Reply to Ary,
(I came to this conclusion when trying to debug the scrapple:units
project).
I'm sorry OTOH that is a rater pathological cases.
One option that might be doable (I don't know how the inside works so I'm
guessing here) is to have the debug more highlight expression that can und
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Robert Fraser escribió:
Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
Ary Borenszweig escribió:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
Bah... I just realized debugging that kind of things might be really
hart to do. Imagine this:
---
char[] something() {
return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
}
Robert Fraser escribió:
Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
Ary Borenszweig escribió:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
Bah... I just realized debugging that kind of things might be really
hart to do. Imagine this:
---
char[] something() {
return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
}
mixin("int bla(int
Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig escribió:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
>
> Bah... I just realized debugging that kind of things might be really
> hart to do. Imagine this:
>
> ---
> char[] something() {
> return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
> }
>
> mixin("int bla(int x)
"BCS" wrote in message
news:78ccfa2d417fc8cbae8318d2e...@news.digitalmars.com...
> Reply to Nick,
>
> [sniped rant about why the web sucks]
>
> I'll grant you most of that and I don't care about the rest.
>
"Cool" and "Fair enough" ;)
> It's ironic that this should come up in the D community be
Ary Borenszweig escribió:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
Bah... I just realized debugging that kind of things might be really
hart to do. Imagine this:
---
char[] something() {
return "x *= 3; x += 4;";
}
mixin("int bla(int x) { x *= 2; " ~ something ~ " return 4; }");
Reply to Nick,
[sniped rant about why the web sucks]
I'll grant you most of that and I don't care about the rest.
It's ironic that this should come up in the D community because it sounds
a lot like C++ template are to the web like D template are to what the web
should be. That is; the Web ha
"Alexander Pánek" wrote in message
news:gvoa8d$o5...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Alexander P?nek" wrote in message
>> news:gvlrua$16p...@digitalmars.com...
>>> grauzone wrote:
> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>> Look mah, JS and Flash combi
"Alexander Pánek" wrote in message
news:gvob5q$pg...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Alexander P?nek" wrote in message
>> news:gvm3qh$1ld...@digitalmars.com...
>>> grauzone wrote:
Alexander P?nek wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>> Alexander P?nek wrote:
>>> Look mah, J
Reply to Alexander,
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Alexander P?nek" wrote in message
news:gvlrua$16p...@digitalmars.com...
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Alexander P�nek" wrote in message
news:gvm3qh$1ld...@digitalmars.com...
grauzone wrote:
Alexander P�nek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Alexander P�nek wrote:
Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Alexander P�nek" wrote in message
news:gvlrua$16p...@digitalmars.com...
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-mod
"Alexander Pánek" wrote in message
news:gvm3qh$1ld...@digitalmars.com...
> grauzone wrote:
>> Alexander Pánek wrote:
>>> grauzone wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
>
> Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
>
> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-win
"Alexander Pánek" wrote in message
news:gvlrua$16p...@digitalmars.com...
> grauzone wrote:
>>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>
>
> Look mah, JS and Flash combined in shiny modal windows:
>
> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/05/27/modal-windows-in-modern-web-des
grauzone wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
defaul
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
default. Sometimes, som
grauzone wrote:
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
default. Sometimes, some minor things don't wor
Alexander Pánek wrote:
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to
grauzone wrote:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable
JS. Now it's rea
Hello Nick,
I wish you were a higher-up at Epic ;) They seem to have pretty much
the opposite attitude, and I get so worked-up every time I see a quote
from "CliffyB" or any of the others...
I'm sorry to disappoint, but gaming is the only case where building to the
latest hardware has any ra
"BCS" wrote in message
news:a6268ff64568cbaad2fa3b9...@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times
>> I've seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing
>> for just because the stores don't sell them. What matter
"Ary Borenszweig" wrote in message
news:gvcehp$2rd...@digitalmars.com...
> grauzone escribió:
>>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>>
>> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
>
> Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like
Hello Nick,
Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times
I've seen people try to argue that something isn't worth developing
for just because the stores don't sell them. What matters is what is
people are *using*, not what the stores are selling.
Should they stop offerin
"Saaa" wrote in message
news:gvcdpg$2q8...@digitalmars.com...
>
>> Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I
>> don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell,
> lol
Just trying to anticipate that argument. It's amazing how many times I've
seen people try to argue that something
"Jarrett Billingsley" wrote in message
news:mailman.166.1243199156.13405.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com...
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> I use Firefox too. My computer isn't even a fire-breathing monster by
> today's standards: Athlon X2 64 4600+, but it's ru
> Now now, needing additional software just for disabling features is
> really... stupid, but at least I'm not using virus scanners or "personal
> firewalls".
Selectively disabling, not so stupid I would think.
I like them firewalls, making me select who can send info about me and who
can not.
grauzone wrote:
Needing brand new PC hardware for using "heavy" websites is not really
an exaggeration, though. As soon as you have several instances of that
website loaded (in different browser windows, tabs, etc.), things are
_definitely_ starting to get no fun, even with an overclocked, 64 b
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
grauzone escribió:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your
web browser. So that's not a reason.
Also, Javascrip
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:12 PM, grauzone wrote:
to get a new machine? They're like $12 now.
Where can I buy 12$ computers?
lern2hyperbole.
Needing brand new PC hardware for using "heavy" websites is not really
an exaggeration, though. As soon as you have seve
Saaa wrote:
My only concern with NoScript is, enabling a site reloads all tabs
containing a script from that site. Oh, and by default, it shows some sort
of GUI animation when loading a site with blocked scripts. But you can
disable it.
As you can disable the reloading ;)
Thanks.
And going
grauzone escribió:
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
Anything which connects to the internet poses a security hole, like your
web browser. So that's not a reason.
Also, Javascript makes some stuff faste
> Some sort of multi-core 64-bit? I
> don't care if that's all that the stores are currently trying to sell,
lol
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:12 PM, grauzone wrote:
>> to get a new machine? They're like $12 now.
>
> Where can I buy 12$ computers?
>
lern2hyperbole.
> My only concern with NoScript is, enabling a site reloads all tabs
> containing a script from that site. Oh, and by default, it shows some sort
> of GUI animation when loading a site with blocked scripts. But you can
> disable it.
As you can disable the reloading ;)
>>> And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it
>>> *only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't
>>> have the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I
>>> really want them.
>>
>> Just use noscript for blocking flash
>
>
to get a new machine? They're like $12 now.
Where can I buy 12$ computers?
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jarrett Billingsley" wrote in message
> news:mailman.165.1243195228.13405.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com...
>>
>> I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow
>> Javascript interpreter_ in your browser. I ha
What browser are you *using*?
Firefox. But I often use Konqueror for "serious work" (!= entertainment,
wasting time). With Konqueror, some sites become dead slow with Java
Script enabled. Oh, and although Konqueror is a very nice browser,
scripting often causes malfunctions. That all just sho
Adblock is essential. Most ads have gotten so completely out-of-hand, I
seriously wouldn't even be using the web anymore if it weren't for Adblock.
Definitely. It's also useful for blocking other obnoxious stuff like
emoticons or avatars in those phpBB forums.
IIRC, I think NoScript does let
"Saaa" wrote in message
news:gvcb0n$2l9...@digitalmars.com...
>
>>
>> And then there's FlashBlock, which I *would* absolutely love...except it
>> *only* works with JS enabled!!! ^&$&^%^^&!!! And frankly, I just don't
>> have the time to dig into FF extension-writing and do things the way I
>>
"Jarrett Billingsley" wrote in message
news:mailman.165.1243195228.13405.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com...
>
> I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow
> Javascript interpreter_ in your browser. I have no idea what you're
> talking about with text input lag. I
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gvcb23$2lg...@digitalmars.com...
> "Saaa" wrote in message
> news:gvcac0$2k6...@digitalmars.com...
>> The tango website is the slowest website I know, so I think it is an
>> exceptionally bad example for showing js being slow as I know a lot of
>> webs
"Saaa" wrote in message
news:gvcac0$2k6...@digitalmars.com...
> The tango website is the slowest website I know, so I think it is an
> exceptionally bad example for showing js being slow as I know a lot of
> websites which use loads more of web 2.o stuff and show up in less than a
> second.
>
"BCS" wrote in message
news:a6268ff641a8cbaa84e...@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> Yes, yes, yes. This. All of it.
> [...]
>
> Anything that can be used for good can be used for ill. Yes, lots of sites
> out there are junk, but that would be true no matter what tools were
> avail
> IIRC, I think NoScript does let you do site-by-site, right? I just hope it
> plays nice with QuickJava though, (or contains QuickJava-style
It does, both.
> functionality), because trying to configure sites/pages manually would be
> a major PITA and possibly not even be worth it.
>
> And then t
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gvcaph$2kt...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Although I may often say things to the contrary, I don't actually advocate
> the outright elimination of JS or Flash world-wide (hell, I've even used
> them myself *where appropriate*).
However, I *would* like to see
>> Yes, yes, yes. This. All of it.
> [...]
>
> Anything that can be used for good can be used for ill. Yes, lots of sites
> out there are junk, but that would be true no matter what tools were
> available.
>
> The (long term) solution isn't to reject the tools but to figure out how
> to make th
> I'm starting to get the impression that you just have a _really slow
> Javascript interpreter_ in your browser. I have no idea what you're
> talking about with text input lag. I have never experienced that.
> And the Tango API opens in about 2 seconds with JS enabled for me.
>
> What browser ar
"grauzone" wrote in message
news:gvc6r3$2dm...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
>> news:gvc4kc$29b...@digitalmars.com...
>>> And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce
>>> proper design on the web, the one thing I *can*
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> To add a little though, grauzone says "You know, Win 3.11 feels faster." My
> 486 Win 3.11 machine *was* faster (not in terms of raw operations per second
> of course, but in terms of responsiveness.) My machine has a clockspeed in
> the
Hello Nick,
Yes, yes, yes. This. All of it.
[...]
Anything that can be used for good can be used for ill. Yes, lots of sites
out there are junk, but that would be true no matter what tools were available.
The (long term) solution isn't to reject the tools but to figure out how
to make them
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gvc4kc$29b...@digitalmars.com...
And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce
proper design on the web, the one thing I *can* do is just simply disable
that shit. So I do. And as you can already tell, I'm fa
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gvc4kc$29b...@digitalmars.com...
And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce
proper design on the web, the one thing I *can* do is just simply disable
that shit. So I do. And as you can already tell, I'm fa
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gvc4kc$29b...@digitalmars.com...
> And, (and here's the real clincher), since I obviously can't enforce
> proper design on the web, the one thing I *can* do is just simply disable
> that shit. So I do. And as you can already tell, I'm far from the only
>
"grauzone" wrote in message
news:gvbr5u$167...@digitalmars.com...
>> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
>
> It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
>
> When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
> default. Sometimes, some min
browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
It's unnecessary, annoying, slower, and adds security holes.
When using Firefox, I usually use NoScript to block all scripts by
default. Sometimes, some minor things don't work, and I have to enable
JS. Now it's really rare to see f
Give me a break. You guys act like it's a fucking affront to your
religion to have to use Flash or Youtube.
Sorry for complaining about the necessity to be forced to install an
annoying, crappy, utterly obnoxious plugin like Flash, that barely adds
functionality to anything, but instead makes
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "BCS" wrote in message
> news:a6268ff63c58cba9bbc96d8...@news.digitalmars.com...
>> Hello Nick,
>>
>>> what they can do is additionally provide a
>>> non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
>>> they had to h
Charles Hixson escribió:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
BCS escribió:
Hello Nick,
what they can do is additionally provide a
non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
the first place.
If they can, ye
Hello Nick,
"BCS" wrote in message
news:a6268ff63c58cba9bbc96d8...@news.digitalmars.com...
Hello Nick,
what they can do is additionally provide a
non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy
since
they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube
in
the
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
BCS escribió:
Hello Nick,
what they can do is additionally provide a
non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
the first place.
If they can, yes, but they might not have
BCS escribió:
Hello Nick,
what they can do is additionally provide a
non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
the first place.
If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file
"BCS" wrote in message
news:a6268ff63c58cba9bbc96d8...@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> what they can do is additionally provide a
>> non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
>> they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
>> the f
Hello Nick,
what they can do is additionally provide a
non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
the first place.
If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file hosting
or if
> It's difficult to imagine that that's something that anyone would actually
> *need*, but what they can do is additionally provide a non-youtube/flash
> version. Which should be really f^&*^&* easy since they had to have
> already had one in order to upload it to craptube in the first place.
A
"BCS" wrote in message
news:a6268ff63ac8cba9af2cc64...@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> Plus, supporting a shit-but-widespead option severly hinders the
>> chances of something better from getting started or getting widely
>> adopted.
>>
>
> chicken and egg. Until something better comes
Hello Nick,
Plus, supporting a shit-but-widespead option severly hinders the
chances of something better from getting started or getting widely
adopted.
chicken and egg. Until something better comes along, people who *need* to
run video in a web page right now will use youtube and flash beca
naryl wrote:
> Daniel Keep Wrote:
>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>> Daniel Keep wrote:
The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:
...
>>> 5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).
>> Then we'd just be exchanging one problem for another (arguably) worse one.
adds support for the video element. Create an easy to use GUI that
transcodes from any format into Theora and then helps you upload it.
Theora sucks. Technologically, it's at least 10 years to late. Its only
advantage is to be "free as in freedom". That's because it tries not to
make use of a
Yeah, people will continue using that crap because it works reasonably
well. Doesn't mean I have to like it. And I fear that all replacements
for Flash will suck at least as much as Flash itself does.
The real problem is that web sites are turning into programs. A web site
used to be just form
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:gv8go0$28k...@digitalmars.com...
> "Daniel Keep" wrote in message
> news:gv890t$1rj...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> Do anything other than just yell at people for using the best option
>> available to them and offer nothing in return.
>
> That's just it, it's
"Daniel Keep" wrote in message
news:gv890t$1rj...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Do anything other than just yell at people for using the best option
> available to them and offer nothing in return.
That's just it, it's far from the best option, particularly among a group of
programmers.
Daniel Keep Wrote:
> Robert Fraser wrote:
>> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>> The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:
>>> ...
>>
>> 5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).
>
> Then we'd just be exchanging one problem for another (arguably) worse one.
What about Jav
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Daniel Keep" wrote in message
> news:gv6ddk$1ko...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> Possessing a burning hatred of Flash isn't going to get everyone else to
>> stop using it. If that worked, we'd have killed off IE6 years ago.
>>
>> Either build a better system and get it in
Robert Fraser wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>> The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:
>> ...
>
> 5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).
Then we'd just be exchanging one problem for another (arguably) worse one.
On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:26:32 +0200, Saaa wrote:
>> If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
>> that instead. But I can't.
>
> Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?
Frank has an interest in having Eclipse ported, but nothing has been
started that
Ary Borenszweig schrieb:
Daniel Keep wrote:
grauzone wrote:
BCS wrote:
Reply to Ary,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor NICE!
It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's
hardcoded into a very b
Daniel Keep wrote:
The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen:
...
5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Saaa" wrote in message
news:gv6qcj$2ck...@digitalmars.com...
If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
that instead. But I can't.
Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?
I have no idea, but that does raise an interesting
"Saaa" wrote in message
news:gv6qcj$2ck...@digitalmars.com...
>
>> If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
>> that instead. But I can't.
>
> Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?
>
I have no idea, but that does raise an interesting question (mayb
"Daniel Keep" wrote in message
news:gv6ddk$1ko...@digitalmars.com...
>
> grauzone wrote:
>> Saaa wrote:
>>> "grauzone" wrote in message
>>> news:gv4p44$1jq...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
How about posting a link to somethin
> If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor, I'd use
> that instead. But I can't.
Wasn't there an effort somewhere to port eclipse to D ?
I watch mit and stanford courses on youtube.
I used to download (torrent) them but watching them on youtube just is loads
easier/faster.
grauzone wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>> Obviously the large number of people using such sites are trying to
>> prove you wrong. :P
>
> They just don't know it better. They probably think their PC isn't fast
> enough for fullscreen video playback and so on.
>
> Maybe they don't even know what's
Yes, heaven forbid Ary spends his time adding and improving features
when he should be building a new editor from the ground up.
That's not what I'm saying. First, he's free to do with his time
whatever he chooses to. Second, I think it'd be better to decouple
debugger and editor. For example,
Daniel Keep wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Saaa wrote:
"grauzone" wrote in message
news:gv4p44$1jq...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an
actual video file?
Thank you.
Isn't youtube a
Hello Daniel,
In all seriousness, I hate IDEs because they are big, slow, and waste
vast tracts of prime monitor space. But I'm willing to put up with
that for Descent's compile-time view and (hopefully soon) compile-time
debugging.
If I could get that in a super fast, light programming editor
Daniel Keep wrote:
grauzone wrote:
BCS wrote:
Reply to Ary,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor NICE!
It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's
hardcoded into a very bug GUI system.
Yes, heav
grauzone wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> Reply to Ary,
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
>>>
>>
>> The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor NICE!
>
> It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's
> hardcoded into a very bug GUI system.
Yes, hea
grauzone wrote:
> Saaa wrote:
>> "grauzone" wrote in message
>> news:gv4p44$1jq...@digitalmars.com...
>>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
>>> How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an
>>> actual video file?
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> Isn
grauzone, el 22 de mayo a las 15:41 me escribiste:
> Saaa wrote:
> >"grauzone" wrote in message
> >news:gv4p44$1jq...@digitalmars.com...
> >>Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
> >>How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual
> >>vide
It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's
hardcoded into a very bug GUI system.
I meant to write "big", not "bug". Talk about Freudian Slips!
BCS wrote:
Reply to Ary,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor NICE!
It would be very nice to have such a debugging feature. Too bad it's
hardcoded into a very bug GUI system.
Even if I spent hours configuring Eclipse fo
Saaa wrote:
"grauzone" wrote in message
news:gv4p44$1jq...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual
video file?
Thank you.
Isn't youtube a video upload site with an inbuilt
Ary Borenszweig, el 21 de mayo a las 22:22 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella escribió:
> >BCS, el 22 de mayo a las 00:01 me escribiste:
> >>Reply to Ary,
> >>
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
> >>The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor NICE!
> >That's what happ
"grauzone" wrote in message
news:gv4p44$1jq...@digitalmars.com...
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
>
> How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual
> video file?
>
> Thank you.
Isn't youtube a video upload site with an inbuilt pl
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
>
Pretty cool feature :)
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
when is the next release, pretty please? :)
Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
> grauzone escribió:
> > Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
> >
> > How about posting a link to something everyone can play? Like an actual
> > video file?
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> Awww, but that made the tauting much better. :-(
>
> ht
Leandro Lucarella escribió:
BCS, el 22 de mayo a las 00:01 me escribiste:
Reply to Ary,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtYCFVPfx4M
The clunk you just heard is my jaw bouncing on the floor NICE!
That's what happens when you have a turing complete language inside
another!
There is no wa
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
