On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:53:19PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 7/14/2014 3:51 PM, Meta wrote: > >On Monday, 14 July 2014 at 19:40:53 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >>[2] 4k: Can screens EVER standardize on fucking ANYTHING anymore?!? > >>Pick a fucking notation for describing resolutions and STICK WITH > >>IT!!! It's like the freaking "Lenny"/"Mountain Lion"/"Ice Cream > >>Sandwich" bullshit here. I don't *want* to know the correct ordering > >>of snacks/cats/toy story characters, and I'm *certainly* not going > >>to memorize which idiotic (and completely unnecessary) name refers > >>to WHAT freaking version. Idiotic unnecessary indirection. > >> > >>"Woody/Sarge???" WTF? "SD/1080p/4k???" WTF? Enough redundant naming > >>conventions already. > > > >You think this is bad? Just wait until 4K really gets going in the > >mainstream and every manufacturer under the sun comes up with their > >own unique term to differentiate themselves. It'll be 2008 all over > >again. > > 2008? That stuff's been going on *much* longer than that ;)
My favorite version numbering scheme is Knuth's scheme of incremental convergence onto an irrational number, like TeX version 3, followed by 3.1, then 3.14, then 3.141, then 3.1415, then 3.14159, etc.. :-) For me, my favorite irrational number is (1+√5)/2. So I'd number my versions 1, 1.6, 1.61, 1.618, 1.6180, 1.61803, ... etc.. T -- Let's not fight disease by killing the patient. -- Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
