On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 21:56:00 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:48:15PM +0200, Idan Arye wrote:
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 20:43:47 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>That's something I never really understood about the Windows
>/ GUI
>world. The backend functionality is already
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:48:15PM +0200, Idan Arye wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 20:43:47 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >That's something I never really understood about the Windows / GUI
> >world. The backend functionality is already all there, yet for some
> >strange reason the application re
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 20:43:47 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
That's something I never really understood about the Windows /
GUI
world. The backend functionality is already all there, yet for
some
strange reason the application refuses to have the means to
access that
functionality, requiring in
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 20:43:47 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
clip
That's something I never really understood about the Windows /
GUI
world. The backend functionality is already all there, yet for
some
strange reason the application refuses to have the means to
access that
functionality, requ
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:20:59PM +0200, Idan Arye wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 04:15:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >Anything else is just the formula for endless frustration,
> >untraceable bugs, and project failure. If your IDE's build function
> >doesn't support full end-to-end reproduci
On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 04:15:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Anything else is just the formula for endless frustration,
untraceable
bugs, and project failure. If your IDE's build function doesn't
support
full end-to-end reproducible builds, it's worthless and should
be
thrown out.
The IDE's
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 03:00:05AM +0200, Idan Arye wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 23:40:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> >Stop right there. As soon as "manual" enters the picture, you no
> >longer have a build process. You may have a *caricature* of a build
> >process, but it's no build proc
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 23:40:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Stop right there. As soon as "manual" enters the picture, you
no longer
have a build process. You may have a *caricature* of a build
process,
but it's no build process at all. I don't care if it's hitting
F5 or
running make, if I ca
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:07:19AM +0200, Idan Arye wrote:
> On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 21:28:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >So we use makefiles... which are a royal PITA, but at least they give
> >you a semblance of reproducibility (fresh version control checkout,
> >run ./configure && make
On Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 21:28:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:23:21PM +0200, Idan Arye wrote:
I guess that depends whether or not F5 is your build process
(http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/10/the-f5-key-is-not-a-build-process.html).
What's F5?
In Eclipse, F5 i
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:23:21PM +0200, Idan Arye wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 12:17:24 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 08:55:04AM +0200, monarch_dodra wrote:
> >>On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 06:46:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> >>wrote:
> >>>On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 08:38:0
On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 12:17:24 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 08:55:04AM +0200, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 06:46:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 08:38:01 Marco Leise wrote:
>>Am Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:45:26 -0700
>>
>>schrieb A
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 08:55:04AM +0200, monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 06:46:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 08:38:01 Marco Leise wrote:
> >>Am Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:45:26 -0700
> >>
> >>schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu :
> >>> http://stackoverflow.com/qu
On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 06:46:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 08:38:01 Marco Leise wrote:
Am Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:45:26 -0700
schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu :
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17263604/i-have-a-c-repository-but-gith
> ub-says-its-d
>
> Andrei
Thi
On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 08:38:01 Marco Leise wrote:
> Am Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:45:26 -0700
>
> schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu :
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17263604/i-have-a-c-repository-but-gith
> > ub-says-its-d
> >
> > Andrei
>
> This is why you don't put automatically generated files
Am Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:45:26 -0700
schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu :
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17263604/i-have-a-c-repository-but-github-says-its-d
>
> Andrei
This is why you don't put automatically generated files in
version control ... Especially when they have the file ending
used by a
On 6/24/13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17263604/i-have-a-c-repository-but-github-says-its-d
This does show that Github's language popularity index is unreliable.
It's listing D at #27th most popular language, but I wonder what that
number would look like with
On 6/24/2013 8:45 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17263604/i-have-a-c-repository-but-github-says-its-d
Obviously the best way for him to correct his repository is to get it to compile
with a D compiler.
It's like D is getting free advertising ;)
On Monday, 24 June 2013 at 15:45:27 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17263604/i-have-a-c-repository-but-github-says-its-d
Andrei
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17263604/i-have-a-c-repository-but-github-says-its-d
Andrei
20 matches
Mail list logo
