Re: New home page
On 07.10.2010 23:59, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Stephan Sollerstephan.sol...@helionweb.de wrote in message news:i8kmuc$15...@digitalmars.com... On 07.10.2010 14:56, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Stephan Sollerstephan.sol...@helionweb.de wrote in message news:i8k8k9$230...@digitalmars.com... [1]: http://arkanis.de/ Not to complain, just FYI, this is what that page looks like for me: http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis1.png http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis2.png http://www.semitwist.com/download/arkanis3.png Interestingly, if I turn JS on, than it'll look a lot better *until* it finishes loading, at which point it goes back to looking just like those screenshots. Thanks for the screenshots. May I ask which version of Firefox (if I see that correctly) your're using v2.0.0.20 Which actually kinda surprises me because I could have sworn I was on a much later version of the 2.x line. I *know* there was a period where it kept updating itself seemingly all the time (which got quite irritating when I just wanted to go to a particular URL). But I guess that must have been the only 2.x version I was able to find after giving up on FF3. And IIRC, the built-in update won't let me update to anything less than FF3. And yea, I know FF2 is really old, but I tried 3.0 and 3.5 and the JS was only marginally faster, it doesn't seem to fix any of the rendering bugs I've come across in FF2 (I have 3.5 on my Linux box, just for site testing), and every other change they made I hated and downloaded extentions to undo...until I realized there was no extention to un-unify the unified forward/back buttons (which I had thought was a good idea when IE7 came out -- until I actually used IE7), and realized the only winestripe-like things for FF3 weren't nearly as good as the real winestripe. So I figured Why bog it down with even *more* addons just to turn it into a half-baked FF2, when I can just use the real FF2? YouTube bitches to me about it, but well, fuck YouTube; never liked having over-compressed videos pre-embedded into a web-based player anyway. Maybe you should consider looking into some other browsers? Opera, Chrome and other Gecko based browsers might give you a better experience that the newer Firefox versions. This is the reason why there are different browsers after all. Staying with FF2 for to long might really hurt your browsing experience since quite a bunch of functionality was added to the browsers itself lately. And trust me, it's really way easier to use the new stuff than all the old workarounds (e.g. webfonts, svg, css based animations, transparency, dropshadows, video, and the list goes on...). I really expect many people to use this stuff in the near future, not only because it's cool but mainly because it's so much easier than the old stuff. I've seen people holding on to Netscape 4 because they didn't like the newer versions. They could endure a surprising amount of totally broken pages but the internet wasn't fun for them. Fortunately we have a lot more alternatives today. :) The JS stuff is quite interesting since the page actually does not use JS at all. The only situation where JS should actually be involved is for IE (because you need to introduce unknown elements to IE before using them). I'm not aware that any version of Firefox interprets IE conditional comments (although there was talk about it once) so this behavior is somewhat concerning. Don't worry. Turns out it was just a quirk caused by one of the million add-ons I have installed to make the web bearable. When I disabled all of them, the behavior and results with JS on were exactly the same as with JS off. However this page uses quite new and still in progress browser stuff (HTML5, CSS3) so it'll give old browsers a very hard time. It's more like a showcase for the new stuff. I see, that explains it. Personally, I'll have no interest in CSS3 unless MS decides to backport IE9 to XP. I hate Win7 and refuse to let XP die (Granted, Win7's not quite as bad as Vista, but it's close). Take a look at [this screenshot][1] to see how it's supposed to look like. It was made with font antialiasing on a standard TFT but the text might look a bit awkward on CRTs or TFTs with a different subpixel layout (usually the OS takes care of that when rendering text). There's also the [design prototype][2] which does not use the new techniques. It should work on your browser (at least most stuff, I never IEified it nor did extensive cross browser testing since it's only a prototype). [1]: http://arkanis.de/projects/arkanis-development-v3/ubuntu.png [2]: http://arkanis.de/weblog/2008-05-25-modern-ambience-design-prototype/ And finally there's also the [old design][3] which works in IE 5.5, 6 and 7 (ditched 4, 5, and 5.01 and I'm not sure about 8). It took about two weeks to make it work in IE 5.5 and 6 if I remember correctly. [3]: http://arkanis.de/projects/arkanis-development-v2/photo-ambience/ Ahh. Yea,
Re: New home page
On 07.10.2010 11:41, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 06/10/2010 15:25, Stephan Soller wrote: On 06.10.2010 02:08, Arlo White wrote: That's because HTML/CSS is a pretty terrible language for anything beyond simple layouts. It shares more with Word/PDF/PostScript in terms of its purpose and history than it does with real gui layout engines (GTK, QT, etc). HTML/CSS is primary made for documents not applications. If you want you can simply make every element a block level element and use JavaScript for layout. I don't know GTK and QT in depth but then you should have about the same level of possibilities as with these layout engines. It wouldn't surprise me if GUI frameworks like jQuery UI actually do this. The issue is not with level of possibilites. HTML/CSS has as much possibilities as many GUI toolkits, if not more. (there is really a lot of stuff you can do you HTML/CSS if you figure out how to). The issue is that it's incredibly hard to do that, HTML/CSS is so convoluted. (and I'm talking about proper flowing designs, now pixel-based, fixed-width ones. Those are fairly easy in both HTML and GUI toolkits). It does not feel convoluted to me but I have learned HTML/CSS gradually as they evolved. Therefore I might not be able to properly see how it looks from the distance if someone doesn't know the details. To me it looks well structured (block vs. inline elements, different distinct layout models, typography, etc.). There sure a some parts that deserve a little cleanup and simplification but I can't think of any right now. I'm just curious about your point of view. What parts of CSS look convoluted to you? And what do you mean use JavaScript for layout? You can't use JavaScript for layout. You can use JavaScript to programmatically manipulate the CSS properties of HTML elements, but you are still using the same HTML rules for layout, so the difficulty is unchanged. You're right. At the end HTML/CSS simply is the interface to tell the browser about the structure and appearance of your document. However you can make every element a block level element (display: block;) and use absolute positioning. Then each element basically behaves like a window of an window manager and you can use your own algorithms to do the layout by calculating the position and dimensions (top, left, height, width). At that stage you don't have to think about any of the layout models of CSS and you're totally independent of them. Happy programming Stephan
Re: D 2.0 Stacktrace - similar problems
Denis already explained the stack, here's some more info: - cv2pdb demangles the function names, but uses '@' instead of '.', because '.' in a symbol confuses the Visual Studio Debugger (I don't know why the '@' is not displayed.) - the D main function has symbol _Dmain, main is the C version in the runtime library - RegisterWaitForInputIdle is probably just the exported symbol from ntdll.dll closest to the address found on the call stack. A lot of other code might be inbetween. - you probably don't see the correct location of the throwing statement because the actually called function to do the throw is part of the phobos library. It is built without standard stack frame, so it's hard for a debugger (and probably the dumping function used here) to figure out the correct calling sequence. - a bug report with patch is here: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4809 Rainer Austin Hastings wrote: On 10/8/2010 6:47 PM, Denis Koroskin wrote: On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 02:36:30 +0400, Austin Hastings ah0801...@yahoo.com wrote: object.Exception: Test 00 rtdmain2mainrunMain 01 rtdmain2mainrunAll 02 main 03 mainCRTStartup 04 RegisterWaitForInputIdle Thanks for your help, Benjamin! My next question would be, why does the stack trace look this way? I'm throwing the exception from D's main. I assume that's entry #02. But what are the other two entries, and why are they on the stack? D main is not the true program entry point, there is a lot of preparation done (gc_init(), module init, etc) before your main() takes control, and these entries can be safely stripped since they are usually not what you are looking for. Denis, Sure, there's stuff in assembly that calls main. What I'm asking about is the stuff *inside* main that isn't in my code. As I see it, either: 1. The function I named main is at #02 on the above, in which case there are two subroutines that I didn't call on the stack. Then I'd like to know what they are, and whatever else anyone can tell me about them. 2. The function I named main is actually rtdmain2mainrunMain, in which case (a) why was it renamed this horrible value; and (b) what other non-intuitive name manglings (!!) can I expect? (As if there was such a thing as an intuitive name mangling. :-) 3. The function I named main is actually RegisterWaitForInputIdle, which will totally surprise me, in which case please explain why the stack trace is upside down, and why that name was chosen? =Austin
Re: D Concurrent GC
Leandro Lucarella, el 8 de octubre a las 01:44 me escribiste: Denis Koroskin, el 8 de octubre a las 05:14 me escribiste: I tried using your GC under D2/Windows, and unfortunately it crashes with Access Violation (I used a version modified by Sean as a starting point with little changes to fix compilation error). Are there any plans supporting it? I'm willing to help with testing it as much as I can. As I told to Sean, I tried my best to not break Windows support very much, but I don't have a Windows environment to test with (and to very interested on creating one to be honest, sorry :S). But I am very interested on accepting patches to make Windows work (and improvements). Testing the GC on Windows might not be very tempting though, as the main improvement is based on the fork(2) system call, which is not available on Windows, so all the fun options will be disabled there. The only thing that might worth trying in Windows is the precise scanning (well, there are some other minor optimizations that proved useful). BTW, I've put up a small (Linux/POSIX) HOWTO to easily try CDGC. People interested on trying CDGC might find it useful: http://llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/-4d1fefb4 -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Cuando el Mártir estaba siendo perseguido y aglutinado por los citronetos, aquellos perversos que pretendian, en su maldad, piononizar las enseñanzas de Peperino. -- Peperino Pómoro
Re: New home page
Lutger lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com wrote in message news:i8ta2d$1ln...@digitalmars.com... Nick Sabalausky wrote: Stephan Soller stephan.sol...@helionweb.de wrote in message Maybe you should consider looking into some other browsers? Opera, Chrome and other Gecko based browsers might give you a better experience that the newer Firefox versions. This is the reason why there are different browsers after all. - Safari is ruled out because it's a blurry mess (all for the sake of making it look more like the printed version? WTF?) and forces useless background processes, has zero respect for my system's look-and-feel, and has no Adblock Plus, NoScript, or BetterPrivacy (Three FF add-ons that provide functionality that, for me, are absolutely 100% essential). - IE7+ is out because it has no Adblock Plus, NoScript, or BetterPrivacy, and I don't like the unified forward/back buttons. - Iron is out because I *hate* absolutely everything about it's UI, and it doesn't have NoScript (I've heard it has AdBlock Plus, but I didn't see it when I first looked so I don't know). Also, configurability seems to be practically non-existent compared to FF. - Chrome is out because of all the reasons for which Iron was created in the first place. I won't even allow Chrome (or Safari) on my computer at all. - Opera is ruled out because it costs money and every time I tried the demos it seemed to combine the worst aspects of all the other browsers, plus had by far the most rendering problems. - And everything else like IE6-, Netscape, WebTV, Lynx, etc are all ruled out for obvious reasons. Perhaps try firefox 4 (beta)? It is much faster, probably on par with chrome now, and it looks a bit cleaner designed. I'll probably try it at some point, but I seriously doubt it won't be the same story as FF3. It's Mozilla's basic nature to refuse to allow users to disable any of Mozilla's beloved *cough* improvements, and to merely scoff whenever people don't like it. They're never shown any interest in making anything about the AwfulBar optional. Same with the unified forward/back buttons, or every ugly-ass theme FF has insisted on using starting with FF2 (That's why I use Winestripe.) And like most developers, they've never shown any respect for people with light-on-dark schemes. Etc, etc, etc, And they're a bunch or arrogant douchebags to boot. Mozilla just has their heads ten miles up their asses and that's all there is to it, and I don't believe for a second anything's ever going to change that. Like I said, I'll probably try it at some point, but I *very* much doubt it won't be the same story as FF3. And from the screenshots, it looks like it'll end up absolutely horrid-looking on the Win Classic theme, just like FF2 and FF3 and just like every Windows program these days that's designed to assume the user is running that god-awful Aero theme (I think the only reason people think Aero looks good is because it's not as bad as Luna, and most people were too stupid to realize XP's Luna was optional.) Plus, it looks like they're trying to ape IE7/8 and Chrome, and I think those are some of the most butt-ugly and shitty-UI browsers ever made (*especially* Chrome).
