On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:26, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:53:55PM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
[snip]
If you think that my goals are incorrect, or can show that it does not
meet my desires in some way, then tell me how. X is better than Y is
just silly. Perhaps if you gave
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:19:18PM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:26, Colin Watson wrote:
As it happens, setting the tabstop option to anything other than 8 does
irritate me when editing files containing tabs. I like to keep source
code within 80 columns, and mismatched
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 09:37:27AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:19:18PM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:26, Colin Watson wrote:
Nowadays, on average I tend to use expandtab for new code, but
converting tabs to spaces is still an operation that needs
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:43:19AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 09:37:27AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Nowadays, on average I tend to use expandtab for new code, but
converting tabs to spaces is still an operation that needs to be handled
carefully with respect to
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:12:46AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:43:19AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 09:37:27AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Nowadays, on average I tend to use expandtab for new code, but
converting tabs to spaces is still an
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 04:40:01PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2003-08-28T18:37:34Z, Nathan E Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd guess the latter. I've seen what could have been good software
engineering if management had been willing to work within the system.
I wasn't thinking -
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:24:41AM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 06:20, Anders Arnholm wrote:
SO the reason is to inport bad fomrated code, and make that code better
formated. For me thats dosn't make med have to change my editor. As this
still needs a manual step, whan
on Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 01:18:57AM +0100, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:08:56PM -0700, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
Ron Johnson said on Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:16:22PM -0500:
With tight budgets and tight schedules, I've *never* seen a project
rewritten.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:06:36AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
*cough, spit* I was able to grasp Turbo Pascal far before C.
...you're like a Spanish footballer, then - they obviously use Pascal;
if they used C, Beckham's new club would be called float madrid().
--
Pigeon
Be kind to
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 02:06:53PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 11:27, Anders Arnholm wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:35:25AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 03:35, Anders Arnholm wrote:
So if not using braces matching, how does one quickly jump to the
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:09:01 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't work for me, it only jumps to the end of the page and or a
line down. When programing in C I'm used to when being at the beginin of
a class/function/block being able to get to the end of this block by
pressing
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 01:46:37PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 11:32, Anders Arnholm wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:33:40AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 14:07, Pigeon wrote:
set tabstop=4
So thats why all code form other Python programers
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:30:24PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:32:08 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:33:40AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 14:07, Pigeon wrote:
set tabstop=4
So thats why all code form other
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:23:38 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why change tabstop?
So that when we hit tab it goes to the next multiple of... 4?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:26:56 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes but why does you need it if you don't get bad files from other
programers using tabs for spaces wides as indention?
Because new people to Python haven't yet learned about no tabs?
I saw and knew what expandtabs
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 01:49:23AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:23:38 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why change tabstop?
So that when we hit tab it goes to the next multiple of... 4?
Then why not learn the editor :^) Whan hitting tab MY vim with
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 01:56:39AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:26:56 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes but why does you need it if you don't get bad files from other
programers using tabs for spaces wides as indention?
Because new people to Python
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:02:09 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then why not learn the editor :^) Whan hitting tab MY vim with tabstop
of eight jumps to the next indention level,
I suggest you try that again VERRRY carefully. I just tried it. Entered
the editor in Python mode
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:18:14 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And most of the use 4 spaces wide tabs? Or just use one tab as indention
level? In every case that still explans why python code found on the net
other looks realy bad indented. Don't take it personal, it just explans
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:51:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:02:09 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then why not learn the editor :^) Whan hitting tab MY vim with tabstop
of eight jumps to the next indention level,
I suggest you try that again VERRRY
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:04:28AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:18:14 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but vim uses tabstop to determine how many spaces to put in. Hence
tabstop to 4, expandtabs on, shiftwidth to 4. Tabstops to know what to do
when we
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 12:15:11 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why don't you use cindent? Becouse you have something religus
against the c in the name?
Because we're not programming in C and I'd rather not take the chance of
it doing something stupid based on the presumption
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:51:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
To get the behavior you describe you have to set tabstop to 4 so
that it will go to the next multiple of 4.
No, you don't have to. Try setting softtabstop - much better.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:50:08AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 12:15:11 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why don't you use cindent? Becouse you have something religus
against the c in the name?
Because we're not programming in C and I'd rather not take
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 06:20, Anders Arnholm wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:04:28AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:18:14 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but vim uses tabstop to determine how many spaces to put in. Hence
tabstop to 4, expandtabs
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 06:51, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:51:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
To get the behavior you describe you have to set tabstop to 4 so
that it will go to the next multiple of 4.
No, you don't have to. Try setting softtabstop - much better.
what
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:24:41AM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 06:20, Anders Arnholm wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:04:28AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:18:14 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a very easy way to achieve that
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 11:50, Anders Arnholm wrote:
[snip]
The difference between ts and sts is just that ts works on \t
charachters imported in the files to, and sts doesn't. Setting ts
without et is definitly wrong. Setting it with et just look wrong, but
doesn't hurt so many else. (Or
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:27:10AM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 06:51, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:51:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
To get the behavior you describe you have to set tabstop to 4 so
that it will go to the next multiple of 4.
No,
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 12:15, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:27:10AM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
[snip]
what could be better than works exactly as desired?
tabstop *doesn't* work exactly as desired for me. (Shall we continue
with proof by assertion? :))
As far as I can see, no
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:53:55PM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 12:15, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:27:10AM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
what could be better than works exactly as desired?
tabstop *doesn't* work exactly as desired for me. (Shall we
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:01:23 +0100
Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, that's interesting - the for loop's running from 0 to 9, so it
prints 81, not 100.
Yes, range(x) does 0 to x-1. This is for stuff like this (and this is a
bad example)...
for x in range(10):
baz[x] = foo[x] +
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's called maintainability. Who says *you* are going to be the next
person to touch the code?
We try to hire people with a basic knowledge of the language.
I can see your concern with the fifteen different ways perl can
represent ifs (at least the
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:03:54 -0500
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We try to hire people with a basic knowledge of the language.
Which does not negate the fact that stupid mistakes happen. The common
error of...
if cond
bar;
baz;
...in C can be avoided by the braces
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which does not negate the fact that stupid mistakes happen. The common
error of...
if cond
bar;
baz;
Why is that a common error? It just looks wrong to me.
Maybe I never[1] see this error because of two things:
* I follow the BSD
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:53:14PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
Just my 2c on the rewrites from scratch. I also agree, and have one
theory on why it happens anyway based on my experiance with other
programmers who I've seen assigned to improve on existing code.
I think often 'rewriters'
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:44:33PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:01:23 +0100
Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, that's interesting - the for loop's running from 0 to 9, so it
prints 81, not 100.
Yes, range(x) does 0 to x-1. This is for stuff like this (and this is
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:51:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
Note, though, Disabling Via external APIC routing and this:
$ cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
0: 563586560 XT-PIC timer
snip
15: 1311 XT-PIC ide1
I'd have noticed a long time ago if there were
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 20:58, Pigeon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:44:33PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:01:23 +0100
Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, that's interesting - the for loop's running from 0 to 9, so it
prints 81, not 100.
Yes, range(x) does 0
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 22:15, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
[...snip...]
I had only posted this because the full message had a complaint about it
taking hours to debug C code because of the inconsistancy in
indentation/placement of braces. My solution for that has been $ indent
bob parker wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:18, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:06:23AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
Or the poster doesn't know much about Java. Having used Java, I'd
say that Java isn't good for small programs/quick hacks.
And what I've seen of the larger
Ron Johnson wrote:
But, of course, that's not an issue in The Clearly Superior Language,
is it?
Ok, if this thread has accomplished little else, it seems to have gotten
a couple people, including myself to play around with Python.
I have a simple little perl program at work. It parses a
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:26:17 -0500
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is that a common error? It just looks wrong to me.
Because it does something other than what it looks like it does. And
while you, nor I, have been bitten by it I *have* seen it happen and I rarely
touch C code.
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:28:24 -0500
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python is written in C (no surprise there!), but what is surprising
to some is that so many C-isms are in Python. For example:
IF FOO == BAR:
PRINT 'YES'
Ah yes, but try to to do this fun one:
if foo =
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:51:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
CPU0
0: 563586560 XT-PIC timer
1:3329762 XT-PIC keyboard
2: 0 XT-PIC cascade
3: 1461 XT-PIC usb-uhci,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:42:17PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
Ok, I'm not arguing pro/con Java here, I just have question. What other
option do I have for web browser enabled client/server communication
without reloading the page* that I can use
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:42:17PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
[...]
} Ok, I'm not arguing pro/con Java here, I just have question. What other
} option do I have for web browser enabled client/server communication
} without reloading the page* that I can use in Koqueror or other
}
On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 02:38, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:28:24 -0500
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python is written in C (no surprise there!), but what is surprising
to some is that so many C-isms are in Python. For example:
IF FOO == BAR:
PRINT 'YES'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 07:40:49AM -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote:
} Ok, I'm not arguing pro/con Java here, I just have question. What other
} option do I have for web browser enabled client/server communication
} without reloading the page* that I
On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 05:12, Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:51:50PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
CPU0
0: 563586560 XT-PIC timer
1:3329762 XT-PIC keyboard
2: 0 XT-PIC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 10:15:32AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
Umm, there is an interrupt 0. 16 IRQs.
You try assigning a device to IRQ0. To anyone who's been around
since the DOS/ISA days, there are 15 IRQs, since that's all that's
usable.
I
On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 06:40, Gregory Seidman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:42:17PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
[...]
} Ok, I'm not arguing pro/con Java here, I just have question. What other
} option do I have for web browser enabled client/server communication
} without reloading the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 10:23:24AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
Flash. Not that I'm promoting it, I'm just saying it's an alternative.
And a god damned fscking bad one at that! I utterly hate and *loathe*
web-sites that have Flash-based
Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:42:17PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
Ok, I'm not arguing pro/con Java here, I just have question. What other
option do I have for web browser enabled client/server communication
without reloading the
Gregory Seidman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:42:17PM -0600, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
[...]
} Ok, I'm not arguing pro/con Java here, I just have question. What other
} option do I have for web browser enabled client/server communication
} without reloading the page* that I can use in Koqueror
Steve Lamb wrote:
That's just it, I don't like C indenting any more, period. It isn't
someone else's style that is the problem, it is the fact that it is the
antithesis of how I've grown to like to code. Lemme put it this way:
C:
if foo
bar;
That's bad style unless you have a
I wrote:
There are no organizations without internal politics.
Mark Ferlatte writes:
I disagree (and am happily working for one with a stated policy against
such wastes of effort and time)...
Oh, well. That's different. If it's against policy then of _course_ it
can't happen.
...but
Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree. When I was learning C, I was taught to *always* use brackets, even
when they weren't necessarily, specifically to make it easier to expand:
I've never understood people who are religious about that. It's the
same amount of effort whether you
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:08:56PM -0700, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
Ron Johnson said on Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:16:22PM -0500:
With tight budgets and tight schedules, I've *never* seen a project
rewritten.
Rewriting from scratch is dangerous anyway; you exchange all of the
bugs you know about
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:01:05AM -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 04:41, Steve Lamb wrote:
--snip--
Yeah, on supported languages. I don't see the point of having a tool to
shoehorn the code into one bracket style and another tool to shoehorn it into
a different
Alan Shutko writes:
It's the same amount of effort whether you do it when you first write the
if, or when you add something to it (ie, minimal). The only difference I
see is that if you _don't_ later add something to the if, you've wasted
that effort.
The problem with omitting the braces is
On Thursday 28 August 2003 18:05, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
John Hasler said on Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 04:16:28PM -0500:
Mark Ferlatte writes:
If your company tolerates internal politics, well, you're going to be
in trouble when your competitor, who doesn't tolerate that kind of
crap, comes
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 14:50, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:35:25 +0200
Francois Bottin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compare it with SUN's recomendations for Java (but useable also for C):
if (cond) {
block;
} else {
block;
}
In this case I find it much better than
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem with omitting the braces is that people sometimes add something
to the block and forget to add the braces.
Wow. I've worked with some dunderheads, and not even they have done
this. You've really had experience with folks like this?!
--
Alan
Steve Lamb wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:52:35 -0600
Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was this code on a Unix system, or did you have one nearby? Did you know
about the indent program at the time? (man indent)
It _seems_ to work for me to convert someone elses sytle (or lack of
bob parker wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:13, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
bob parker wrote:
C is easier to learn than shell scripting, the elements at least, much
less
Perl. I personally find it quicker to code a dirty fix in C than anything
else and would not really consider shell programming
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:29:52 -0500
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never understood people who are religious about that. It's the
same amount of effort whether you do it when you first write the if,
or when you add something to it (ie, minimal). The only difference I
see is that if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:15:13PM +0200, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:50:11 +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
While I haven't learned much C yet (I can read it better than I write
it), I do have to ask this one: It's possible to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:14:14AM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
Absolutely. In fact, it's probably a good idea to learn C++ without knowing
C first in that you'll probably be much more comfortable with the style if
you're not subconsciously viewing
Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:08:56PM -0700, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
Ron Johnson said on Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:16:22PM -0500:
With tight budgets and tight schedules, I've *never* seen a project
rewritten.
Rewriting from scratch is dangerous anyway; you exchange all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:02:23PM -0500, Michael Heironimus wrote:
The world jumped off the IBM PC cliff, so we're still dealing with some
of the design mistakes IBM made the first time around.
And then people discovered they didn't have to jump
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:59:57PM -0700, Deryk Barker wrote:
Nor does it help that the best-selling C book ever is, ahem,
less-than-superbly-written.
Yeah, the New Testament needs to be reworked seriously (would it get
nicknamed Book of Mormon?)
Joey Hess wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
That's just it, I don't like C indenting any more, period. It isn't
someone else's style that is the problem, it is the fact that it is the
antithesis of how I've grown to like to code. Lemme put it this way:
C:
if foo
bar;
That's bad style unless you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 04:35:25PM +0200, Francois Bottin wrote:
Compare it with SUN's recomendations for Java (but useable also for C):
if (cond) {
block;
} else {
block;
}
In this case I find it much better than the GNU Coding
Ron Johnson wrote:
Speed is over-rated.
Lets take my MUA, Evolution, for example. It's not processor
intensive. Why couldn't it be written in Python?
Ok, I refrained from the last Evolution comment about if CLI program X
had menus, I'd drop Evolution, but It's not processor intensive,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:29:52PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
I've never understood people who are religious about that. It's the
same amount of effort whether you do it when you first write the if,
or when you add something to it (ie, minimal).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:44:13PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
It's called maintainability. Who says *you* are going to be the next
person to touch the code?
Yeah, but some people also like to ensure their job security, apparently.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:06:22PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Starting up KDE applications outside KDE (often?) requires starting up a
number of random daemons which are normally running if you use KDE for
everything.
Better than each program
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:10:10PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
At 2003-08-28T18:15:09Z, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SDLC! What a joke!
OK, I'll bite. Does everyone here honestly hate software engineering? Or
is it that they haven't seen
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:32:07PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 11:06, Alan Shutko wrote:
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, basically, you don't like Python because your text editor is
junk. Fix it or go find a real editor!
Heck, vim in default mode (no
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:26:11PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:20:07 -0700
Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indention isn't magically lost and you're speaking of copies. The problem
in all those cases lays in the transport or in the person who doesn't know
what he
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0400, Mark Roach wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 09:10, Anders Arnholm wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:46:09AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
Lets take my MUA, Evolution, for example. It's not processor
intensive. Why couldn't it be written in Python?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:06:23AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
Or the poster doesn't know much about Java. Having used Java, I'd
say that Java isn't good for small programs/quick hacks.
And what I've seen of the larger stuff in Java, it's horrably
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:47:10AM -0400, David Z Maze wrote:
Java is garbage-collected
That's not entirely true, or Java would have self-collected before I
hit high school. 8:o)
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :' :
`. `'`
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:01:54PM +0200, Thomas Krennwallner wrote:
For me its clear: use the language you think is good for completing a
given task. I know you cannot always make this decision but if you have
the chance, choose carefully ;-)
But
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:46:43PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:10:33 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the main reasons is that Python leaves a loot of the resolving to
runtime, that means that the code actually has to be run before you can
see tha
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:41:45 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you don't copy from example web-pages and so on when trying to learn
about a new feature, area and so on. I do that aloot and thats is the
biggest problem with Python.
I do and it hasn't caused me any problems.
On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 20:16, Ron Johnson wrote:
The SDLC and corporate politics are independent. Academics should
take corporate politics into consideration when coming up with these
theories.
Why? The SDLC (as defined in academia) is nothing to do with corporate
software development, it
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 01:34:14AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:06:22PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Starting up KDE applications outside KDE (often?) requires starting up a
number of random daemons which are normally running if you use KDE for
everything.
Better
On Friday 29 Aug 2003 11:09, Tom Badran wrote:
If they do, thats a bug bonus
Before anyone jumps on this i obviously meant 'big' but im very hungover and
cant be arsed to proof read my emails.
Tom
--
^__^ Tom Badran
(oo)\__Imperial College
(__)\ )\/\
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 02:36:26AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:41:45 +0200
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you don't copy from example web-pages and so on when trying to learn
about a new feature, area and so on. I do that aloot and thats is the
biggest
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:00:15 +0200, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:50:11 +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
While I haven't learned much C yet (I can read it better than I write
it), I do have to ask this one: It's possible to write
non-braindamaged code in C++ without learning C
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 00:59, Paul Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:02:23PM -0500, Michael Heironimus wrote:
The world jumped off the IBM PC cliff, so we're still dealing with some
of the design mistakes IBM made the first time around.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:42:18 +0100,
Tom Badran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Friday 29 Aug 2003 11:09, Tom Badran wrote:
If they do, thats a bug bonus
Before anyone jumps on this i obviously meant 'big' but im very
hungover and cant be arsed to proof read my
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 21:54, Alex Malinovich wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 14:50, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:35:25 +0200
Francois Bottin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compare it with SUN's recomendations for Java (but useable also for C):
if (cond) {
block;
} else {
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 08:19:10 -0500
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if most Python programmers prefer BSD style.
I find it the worst of the three I presented.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 14:07, Pigeon wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 05:01:05AM -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 04:41, Steve Lamb wrote:
--snip--
Yeah, on supported languages. I don't see the point of having a tool to
shoehorn the code into one bracket style and
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 03:35, Anders Arnholm wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:32:07PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 11:06, Alan Shutko wrote:
Anders Arnholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, basically, you don't like Python because your text editor is
junk. Fix it or go
At 2003-08-29T05:54:01Z, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I seem to recall the entire point of C++ was to be C with some extra
stuff, as told by the creators. Wouldn't it make sense to think the same
way?
Yes and no. I mean, it's still the same basic language with the same
operators,
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 22:15, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:52:35 -0600
Jacob Anawalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Hence it is not other people's style I dislike, it is the freakin' braces.
Good thing there's Python for you and other !brace
1 - 100 of 275 matches
Mail list logo
