Re: C#, .Net, and Mono

Sean Conner wrote: > It was thus said that the Great Yossi Kreinin once stated: >> Can I ask you again - why did Windows 3.11, which had a totally >> dysfunctional parody on the concept of "kernel", won the desktop market, >> and Unix, which was 2 decades ahead in it's development, lost that mark

Re: C#, .Net, and Mono

It was thus said that the Great Yossi Kreinin once stated: > > Can I ask you again - why did Windows 3.11, which had a totally > dysfunctional parody on the concept of "kernel", won the desktop market, > and Unix, which was 2 decades ahead in it's development, lost that market, > despite it's a

Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.

Aaron J. Grier wrote: I'm dissing on the C# environment, and the fact that microsoft chose to reinvent the IDE wheel rather than build it on something prexisting. Instead of protecting their IDE, which I don't want to do, I'll express my hate to the pre-existing things one could base IDEs on

Re: C#, .Net, and Mono

On Dec 29, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Yossi Kreinin wrote: I didn't know trees run on top of UNIX. Don't be obtuse. X11 runs on top of UNIX. "all of the above" systems that I mentioned are UNIX applications, they're not UNIX, any more than Photoshop or Excel is Windows. * When .NET is "theoretically

Re: C#, .Net, and Mono

Yossi Kreinin wrote: > Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: >> Just as sir da Silva's hate of Perl was (is) getting a bit repetitive, >> your hate of Unix is getting a bit boring, sir. Perchance we could move >> on to open new Vistas of hate, please? > > "Boring" indicates that I've crossed the Line. Just t

Re: C#, .Net, and Mono

Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: Just as sir da Silva's hate of Perl was (is) getting a bit repetitive, your hate of Unix is getting a bit boring, sir. Perchance we could move on to open new Vistas of hate, please? "Boring" indicates that I've crossed the Line. I shall strive to keep my regular or

Re: C#, .Net, and Mono

Just as sir da Silva's hate of Perl was (is) getting a bit repetitive, your hate of Unix is getting a bit boring, sir. Perchance we could move on to open new Vistas of hate, please?

Re: C#, .Net, and Mono

Yossi Kreinin wrote: > Peter da Silva wrote: >>> Sounds like a god to me. "God is not the trees. God is not sky. Etc." >> In a way, yes. These all run on top of UNIX. > > I didn't know trees run on top of UNIX. I did hear a quote from a pretty > wizardly Unix fan: "do you understand that the (Li

Re: C#, .Net, and Mono

Peter da Silva wrote: Sounds like a god to me. "God is not the trees. God is not sky. Etc." In a way, yes. These all run on top of UNIX. I didn't know trees run on top of UNIX. I did hear a quote from a pretty wizardly Unix fan: "do you understand that the (Linux) kernel is more important t

Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.

* Peter da Silva [2006-12-29 13:05]: > On Dec 29, 2006, at 5:52 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > >What does Perl 6 have to do with anything? > > It's the Windows Vista in this analogy? What analogy? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.

On Dec 29, 2006, at 5:52 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: What does Perl 6 have to do with anything? It's the Windows Vista in this analogy?

Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.

* Peter da Silva [2006-12-29 12:40]: > On Dec 28, 2006, at 9:35 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > >Just a nit: > >* Peter da Silva [2006-12-28 19:15]: > >>and the API is still under Larry Wall's control. > > >Wrong. > > Didn't we just get through this, about how Larry's pushing all > kinds of the usual

Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.

On Dec 29, 2006, at 4:37 AM, Abigail wrote: The fact that there's one source tree for Perl has several not unrelated causes: Perl is a moving target; there's no formal specification; perl is complex, there just aren't enough people who are both willing and knowledgable to do another implementati

Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.

On Dec 28, 2006, at 9:35 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: Just a nit: * Peter da Silva [2006-12-28 19:15]: and the API is still under Larry Wall's control. Wrong. Didn't we just get through this, about how Larry's pushing all kinds of the usual Larry Wall bad ideas into Perl 6?

Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.

On 12/29/06, Abigail wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 12:10:13PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > > 1. Perl is not an open system. There's only one source tree for Perl, and > the API is still under Larry Wall's control. Yes, for Perl5, there's currently one source tree. But this wasn't true in the

Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 12:10:13PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > > 1. Perl is not an open system. There's only one source tree for Perl, and > the API is still under Larry Wall's control. Yes, for Perl5, there's currently one source tree. But this wasn't true in the past (Perl on for Windows; ma

Re: Give me back my damn focus!

* Robert Rothenberg [2006-12-28 20:00]: > Ah, that reminds me of a UI hate: have the focus follow the > mouse. Extremely useful, until the app you are using shows a > popup, which disappears because you didn't immediately move > your mouse over it. Dialog windows are hateful, period. I haven't se

Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.

Just a nit: * Peter da Silva [2006-12-28 19:15]: > 1. Perl is not an open system. There's only one source tree for > Perl, Right. > and the API is still under Larry Wall's control. Wrong. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //