I want to call mymethod in the middle, to get
mystream.write(mymethod(myobject, 3));
and what I get is
mystream.write(mymethod(object_to_methodize, method_counter)myobject);
because Eclipse figures that rather than giving you drop-down pop-up boxes
like Visual Studio, it'll actually insert the crap into your input stream,
forcing you to delete it instead. Then it'll take over your arrow keys and
enter key, so if you actually do delete the inserted parameter name and try
to cursor to the end of the line, it'll randomly stick you somewhere inside
the expression, depending on how far the parser has gotten.
> you'd rather just use a simpler language and straight text editor...
I'd definitely rather use a language with more power and less boilerplate,
but that's not the problem here. The problem is that Eclipse (until I
figured out how to turn that off, except for the buggy bits, that is) would
inject what it thought you wanted into the text, rather than offer
suggestions. Now, having switched all that crap off, it just randomly
inserts parens after function calls.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2012 13:29, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> I think you just said "if you need an IDE, your language sucks". ;-)
No. If you need code generation, your language sucks. IDEs can be helpful
even for good languages.
> ...oh, wait. Somebody already did. It's called Emacs. >_<
You know Tcl. Go for it. That's about 10 lines of code.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/27/2012 4:41, nemesis wrote:
> It's only inserting stupid shit because
> your stupid shit language demands it.
Oh, and if it would actually do useful stuff, like when I type
myobject.mymethod()
and mean
myobject.myMethod()
and have it actually correct that, or even offer completions on local
variable names and such, that would be handy. It every once in a while will
do something surprisingly helpful, but otherwise it's pretty darn annoying.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Heh, and I thought Eclipse was supposed to be the best IDE ever. :-P
> >>
> >> But yeah, that sounds more or less like every IDE I've ever used... I
> >> guess that's why I don't use an IDE very often? (Apart from the extreme
> >> cost. And the lack of support for the formats I want to work with...)
> >
> > Fighting the IDE is not a good idea. It's only inserting stupid shit because
> > your stupid shit language demands it. That and "best enterprise practices". If
> > you waste time and energy removing boilerplate that is the very goal of an IDE,
> > you'd rather just use a simpler language and straight text editor... of course,
> > if there's no bossy whip behind you...
>
> I think you just said "if you need an IDE, your language sucks". ;-)
>
> That said, my development environment tends to consist of having an
> editor window open, and a command prompt open, and repeatedly jabbing
> the up array until the command I want appears. It would be nice if
> somebody could invent the simple idea of being able to define the
> commands a want in a small text file, and give me a row of buttons (or
> better yet, keyboard shortcuts) to execute those commands...
>
> ...oh, wait. Somebody already did. It's called Emacs. >_<
Btw, if you use bash, it used the some of the same useful keyboard shortcuts as
emacs, including the always handy "reverse find", so that rather than typing up
array like mad to find an often used command, you may just type crtl+r+"some
word in the command". Notice it's interactive, so that as you are typing the
words, it goes displaying the closest matches. Type ctrl+r again and again if
you want to see further entries.
How I learned that? I RTFM'd.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...oh, wait. Somebody already did. It's called Emacs. >_<
>
> You know Tcl. Go for it. That's about 10 lines of code.
10 lines that will take you at least a month to figure out. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That said, my development environment tends to consist of having an
>> editor window open, and a command prompt open, and repeatedly jabbing
>> the up array until the command I want appears.
>
> Btw, if you use bash,
Nope. CMD.EXE.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 escreveu:
>>> That said, my development environment tends to consist of having an
>>> editor window open, and a command prompt open, and repeatedly jabbing
>>> the up array until the command I want appears.
>>
>> Btw, if you use bash,
>
> Nope. CMD.EXE.
oh, a masochist. My bad...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Btw, if you use bash,
>>
>> Nope. CMD.EXE.
>
> oh, a masochist. My bad...
It's the standard command interpreter on Windows. Shame it sucks, but hey.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> Btw, if you use bash,
> >>
> >> Nope. CMD.EXE.
> >
> > oh, a masochist. My bad...
>
> It's the standard command interpreter on Windows. Shame it sucks, but hey.
yeah, you can also use the (sub)standard text editor that comes with it and
likewise for browser, image editor, shame whip etc...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>>> Btw, if you use bash,
>>>>
>>>> Nope. CMD.EXE.
>>>
>>> oh, a masochist. My bad...
>>
>> It's the standard command interpreter on Windows. Shame it sucks, but hey.
>
> yeah, you can also use the (sub)standard text editor that comes with it and
> likewise for browser, image editor, shame whip etc...
Most of these things are easy to replace. But I'm not aware of any
replacement command shell that doesn't suck.
(I could of course use bash - but then I'd have to constantly fight
against all the Unixy stuff that doesn't belong on Windows...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/31/2012 9:52 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> Btw, if you use bash,
>>>>
>>>> Nope. CMD.EXE.
>>>
>>> oh, a masochist. My bad...
>>
>> It's the standard command interpreter on Windows. Shame it sucks, but hey.
>
> yeah, you can also use the (sub)standard text editor that comes with it and
> likewise for browser, image editor, shame whip etc...
>
>
Used to use 4Dos to extend that thing, but I refuse to pay what they
want, just to add some color masking of file types, and a few commands,
how ever useful, that MS never bothered to. MS decided a "better"
solution was to create a command line "scripting host", which lacks the
sandboxing that prevents it running some system commands instead regular
applications. However, since they never gave anyone a damn clue it
exists, or provided any easy way to figure out how the hell to use it... lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/29/2012 13:55, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> ...oh, wait. Somebody already did. It's called Emacs. >_<
>>
>> You know Tcl. Go for it. That's about 10 lines of code.
>
> 10 lines that will take you at least a month to figure out. :-P
You, maybe. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> You know Tcl. Go for it. That's about 10 lines of code.
>>
>> 10 lines that will take you at least a month to figure out. :-P
>
> You, maybe. :-)
Do you have /any idea/ how many *hours* I've wasted trying to force Tk
to lay out my stuff the way I actually want it to?! >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>>>> You know Tcl. Go for it. That's about 10 lines of code.
>>>
>>> 10 lines that will take you at least a month to figure out. :-P
>>
>> You, maybe. :-)
>
> Do you have /any idea/ how many *hours* I've wasted trying to force Tk
> to lay out my stuff the way I actually want it to?! >_<
if you were used to read or use google, you could actually learn rather
than trial-and-error.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Do you have /any idea/ how many *hours* I've wasted trying to force Tk
>> to lay out my stuff the way I actually want it to?! >_<
>
> if you were used to read or use google, you could actually learn rather
> than trial-and-error.
Well, if the user manual actually explained what all the various options
do rather than just giving a terse summary of each one, that might help.
I doubt Google is going to find anything other than the online copy of
said manual. It's not like Google answers questions; it can only find
content that actually /exists/ in the first place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/2/2012 8:01, Invisible wrote:
> manual. It's not like Google answers questions; it can only find content
> that actually /exists/ in the first place.
LMGTFY.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tcl+tk&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
