Re: Browsers (Was: A very basic blog about D)
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 21:33:33 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: One useful tip to minimize clicking: You can switch between tabs^H^H^H^Hribbons with the mouse's scroll wheel. cool, I'll have to try that. THAT'S POSSIBLE?!? PLEASE TELL ME HOW!!! Or is the forward/back dropdown list still unified? That's the part that really bugs me. I cannot for the life of me remember how. I'm looking at the user set about:config values and can't find it there either. But it is obviously still in force! The dropdowns are unified, but I searched for the thing and came across this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noun-buttons/ which claims to separate that too. idk if it is crap though. My general assumption with [s]add-ons[/s] [s]software[/s] most everyhing is that it is until proven otherwise, but maybe it will be good. But that reasoning falls apart the first time you reach for "stop" and the damn thing changes to "reload" just before you click. Yeah, I've done that before. And it was color! indeed. And nice bright colors too, going back to the backlight but just the palettes in a lot of the older games seemed so much brighter than they do nowadays. Of course normally, calling a youtube commenter a troll is kind of like calling a sasquatch "hairy". ;) hehehe (Although I am one of the few people who did like FF: Spirits Within...go figure.) That's a film I feel that I should give another try. I watched it once a while ago and was meh, but that could be due to bias since I've heard a few people say it really wasn't that bad.
Re: Browsers (Was: A very basic blog about D)
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:22:46 +0200 "Adam D. Ruppe" wrote: > On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 00:26:51 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > Vista doesn't have that horrible MS Dock taskbar > > Worth noting you can turn that off: I have 7 on the laptop I'm on > now and after a few settings changes, it is very similar to > vista. To get a good taskbar you need to turn off the group > similar windows function (which I hated when it was introduced in > XP anyway). > Yea, I did actually manage to get my Win7 taskbar (and file explorer and start menu) into a fairly XP state (and I do actually like being able to manually rearrange the taskbar tasks now), but it took an enormous amount of obscure, and often third-party, hacks. > Your quick launch still keeps their place but that doesn't bug me > like I thought it would, it is actually kinda nice. > Win7 doesn't even have quick launch unless you hack it back in. (Which I've done of course.) But MS sure as hell doesn't make "No I don't want your idiotic new UI ideas, just the kernel" easy. > > window screenshots *every* freaking time your mouse goes near > > Oh yeah, that is annoying. I hate hover things in general. Me too. :/ > The > worst of them is on websites. My bank website used to have hover > menus right above the login thing... > > So I go to the address bar and type in my bank dot com. Then i > move the mouse down toward the login form and click it but > oops, on the way down, I hovered over the stupid menu, so now by > click is redirecting me to some new site! RGGGT! > Yea. Makes no sense to me how *all* menu bars *everywhere* work on a "click to open" concept, including the web browsers themselves, but then the entire web decided "No, we have to make menu bars operate on an incredibly inconvenient, distracting AND non-standard "hover" basis. > God I hate hover crap. > My sentiments exactly :) > > I do actually like a lot of the ribbon stuff though. I don't > > see what the big problem is > > It's different. I still haven't really figured out the new Paint > UI. I don't think it sucks, but it does take some getting used to. > One useful tip to minimize clicking: You can switch between tabs^H^H^H^Hribbons with the mouse's scroll wheel. The occasional extra clicking to switch ribbons was probably the one thing I can understand people not liking about the ribbons. > > > Hmm, yea, that's not too bad, although I have found Linux FF > > tends to have a better default UI (that is, matches the system > > better) than Windows FF anyway. > > Yes, I agree. And even there, I had to do an about:config thing > to kill the unified back/forward nonsense. > THAT'S POSSIBLE?!? PLEASE TELL ME HOW!!! Or is the forward/back dropdown list still unified? That's the part that really bugs me. > > and so does the unified "stop/reload" > > Oh yeah, that's annoying. But the keyboard is a bit better there, > f5+esc are easy to hit and more reliable anyway. > Good tip, although my hand and mind are usually in mouse-mode when I'm on the web. I can understand the rationale for unified stop/reload: There's never a time when *both* make sense to use. No point in reloading while loading (gotta stop first), and makes so sense to stop when it's not loading. But that reasoning falls apart the first time you reach for "stop" and the damn thing changes to "reload" just before you click. I'll take them separate, thank you. > > Remember the old Sega GameGear's crappy LCD? > > lol I actually liked it because it was backlit! Ate through > batteries like mad but it was usable in varied lighting > conditions. > And it was color! (One of my all-time favorite commercials is the old GameGear one where a kid is sitting outside playing a GameBoy, grabs a big thick fallen tree branch, clonks himself over the head with it, turns back to the game, and goes "Whoa! Color!") I had a GameGear. I liked it. It was even blurrier than GameBoy though. And you're right about the batteries. Shit, it went through them *six* at a time! I usually just used the power cord though. > > Screen size makes much more of a difference on PS3 than > > resolution. Probably at least 95% of PS3 games I've tried > > include text that's so damn *small* that's it's barely > > readable on even a 29" set > > Yes, I can barely even read it on my friend's larger tv in the > call of duty game (especially when we play split screen, no point > even trying to read the score, 8, 3, and 11 all look the same to > me at those sizes) > I never played CoD multiplayer. But I have to give them *huge* credit for how (with the exception of multiplayer I guess, and maybe it's only the Modern Warfare series) there is *no* tiny text at all, unlike most PS3 games. It always perplexes me how so many PS3 games will have a big 'ol box or area for text, and then the text is so small that 90% of it is just margins and padding. > > > Really HD is only a moderate improvement if you compare > > it to a
Re: Browsers (Was: A very basic blog about D)
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:11:21 +0200 "Joakim" wrote: > On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 09:02:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > Chrome then all the better (Seriously, why the fuck does Google > > have > > two basically-identical browsers and the whole "Chrome vs > > Chromium" > > bullshit anyway? Makes no fucking sense.) > Chromium is an open source project. Chrome is google's build of > Chromium, with some additional proprietary bits added, like a > closed-source pdf viewer or licensed audio/video codecs compiled > in: > > https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome > > They use a hybrid model with Chrome, where it's 99% open with > added proprietary bits, a subject I've talked about before on > this NG. Ok, good to know. I do still think they could have handled it without splitting it into two barely-different projects. And from what I'm seen, Google gives off a very strong impression that "Chrome" is their browser for end-users to actually use, and "Chromium" is just...some..."thing" for developers (from what I've seen, Google hasn't been particularly clear on it, ever even really say much about it at all on their Chrome site, but I do appreciate your clarification). So if someone came along with a "basically Chrome with some stuff removed" that's *really* just minor tweaks on Chromium, then I do think Google kind of brought that situation on themselves. And I don't think it's necessarily bad, either. Yes, it would be better if SRWare was more accurate in stating what Iron exactly is, but still, a prebuilt distro of Chromium, without the lack of clarity on what Chromium is, and with default settings changed to what a lot of people would change them to anyway - I do think there is genuine value in that. Of course, Google could easily counteract that value by saying right there on their Chrome site "Ok, and here we also have a pre-built Chromium which is Chrome but without the auto-updater and non-OSS bits, etc". Or better yet: "Here's the Chrome installer, and it lets you choose whether or not to install the auto-updater, and whether or not to include the non-OSS extensions, and has an option for "ultra privacy" defaults where none of the controversial settings are enabled and nothing is ever implicitly sent to Google" (Obviously wording can be adjusted). But last I looked, Google didn't have anything like that, but Iron does, so there's value in it. > > I don't give a shit what the primary motivation of Iron's > > creator is or > > how much work it did or didn't take to create. I use it because > > it works > > the way I want it to and Chrome doesn't. > You are free to use whatever you want, but when you say you don't > care about what this guy has done, you lose all credibility on > privacy and security. > Not that I'm trying to change your mind here, but what I'm seeing here is: Some guy created a useful product (even if it is only minimally useful) because he wanted to generate ad revenue. There's nothing questionable or even remotely uncommon about that. > Haha, now outright lying about how you "massively modified the > source" or that you're still "open source" is merely overblown > "marketing?" > "Massively" is a highly subjective term. Now I agree with you that if the changes are indeed what your articles say (and I'm not doubting that) than that doesn't match what I, or most people, would consider "massively". But it *is* a subjective term and business *do* exploit that all the time. I don't like that they do, I wish they didn't, but we don't go calling every such thing a "scam". As far as the "open source" thing, well if the source really is closed off now (and not just some site snafu or something) then yea, that is a license violation and needs to be changed. And proper public VCS would be good, although I've seen a LOT of developers who are still stuck in pre-VCS mode and unfortunately don't really "get" the whole GitHub thing. Not an ideal way for Iron to work, but since I'm only interested in using it, not building or modifying it, then it's not a deal-breaker for me. There's a lot of useful freeware that, for some ridiculous reason I've never understood, was closed-source. 'Course, most of those aren't license-bound to *be* OSS. > You're twisting yourself into pretzels to try and justify this > choice. Maybe you didn't know all this about Iron before, but it > seems like an irrational, personal attachment to keep using and > defending this browser after all this. Just because I'm not knee-jerking at some new information (that really isn't anywhere near as condemning as you make it out to be) hardly qualifies as "twisting...irrational, personal attachment", etc.
Re: Complex networks in D
Joseph Rushton Wakeling: To be sure I understand what you're getting at, is it just that it's more elegant to write it this way (I agree:-), or is there a performance benefit in the iota().map!() form (or to separately generating the ranges and then chaining them)? It's just more readable. Bye, bearophile
Re: Complex networks in D
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 15:57:06 UTC, bearophile wrote: For such kind of code I suggest to use UFCS chains. Can you explain in a little more detail? It's not an aspect of programming I'm familiar with. auto r1 = iota(_sumHead[v], _sumHead[v + 1]).map!(a => _tail[_indexHead[a]]); auto r2 = iota(_sumTail[v], _sumTail[v + 1]).map!(a => _head[_indexTail[a]]); return chain(r1, r2); Ahh, OK. To be sure I understand what you're getting at, is it just that it's more elegant to write it this way (I agree:-), or is there a performance benefit in the iota().map!() form (or to separately generating the ranges and then chaining them)?
Re: Complex networks in D
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 18:22:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: People are much more likely to read your article from links in reddit and hackernews if you put in as a comment some description of it. Don't wait for others to do it for you! They may mischaracterize it, or worse, the opportunity will slip by. Done. Thanks for the advice!
Re: Complex networks in D
On 7/16/2013 2:27 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 08:27:07 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 07:17:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6050404 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1iegj9/complex_networks_in_d/ Thanks! :-) People are much more likely to read your article from links in reddit and hackernews if you put in as a comment some description of it. Don't wait for others to do it for you! They may mischaracterize it, or worse, the opportunity will slip by.
Re: Complex networks in D
Joseph Rushton Wakeling: It wasn't clear to me what the benefits were, though, For this function not a lot, but it's a good habit to have. especially as I did consider making this an enforce() rather than an assert(). If you want to use enforce then don't put them in pre-conditions. But usually asserts should suffice. And "in size_t v" is enough compared to "immutable size_t v". Does "in" allow for subsequent mutation _within_ the function? "in" implies scoped const. So you can't mutate the argument inside the function/method. For reference types "immutable" is even stronger. For such kind of code I suggest to use UFCS chains. Can you explain in a little more detail? It's not an aspect of programming I'm familiar with. auto r1 = iota(_sumHead[v], _sumHead[v + 1]).map!(a => _tail[_indexHead[a]]); auto r2 = iota(_sumTail[v], _sumTail[v + 1]).map!(a => _head[_indexTail[a]]); return chain(r1, r2); Anyway, thanks very much for the useful feedback :-) You are welcome, bye, bearophile
Re: Complex networks in D
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 14:18:02 UTC, bearophile wrote:
size_t vertexCount() @property const pure nothrow
{
assert(_sumHead.length == _sumTail.length);
return _sumHead.length - 1;
}
Is that better written in a struct/class invariant?
Nice thought -- probably; it's a condition that must always hold.
size_t degreeIn(immutable size_t v) const pure nothrow
{
assert(v + 1 < _sumTail.length);
return _sumTail[v + 1] - _sumTail[v];
}
Here you are looking for the method pre-condition.
Ahh, you mean inside in { ... } brackets? I did consider writing
it like that. It wasn't clear to me what the benefits were,
though, especially as I did consider making this an enforce()
rather than an assert().
And "in size_t v" is enough compared to "immutable size_t v".
Does "in" allow for subsequent mutation _within_ the function?
For such kind of code I suggest to use UFCS chains.
Can you explain in a little more detail? It's not an aspect of
programming I'm familiar with.
Also be careful with the performance of such range-based code,
writing benchmarks. Unfortunately often DMD doesn't compile it
efficiently.
Yes, this is a concern of mine too. In benchmarks I've carried
out, the calls to e.g. neighbours() take up a substantial chunk
of the overall runtime -- but that said, the number of calls to
them is very, very large. It works out as on the order of
between 1e-9 and 1e-8 seconds per call.
These kinds of range-based solutions seem to be a part of D where
LDC typically produces the best performance. But I would not use
DMD for serious number crunching of any kind -- as it stands it
can't match either of the other two compilers.
Anyway, thanks very much for the useful feedback :-)
Re: Browsers (Was: A very basic blog about D)
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 00:28:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: They're corporations. It's not about turning a profit. It's about being under a legal obligation to shareholders to extract *as much* money as possible. Indeed. But at this rate, they're not even staying competitive with their corporate alternatives. The cable company will have to shape up or accept defeat, but nope, they keep raising their rates. Maybe they're just milking what they can. And yeah, I agree with the sad state of tv. A lot of what I watch are actually reruns but there's a lot I like about regular tv over dvds: the cost (which was a pure loss with cable, but a win with over the air), the variety, and actually I kinda like commercials because they give me a chance to get up. Yes, I could pause a dvd whenever, and change the discs for variety, but eh the regular tv is nice and mindless. (usually anime) Sailor Moon rocks btw! Or that awful digital "stutter". Ugh, yeah. It is beautiful with a good signal, but just awful otherwise. were going to redo the protocol, I'm sure they could have done something far better than the non-degradable new system we ended up with. Yeah, my thought is at least they could interlace the frames, using the same signal they have now, just changing it from a high res compressed stream to a lower res, redundant and error-correction supporting stream. So it sends frames like: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 well that's confusing looking, but the idea is if the resolution is like 1/4 the size, we should be able to send each frame 4 times in the same digital signal. So then if your connection cut out and you lost a frame, it is ok because you'll have another chance to pick it up 50ms later. So if you then have a small like 16 frame buffer in the box you could pick up almost a second to recover a frame and piece it together from its sub-frame checksumed chunks as it is rebroadcast, to give the user a smooth picture. Or something like that, I'm not a signal expert nor a reliability engineer, but it seems to me that it ought to be possible.
Re: Browsers (Was: A very basic blog about D)
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 00:26:51 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Vista doesn't have that horrible MS Dock taskbar Worth noting you can turn that off: I have 7 on the laptop I'm on now and after a few settings changes, it is very similar to vista. To get a good taskbar you need to turn off the group similar windows function (which I hated when it was introduced in XP anyway). Your quick launch still keeps their place but that doesn't bug me like I thought it would, it is actually kinda nice. window screenshots *every* freaking time your mouse goes near Oh yeah, that is annoying. I hate hover things in general. The worst of them is on websites. My bank website used to have hover menus right above the login thing... So I go to the address bar and type in my bank dot com. Then i move the mouse down toward the login form and click it but oops, on the way down, I hovered over the stupid menu, so now by click is redirecting me to some new site! RGGGT! The taskbar thing is similarly annoying but at least it pops up above, so you are less likely to accidentally click it in transit. Though I have many times clicked one window then went up and clicked another window because it popped up. God I hate hover crap. I do actually like a lot of the ribbon stuff though. I don't see what the big problem is It's different. I still haven't really figured out the new Paint UI. I don't think it sucks, but it does take some getting used to. Interesting. I wonder why exactly that is. IIRC it was because a lot of browsers clear cache on close, or the cache expired too soon. Hmm, yea, that's not too bad, although I have found Linux FF tends to have a better default UI (that is, matches the system better) than Windows FF anyway. Yes, I agree. And even there, I had to do an about:config thing to kill the unified back/forward nonsense. On Windows, firefox can look ok by doing the same adjustments, but one thing that still annoys me is that there's a weird shadow thing behind the menu. It isn't too bad but just seems pointless. and so does the unified "stop/reload" Oh yeah, that's annoying. But the keyboard is a bit better there, f5+esc are easy to hit and more reliable anyway. Remember the old Sega GameGear's crappy LCD? lol I actually liked it because it was backlit! Ate through batteries like mad but it was usable in varied lighting conditions. Screen size makes much more of a difference on PS3 than resolution. Probably at least 95% of PS3 games I've tried include text that's so damn *small* that's it's barely readable on even a 29" set Yes, I can barely even read it on my friend's larger tv in the call of duty game (especially when we play split screen, no point even trying to read the score, 8, 3, and 11 all look the same to me at those sizes) Really HD is only a moderate improvement if you compare it to a *real* SD set instead of "SD on an HD set". Aye. And even so, meh. I was called a troll a while ago because somebody on youtube did a cgi remake of some Star Trek 2 scenes, and I said my old VHS copy looked better. But it did. The cgi artist did a fine job, sure, but the original director and model makers did a *better* job and the VHS captured it just fine. (One thing I think the cgi artist missed was the deliberate angles and coloring choices the director made in the original movie, to get across the contrast of hero and villain. If you've seen the movie, you might remember what I mean - the Enterprise was often shot with bluer light and taller angles (if that's the right term), making it look more good and innocent, whereas the Reliant had low angles and redder lights to look menacing - a perfect fit for the scene. The cgi artist had bazillion polygons but didn't capture the same atmosphere. Then there were things that just looked silly, like cgi smoke. Bah, the original effects were kinda cheesy too but I bought them. Maybe thanks to the actors but still, my old tape looked fine whatever the reason.) That's strange. I wonder if maybe you're one of those people that's sensitive to the subtle flicker in backlights. Maybe, but the lcd computer screen doesn't bug me the same. idk.
Re: Complex networks in D
Joseph Rushton Wakeling:
http://braingam.es/2013/07/complex-networks-in-d/
size_t vertexCount() @property const pure nothrow
{
assert(_sumHead.length == _sumTail.length);
return _sumHead.length - 1;
}
Is that better written in a struct/class invariant?
size_t degreeIn(immutable size_t v) const pure nothrow
{
assert(v + 1 < _sumTail.length);
return _sumTail[v + 1] - _sumTail[v];
}
Here you are looking for the method pre-condition.
And "in size_t v" is enough compared to "immutable size_t v".
auto neighbours(immutable size_t v) const
{
return chain(map!(a =>
_tail[_indexHead[a]])(iota(_sumHead[v], _sumHead[v + 1])),
map!(a => _head[_indexTail[a]])(iota(_sumTail[v], _sumTail[v
+ 1])));
}
For such kind of code I suggest to use UFCS chains.
Also be careful with the performance of such range-based code,
writing benchmarks. Unfortunately often DMD doesn't compile it
efficiently.
Bye,
bearophile
Re: Browsers (Was: A very basic blog about D)
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 09:02:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Chrome then all the better (Seriously, why the fuck does Google have two basically-identical browsers and the whole "Chrome vs Chromium" bullshit anyway? Makes no fucking sense.) Chromium is an open source project. Chrome is google's build of Chromium, with some additional proprietary bits added, like a closed-source pdf viewer or licensed audio/video codecs compiled in: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome They use a hybrid model with Chrome, where it's 99% open with added proprietary bits, a subject I've talked about before on this NG. I don't give a shit what the primary motivation of Iron's creator is or how much work it did or didn't take to create. I use it because it works the way I want it to and Chrome doesn't. You are free to use whatever you want, but when you say you don't care about what this guy has done, you lose all credibility on privacy and security. Honestly, I don't get all the FUD about Iron. A lot of stuff uses ad-supported models, big freaking deal, welcome to the web. There's no malware and no money charged, so there's clearly no "scam". Maybe some stuff is overstated, but try finding a "legit" corporation that doesn't twist and spin facts in their marketing. Not that I like that, but it just means that SRWare is no more of a scam than Johnson & Johnson, or General Mills or whatever. It all just sounds like a big overreaction to a tool that just simply isn't *as* large of an improvement as it makes itself out to be (which again, is a pretty common thing). Overstatements or not, worries about him being some sort of "sellout" or not (it's not as if Google is there for pure altruism instead of trying to make a buck either), regardless of any of that it's a useful Chromium distro. Haha, now outright lying about how you "massively modified the source" or that you're still "open source" is merely overblown "marketing?" You're twisting yourself into pretzels to try and justify this choice. Maybe you didn't know all this about Iron before, but it seems like an irrational, personal attachment to keep using and defending this browser after all this.
Re: GHC 2013 in Paris
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 11:02:10 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: If anyone can make it down, would be great to see some D faces around. Good you didn't say D heads :D
Re: GHC 2013 in Paris
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 11:02:10 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: GHC 2013 Been Haskelling too much recently? :-)
GHC 2013 in Paris
Hi, I have been scheduled in to do a talk about GDC at GHC 2013 next month in Paris. If anyone can make it down, would be great to see some D faces around. http://www.gnu.org/ghm/2013/paris/
Re: Complex networks in D
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 08:27:07 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 07:17:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6050404 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1iegj9/complex_networks_in_d/ Thanks! :-)
Re: Browsers (Was: A very basic blog about D)
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:28:35 +0200 "Joakim" wrote: > > I don't get your paranoia about the auto-updater: Paranoia has nothing to do with it. I don't want it always running in the background, I don't want it auto-updating, and I certainly don't want a program installing an always running service I never asked it to install in the first place. >what makes you think it does anything other than check for updates? I never said it did. > I understand your suspicion of google. I don't use their > services other than search and have never signed up for facebook > either, but that's no reason to use shady software just because > it's "not google." There are real privacy concerns with all > these services, but if we don't stick to the facts, we damage our > case. I don't like what the Iron guy did and have documented the > issues, it is up to you and others to decide what to believe. "Because it isn't Google" has nothing to do with my usage of Iron. I use it because I've had problems with Chrome that I haven't had with Iron. And if I don't have to go through the bother of configuring those settings in the first place and making sure to get Chromium instead of Chrome then all the better (Seriously, why the fuck does Google have two basically-identical browsers and the whole "Chrome vs Chromium" bullshit anyway? Makes no fucking sense.) I don't give a shit what the primary motivation of Iron's creator is or how much work it did or didn't take to create. I use it because it works the way I want it to and Chrome doesn't. Honestly, I don't get all the FUD about Iron. A lot of stuff uses ad-supported models, big freaking deal, welcome to the web. There's no malware and no money charged, so there's clearly no "scam". Maybe some stuff is overstated, but try finding a "legit" corporation that doesn't twist and spin facts in their marketing. Not that I like that, but it just means that SRWare is no more of a scam than Johnson & Johnson, or General Mills or whatever. It all just sounds like a big overreaction to a tool that just simply isn't *as* large of an improvement as it makes itself out to be (which again, is a pretty common thing). Overstatements or not, worries about him being some sort of "sellout" or not (it's not as if Google is there for pure altruism instead of trying to make a buck either), regardless of any of that it's a useful Chromium distro.
Re: "Programming in D" book is about 88% translated
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:28:36 +0100, Ali Çehreli wrote: On 07/15/2013 03:26 AM, deadalnix wrote: > On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 02:35:27 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: >> Thinking that it is free enough, I had chosen this: >> >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ > NC is always kind of problematic as loosely defined. This is by far the > dark corner of CC. It must be touching an irrational side of humans: Giving it completely free is fine, but other people's making profit off of it is somehow wrong! I can't explain why I feel that way. Must be primal genes... :) I think it basically boils down to fairness (interesting, there are studies which show other primates exhibit and understanding of fairness - which is kinda cool http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo). When someone sells something they are essentially saying you can have this but I need some compensation for the work/effort I expended creating it (or bringing it to you etc). So, if someone sells something they did no work to create then we see that as unfair. There is nothing to compensate, so asking for compensation is unfair. We have no problem with them giving it away free, because in that case they're not asking for something they haven't earned. There may also be an impression that if they're selling it, they are asserting they did create it, that it is their work in some way, and this claim is fraudulent and again conflicts with our sense of fairness. R -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Re: Complex networks in D
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 07:17:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/15/2013 2:32 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Following the discussion on digitalmars.D, I've put together a
little (... er,
long ...) blog post discussing the basics of my D graph
library:
http://braingam.es/2013/07/complex-networks-in-d/
The main slant of this post is the ease of writing this stuff
in D. Later posts
will follow up on performance issues and fill in some more
detail about the
workings of the library.
{Enj,Destr}oy :-)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6050404
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1iegj9/complex_networks_in_d/
Re: Complex networks in D
On 7/15/2013 2:32 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Following the discussion on digitalmars.D, I've put together a little (... er,
long ...) blog post discussing the basics of my D graph library:
http://braingam.es/2013/07/complex-networks-in-d/
The main slant of this post is the ease of writing this stuff in D. Later posts
will follow up on performance issues and fill in some more detail about the
workings of the library.
{Enj,Destr}oy :-)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6050404
