On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 10:17:16AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote:
> I completely utterly fail to understand why some young developers attach
> some sort of romance to writing code on an 80x25 screen, when all the
> haxxors my age or older waited (or slaved away) for years, even
> decades, to get some
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Sean Hamilton wrote:
> I suppose Pascal would be alright in variable width, but certainly not C. I
> tried using variable with for C a while back, and the main problem I had was
> not with spacing, but my severely defective ocular receptors were unable to
> distingush between a
Wes Peters wrote:
| On Saturday 01 March 2003 03:12 pm, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
|| The font of the program text isn't really important, as long as
|| nesting isn't horribly broken by someone who typed the wrong number
|| of spaces instead of just hitting tab.
|
| But the font of the program text *
On Saturday 01 March 2003 03:12 pm, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2003-02-28 07:52, Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wes Peters wrote:
> > > No, but your editor really ought to be able to interpret tab
> > > stops correctly at like 0.5 in increments. Code editors on the
> > > Mac have
On 2003-02-28 07:52, Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wes Peters wrote:
> > No, but your editor really ought to be able to interpret tab stops
> > correctly at like 0.5 in increments. Code editors on the Mac have
> > been doing this for years.
>
> If editors like this were more common, i
David Cuthbert wrote:
> The n characters/line issue deals more with the ability to visually
> track the line. If, for example, when you reach the end of the line you
> often find yourself accidentally reading the same line again, then the
> line is too wide.
>
> Or something to that effect. I'm
On Friday 28 February 2003 07:52, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> I blame this on people unsuited to writing software getting CS
> degrees and/or programming jobs, because they think that that's where
> the money is at. Luckily, they later find out that salary is a
> matter of merit, much more than it's
Terry Lambert wrote:
Average English word length is 5 characters; with a space, that's
6 characters. 65 characters is therefore 11 words. The Bell Labs
study which set telephone number length limits at 7 digits found
that the average person could keep between 5 and 9 items in memory
at a time. I
Wes Peters wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:57 am, Jason Andresen wrote:
> > Even if I never have to print out on a printer like that, who's to
> > say nobody else is? You will no doubt turn people away if they open
> > up your code in their favorite programming editor and all of the
> >
David Cuthbert wrote:
> Wes Peters wrote:
> > Seriously, limiting your programming for a lifetime to 80 columns
> > because you couldn't figure out how to make some grotty old dot
> > matrix printer do 8-point printing a decade ago really isn't all
> > that smart, is it?
>
> No, but I still find 8
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:57 am, Jason Andresen wrote:
> Wes Peters wrote:
>
> > Seriously, limiting your programming for a lifetime to 80 columns
> > because you couldn't figure out how to make some grotty old dot
> > matrix printer do 8-point printing a decade ago really isn't all
> > that
Wes Peters wrote:
Seriously, limiting your programming for a lifetime to 80 columns
because you couldn't figure out how to make some grotty old dot
matrix printer do 8-point printing a decade ago really isn't all
that smart, is it?
No, but I still find 80 columns to be a reasonable limit. The aver
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Jason Andresen wrote:
> Very few compilers accept code with formatting markup beyond
> ^Ls and TABs. You can't compile a Word document.
As we plunge completely off topic, there is (was) at least one literate
programming system that grokked winword.
--
jan grant, ILRT, Un
Wes Peters wrote:
e your last scan of this sector. ;^)
Seriously, limiting your programming for a lifetime to 80 columns
because you couldn't figure out how to make some grotty old dot
matrix printer do 8-point printing a decade ago really isn't all
that smart, is it?
Even if I never have to print
On Monday 24 February 2003 08:43, Jason Andresen wrote:
> Stacy Millions wrote:
> > Wes Peters wrote:
> >> Terminal? You have heard of this really cool thing called
> >> windowing software? ;^)
> >>
> >> I completely utterly fail to understand why some young developers
> >> attach some sort of ro
Stacy Millions wrote:
Wes Peters wrote:
Terminal? You have heard of this really cool thing called windowing
software? ;^)
I completely utterly fail to understand why some young developers
attach some sort of romance to writing code on an 80x25 screen, when
all the haxxors my age or older wai
Wes Peters wrote:
Terminal? You have heard of this really cool thing called windowing
software? ;^)
I completely utterly fail to understand why some young developers attach
some sort of romance to writing code on an 80x25 screen, when all the
haxxors my age or older waited (or slaved away) f
On Sunday 23 February 2003 10:17 am, Wes Peters wrote:
> On Friday 21 February 2003 04:21 am, Clemens Hermann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > what are your favourite editors for coding C? While vi on the first
> > terminal, cc on second and runs on the third is fine for very small
> > things I doubt it is t
On Friday 21 February 2003 04:21 am, Clemens Hermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what are your favourite editors for coding C? While vi on the first
> terminal, cc on second and runs on the third is fine for very small
> things I doubt it is the way people do it here.
Terminal? You have heard of this really
In a message written on Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 03:49:06PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> that people might be used to. Basically, vi and cc need just one
> terminal, no more :)
I'll insert one editor comment. While it becomes obvious to most
people who use emacs (doubly true for emacs native in X,
On 2003-02-21 15:49, Peter Pentchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:21:03PM +0100, Clemens Hermann wrote:
> > what are your favourite editors for coding C? While vi on the first
> > terminal, cc on second and runs on the third is fine for very small
> > things I doubt it is
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:21:03PM +0100, Clemens Hermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what are your favourite editors for coding C? While vi on the first
> terminal, cc on second and runs on the third is fine for very small
> things I doubt it is the way people do it here.
> I know there is a unlimited numbe
> first of all, thanks a lot for the quick and helpful answers to all!
>
> > I think the freebsd developers handbook could give you some additional
> > hints, you can read it at
> > href="http://www.de.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/index.html";>http://www.de.freebsd.org/
Am 21.02.2003 um 14:13:04 schrieb Friedemann Becker:
Hi,
first of all, thanks a lot for the quick and helpful answers to all!
> I think the freebsd developers handbook could give you some additional
> hints, you can read it at
> href="http://www.de.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developer
There are many different possibilities, more or less overloaded, more or
less sophisticated ;-)
My personal favourite is XEmacs, because it's highly keyboard-oriented
(good for 10-finger-typing or what it's called in english) and you can do
everything from it (compile and jump to the error in the
Hi,
what are your favourite editors for coding C? While vi on the first
terminal, cc on second and runs on the third is fine for very small
things I doubt it is the way people do it here.
I know there is a unlimited number of editors / ways to code but I'd be
glad to get a recommendation what is u
26 matches
Mail list logo
