Re: Eclipse

A. Pagaltzis wrote: Yeah, because it's obviously better when a + b can do two different things depending on the types of the values, resulting in things like 1 + 2 + " bottles" producing a semantically different result from "Bottles: " + 1 + 2 as in Javascript. Clearly, having

Re: Eclipse

* Tony Finch [2006-11-05 18:55]: > Of course Perl uses x to multiply strings and * to multiply > numbers. Yay for non-polymorphic operators! Even more fun in > O'Caml where integer arithmetic is + - * / and floating point > arithmetic is +. -. *. /. . Yeah, because it's obviously better when

Re: Eclipse

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Phil Pennock wrote: > > I just spent 20 minutes trying to debug some Perl I'd just written which > wasn't working, only to discover that for the first time ever I'd tried > using an 'x' as a multiplication operator for a computer. Three times. > My mind was contaminated with re

Re: Eclipse

* Phil Pennock [2006-11-05 01:10]: > ObHate: broken software which allows you to use something other > than an FQDN for the right-hand-side of a Message-Id. > "klangraum"? That's my host name. Dunno why mutt doesn't put an FQDN there, though I wonder how "klangraum.home.local" would be much bette

Re: Eclipse

On 2006-10-27 at 20:36 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > Look, a multiplication sign! > > × ← Over there! > > I dunno. It remains more work to type, even if your editor isn't > dumber than technology from the stone age of personal computing, > but I spend a lot more time poring ove

Re: Eclipse

> I think developers should be forced to occasionally delete their > dotfiles and restricted from creating new ones for a while. That > would probably beat the blank slate experience of many apps into > shape rather quickly. That way leads to applications that are only usable by the developer. Yo

Re: Eclipse

> > Whether or not it's possible to differentiate between x and whatever the > multiply symbol looks like for you and is represented by in your > character set, it's still a completely stupid idea to start mixing in > easily confused symbols into a programming language. Usability and Like 0 and

Re: Eclipse

* jrod...@hate.spamportal.net [2006-11-01 22:50]: > It's amazing how infrequently software authors care about > getting things right to start, instead of providing lots of > twiddly knobs and files to ask the software to not be stupid. Amen. I think developers should be forced to occasionally

Re: Eclipse

* jrod...@hate.spamportal.net [2006-11-02 00:50]: > Usability and readability are not going to be improved by > adding in every character that you in your particular > configuration do not have a problem differentiating. No need to attack a straw man. I don't think anyone claimed we should be imi

Re: Eclipse

On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 12:32:33AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * David Cantrell [2006-11-01 21:15]: > > Given that I'm using the default monospace font on this 'ere > > modern machine, and given that unless both the multiply sign > > and the letter x are next to each other I can't tell the > > di

Re: Eclipse

* David Cantrell [2006-11-01 21:15]: > Given that I'm using the default monospace font on this 'ere > modern machine, and given that unless both the multiply sign > and the letter x are next to each other I can't tell the > difference, you apparently need one. The monospace font I'm using ships b

Re: Eclipse

On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 20:10 +, David Cantrell wrote: On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:52:18PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * David Cantrell [2006-10-29 14:10]: > > No, that was a backslash, a three, a two, and a seven. Please > > try again. If you disagree, then consider my usual invitation > > t

Re: Eclipse

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:24:06PM -0800, Patrick Quinn-Graham wrote: > On 1-Nov-06, at 12:10 PM, David Cantrell wrote: > > >[...] > >If Unicode is so well-supported then I jolly well expect it to Just > >Work. It doesn't. > >[...] > > [...] > I have a computer that's quite capable of handling

Re: Eclipse

On 1-Nov-06, at 12:10 PM, David Cantrell wrote: Along with your chunk of random metal, I'll let you in on a secret for free. I *work* with and *use* computers. I stopped tinkering in obscure corners of desktop and server operating systems* when they ceased to be a hobby. If Unicode is so we

Re: Eclipse

On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:52:18PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * David Cantrell [2006-10-29 14:10]: > > No, that was a backslash, a three, a two, and a seven. Please > > try again. If you disagree, then consider my usual invitation > > to the Unicodistas to be extended - I'll take you seriously

Re: Eclipse

On Oct 30, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote: You wouldn't be having it switch fonts on you if you hadn't told it to pretend it was a web browser in the first place. Bah. My web browser would be lame for doing that to. Well, of course. Lameness is an inescapable part of the hatefulne

Re: Eclipse

On Oct 30, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Phil Pennock wrote: On 2006-10-30 at 12:12 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: You wouldn't be having it switch fonts on you if you hadn't told it to pretend it was a web browser in the first place. Possibly not true. I've seen both Thunderbird and Mulberry switch fonts

Re: Eclipse

On 2006-10-30 at 12:12 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > You wouldn't be having it switch fonts on you if you hadn't told it > to pretend it was a web browser in the first place. Possibly not true. I've seen both Thunderbird and Mulberry switch fonts part-way through when they've encountered unicode

Re: Eclipse

You wouldn't be having it switch fonts on you if you hadn't told it to pretend it was a web browser in the first place. Bah. My web browser would be lame for doing that to. d.

Re: Eclipse

> It's not my fault you look at the wrong one. You wouldn't be having it switch fonts on you if you hadn't told it to pretend it was a web browser in the first place. Thus demonstrating that HTML mail is hateful, no matter what software is involved.

Re: Eclipse

This is what you sent: Only part of it. I also sent: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed It's not my fault you look at the wrong one. Darrell

Re: Eclipse

This is what you sent: > -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "> style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = ... > style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = > margin-left: 0px; ">Wait, no I don't, because undoubtedly this email = > will come back t

Re: Eclipse

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:14:38 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" wrote: * H.Merijn Brand [2006-10-30 15:00]: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:31:25 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" wrote: >> * H.Merijn Brand [2006-10-30 08:35]: >>> I just did. Please flame me in Unicode, so it will be amusing >>> :) >> >> 爟! > > Hmm. Err

Re: Eclipse

* H.Merijn Brand [2006-10-30 15:05]: > It was written to generate valid unicode by generating random > diacritical marks on latin characters to test an interface that > should be able to deal with it. Ah. That is interesting. I thought it would be something like those scripts used by kiddies on I

Re: Eclipse

* H.Merijn Brand [2006-10-30 15:00]: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:31:25 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" wrote: >> * H.Merijn Brand [2006-10-30 08:35]: >>> I just did. Please flame me in Unicode, so it will be amusing >>> :) >> >> 爟! > > Hmm. Errm, blah. I meant 火. Sincerely, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Eclipse

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:40:33 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" wrote: > * H.Merijn Brand [2006-10-30 08:35]: > > The iso-10646 set covers enough utf-8 for my daily needs and > > for xtemm's and other "normal" applications, the font > > -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--14-130-75-75-c-70-iso10646-1 suits > > enou

Re: Eclipse

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:31:25 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" wrote: * H.Merijn Brand [2006-10-30 08:35]: > I just did. Please flame me in Unicode, so it will be amusing :) 爟! Hmm. character byte UTF-32 encoded as glyph name 2652 2652 00721F E7 88 9F爟 Unknown character in range

Re: Eclipse

* sabrina downard [2006-10-30 13:35]: > she's been fixing some truly stunningly stupid Outlook client > problems and doesn't want to belabor the obvious (and get the > obligatory response from A. Pagaltzis that it's too easy to > hate. Which it may be, but trust me when I say you'd still find > it

Re: Eclipse

* H.Merijn Brand [2006-10-30 08:35]: > The iso-10646 set covers enough utf-8 for my daily needs and > for xtemm's and other "normal" applications, the font > -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--14-130-75-75-c-70-iso10646-1 suits > enough to have clear and distict characters that are sizabl?e > > For doc

Re: Eclipse

* H.Merijn Brand [2006-10-30 08:35]: > I just did. Please flame me in Unicode, so it will be amusing :) 爟! Sincerely, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Eclipse

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, sabrina downard wrote: > fixing some truly stunningly stupid Outlook client problems IJLTS To: Tony. -- f.a.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ SOUTHEAST ICELAND: EAST BACKING NORTHEAST 6 TO GALE 8, INCREASING SEVERE GALE 9 OR STORM 10. RAIN THEN SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.

Re: Eclipse

resulting in vague "Access denied" errors, how I *heart* you!). I ❤ Mail.app Wait, no I don't, because undoubtedly this email will come back to me, and Mail.app will show two fonts, whereas as I type it, there is only one. So, screw it: {Good Software}=∅ Darrell

Re: Eclipse

Ťḩĕ įŝȏ-10646 ʂȇť ċǒṿȇɾṧ ëṋȯṷḡḧ ųƫḟ-8 ḟȭȓ ṃŷ ɖǟḯḻẏ ƞęèƌş ȃƞď ƒŏȑ ẍţḛɽḿ'ṧ ẚñɗ õƫħěṝ "ṇȱɾḿảɫ" âƥṕľîḉảʈĭőṉş, ẗḥë ƒȫňṫ -ɱḯṣċ-ƒȉẍèɗ-ṃḙḑíúɱ-ɽ-ňöṟɱầɭ--14-130-75-75-ĉ-70-ȉśő10646-1 ṩǖȋţş ëṋöǚǥħ țȱ ǥìṿḛ čḷęąŕ áɲḑ ḋîşţȉĉƭ čḣǟɾȁčṯëṙṩ ţħẚṯ ảřé ŝȋẓâɓŀḝ Ḟṓɼ đőčùḿêṉʈş ţɦầț ɳḕëḑ Ṷṅɨćōḑȇ, Ľǔčȋḑã Şǟṉŝ Üɳȋĉȯḍḛ ǻɳɗ

Re: Eclipse

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:42:58AM +, Earle Martin said: > Incidentally, I hate the hates-software blog-style archive because it > can't cope with Unicode. Contrast the above with: > http://rebecca.hates-software.com/2006/10/25/cec3b9f8.html Fixed in SVN http://thegestalt.org/simon/utf8test/2

Re: Eclipse

On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 10:42 +, Earle Martin wrote: > On 30/10/06, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > Ḟṓɼ đőčùḿêṉʈş ţɦầț ɳḕëḑ Ṷṅɨćōḑȇ, Ľǔčȋḑã Şǟṉŝ Üɳȋĉȯḍḛ > > ǻɳɗ Ḽṻĉḯƌẚ Ćơṅṡṑĺė ȁṙê ɠṏöḍ ĕƞȯȕĝḧ ƒôŕ ɱė. > > Best hates-software post ever! > > Incidentally, I hate the hates-software blog-style archive be

Re: Eclipse

On 30/10/06, H.Merijn Brand wrote: Ḟṓɼ đőčùḿêṉʈş ţɦầț ɳḕëḑ Ṷṅɨćōḑȇ, Ľǔčȋḑã Şǟṉŝ Üɳȋĉȯḍḛ ǻɳɗ Ḽṻĉḯƌẚ Ćơṅṡṑĺė ȁṙê ɠṏöḍ ĕƞȯȕĝḧ ƒôŕ ɱė. Best hates-software post ever! Incidentally, I hate the hates-software blog-style archive because it can't cope with Unicode. Contrast the above with: http://rebe

Re: Eclipse

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 08:29:54AM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:45:08 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > Ahahahaha. That a program knows how to do Unicode doesn't mean > > it has to *force* Unicode. The ?? of Revoluci??n fit fine in Latin-1. > > This doesn't: ???. Or o

Re: Eclipse

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:04:39 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" wrote: > * Dan Noe [2006-10-30 02:40]: > > I think the point was: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > While they support Unicode just fine they don't seem to be > > using it... not that I'm commenting on the merits of

Re: Eclipse

ystems that do handle Unicode, out of the box. Like this OS and >> email client. > > Ahahahaha. You might think that. > > Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:53:26 -0500 > From: Jarkko Hietaniemi > To: David Cantrell > CC: hates-software@siesta.unixbeard.net > Sub

Re: Eclipse

* Dan Noe [2006-10-30 02:40]: > I think the point was: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > While they support Unicode just fine they don't seem to be > using it... not that I'm commenting on the merits of using it > or not using it. He would get flamed from here to next week if

Re: Eclipse

* Peter da Silva [2006-10-29 17:20]: > >Whereas a coder like you is too hardcore for such concepts as > >"easy on the eye." That's for those who don't know what > >*really* matters. Real programmers thrive on ugliness. > > This is a real problem. > > It's hard enough to find a monospaced font th

Re: Eclipse

Ahahahaha. That a program knows how to do Unicode doesn't mean it has to *force* Unicode. The ó of Revolución fit fine in Latin-1. This doesn't: 人. Or one doesn't need to go Chinese, just Greek: αδγ. Now, my question is why Mail.app felt the need to change the font of the text that follo

Re: Eclipse

S and >> email client. > > Ahahahaha. You might think that. > > Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:53:26 -0500 > From: Jarkko Hietaniemi > To: David Cantrell > CC: hates-software@siesta.unixbeard.net > Subject: Re: Eclipse > User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20

Re: Eclipse

ly systems that do handle Unicode, out of the box. > > > Like this OS and email client. > > > > Ahahahaha. You might think that. > > > > Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:53:26 -0500 > > From: Jarkko Hietaniemi > > To: David Cantrell > > CC: hates-softwa

Re: Eclipse

> > Like this OS and email client. > > Ahahahaha. You might think that. > > Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:53:26 -0500 > From: Jarkko Hietaniemi > To: David Cantrell > CC: hates-software@siesta.unixbeard.net > Subject: Re: Eclipse > User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (

Re: Eclipse

haha. You might think that. Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:53:26 -0500 From: Jarkko Hietaniemi To: David Cantrell CC: hates-software@siesta.unixbeard.net Subject: Re: Eclipse User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Tony. -- f.a.

Re: Eclipse

Whereas a coder like you is too hardcore for such concepts as "easy on the eye." That's for those who don't know what *really* matters. Real programmers thrive on ugliness. This is a real problem. It's hard enough to find a monospaced font that (a) makes it easy to distinguish just all the sym

Re: Eclipse

On 2006-10-29 at 08:53 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > While using styli and clay pads might still be neat, let's get on > with the program and prefer machines/applications that do support > Unicode. (And Unicode 5.0 includes cuneiform, if you are feeling > nostalgic.) Wrong species. Trolls gn

Re: Eclipse

> >> × ??? Over there! > > No, that was a backslash, a three, a two, and a seven. Please try > again. If you disagree, then consider my usual invitation to the > Unicodistas to be extended - I'll take you seriously once you've Viva la Revolución! > configured all my machine

Re: Eclipse

* David Cantrell [2006-10-29 14:10]: > No, that was a backslash, a three, a two, and a seven. Please > try again. If you disagree, then consider my usual invitation > to the Unicodistas to be extended - I'll take you seriously > once you've configured all my machines and all my applications > to

Re: Eclipse

On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:36:10PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Tony Finch [2006-10-27 18:25]: > > It proposes that introductory programming languages should use > > less confusing symbols, such as U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN > > instead of * and U+2190 LEFT ARROW for assignment. Never mind > > t

Re: Eclipse

On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 05:21:54PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > I was recently reading this paper > http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/PDF/SevenDeadlySins.pdf > which has a few good points, but in one respect is seriously misguided. It > proposes that introductory programming languages shou

Re: Eclipse

On 27 Oct 2006, at 20:28, Jonathan Stowe wrote: On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 13:00 -0400, Patrick Carr wrote: And yet they didn't mention the superiority of APL. Strange, that. Do they even remember APL? Mmmm...quad backspace divide. -- Dave Hodgkinson - Music photography http://www.davehodgkin

Re: Eclipse

On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 13:00 -0400, Patrick Carr wrote: > And yet they didn't mention the superiority of APL. Strange, that. Do they even remember APL?

Re: Eclipse

* Tony Finch [2006-10-27 18:25]: > It proposes that introductory programming languages should use > less confusing symbols, such as U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN > instead of * and U+2190 LEFT ARROW for assignment. Never mind > the fact that it's a struggle to even type the things, Look, a multiplic

Re: Eclipse

On Fri, October 27, 2006 12:21 pm, Tony Finch wrote: > > I was recently reading this paper > http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/PDF/SevenDeadlySins.pdf > which has a few good points, but in one respect is seriously misguided. It > proposes that introductory programming languages should us

Re: Eclipse

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Hakim Cassimally wrote: > > this seems to afflict the Haskell community, who write books full of > very pretty "->" symbols and various other mathematical things, all of > which you *don't actually use* when writing haskell source. I was recently reading this paper http://www.

Re: Eclipse

On 25/10/06, Philip Newton wrote: On 10/25/06, Martin Ebourne wrote: > Rebecca Breu wrote: > > I hate Eclipse. I hate proportional fonts. I hate tabs. > > Sorry, did you say proportional fonts - in a code editor?? > > Whatever will satan come up with next?!!! Ligat

Re: Eclipse

On 10/25/06, Martin Ebourne wrote: Rebecca Breu wrote: > I hate Eclipse. I hate proportional fonts. I hate tabs. Sorry, did you say proportional fonts - in a code editor?? Whatever will satan come up with next?!!! Ligatures in a code editor. Because you really wanted an f-i ligature w

Re: Eclipse

Rebecca Breu wrote: I hate Eclipse. I hate proportional fonts. I hate tabs. Sorry, did you say proportional fonts - in a code editor?? Whatever will satan come up with next?!!! Yours in sheer disbelief, Martin.

Eclipse

Well, I don't like those fancy IDE's much, but sometimes I work with Eclipse. Yesterday, a funny idea popped into my mind: Using eclipse, I wanted to print my code! In Linux! So I went to the "File" menu, searched the "Print..." entry -- but the "Print..."