A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Jarkko Hietaniemi [2006-11-11 15:55]:
>> I do remember reading somewhere at the end of
>> eighties/beginning of nineties a document describing a make
>> replacement called "bake"...
>
> That's probably neither the one in Python nor the one in OCaml?
No, this was in C, Per
* Jarkko Hietaniemi [2006-11-11 15:55]:
> I do remember reading somewhere at the end of
> eighties/beginning of nineties a document describing a make
> replacement called "bake"...
That's probably neither the one in Python nor the one in OCaml?
There have probably been at least half a dozen diffe
Stephen Deken wrote:
> On 11/10/06, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>> It seems to be a universal urge: Module::Build, Sconstruct, ...
>> And yes, it is enormously hateful. Just be glad people haven't
>> (that I know of) started using Rake (gag) to build project not
>> written in Ruby.
>
> The name `rake`
On Nov 11, 2006, at 3:18 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/indirection_is_not_abstraction.html
Yes!
That "abstraction isn't implementation" rant is a great condensation of
my frustration with GUI APIs and network APIs over the years. I've been
talking
about this same di
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 10:18:27AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Claes Jakobsson [2006-11-10 22:05]:
> > Actually AWT stands for "Abstract Window Toolkit". Could this
> > be because it sucks so much and does so little that you have to
> > subclass it whether you want it or not?
>
> Is it abstrac
* Claes Jakobsson [2006-11-10 22:05]:
> Actually AWT stands for "Abstract Window Toolkit". Could this
> be because it sucks so much and does so little that you have to
> subclass it whether you want it or not?
Is it abstract, or is it *indirect*?
Indirection Is Not Abstraction
http://www
Claes Jakobsson writes:
> Actually AWT stands for "Abstract Window Toolkit".
Oh... It's abstract, so it *must* be good!
> Could this be because it sucks so much and does so little that
> you have to subclass it whether you want it or not?
Well, it reminds you that Everything Is An Object (TM).
On 10 nov 2006, at 16.40, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
David Cantrell writes:
The rot set in far far earlier, with 'awt' and 'swing'. Neither name
cries out "widget set" to me.
To be fair, both are acronyms: "Advanced Widget Toolkit" and
"Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay".
hth,
/s
Actually AWT stands
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:34:10PM -0500, Phil!Gregory wrote:
> * Sean O'Rourke [2006-11-10 07:40 -0800]:
> > To be fair, both are acronyms: "Advanced Widget Toolkit" and
> > "Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay".
>
> And "Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay" isn't a horrid name for a widget
> library?
A google
* Luke Kanies [2006-11-10 18:05]:
> Having heavily abused make in my time, I'd far prefer to abuse
> rake, and given the choice between accomplishing a given task
> in either tool, I'd take rake any day of the week, thanks.
I can vouch for that. In fact, rake might be the killer app that
gets me
* Sean O'Rourke [2006-11-10 07:40 -0800]:
> To be fair, both are acronyms: "Advanced Widget Toolkit" and
> "Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay".
And "Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay" isn't a horrid name for a widget
library?
--
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 8:30 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? Make
itself is
hateful enough, without having another incomplete and broken
version to
put up with thankyounotverymuchatallyoubastards.
Well, for the record, rake is significantly l
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 03:32:25PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
> I expect that both awt and swing have now been deprecated, as
> they're at least five minutes old and so are hopelessly uncool.
> Their replacement is probably called something obvious like
> 'doublelattemocha' or 'Brian'.
Given you
> David Cantrell writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:46PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote:
> >> This means I can't even use my Rakefile ...
> > Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make?
> It seems to be a universal urge: Module::Build, Sconstruct, ...
> And yes, it is enormously hat
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 07:40:23AM -0800, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> To be fair
Wrong list.
--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive
While researching this email, I was forced to carry out some
investigative work which unfortunately involved a bucket of
puppies and a bel
David Cantrell writes:
> The rot set in far far earlier, with 'awt' and 'swing'. Neither name
> cries out "widget set" to me.
To be fair, both are acronyms: "Advanced Widget Toolkit" and
"Simple Widgeting Is Not Gay".
hth,
/s
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 09:21:49AM -0600, Stephen Deken wrote:
> On 11/10/06, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> >And end up further into the other Great Ruby Hate of giving
> >programs "clever" names you'll never guess? Does the library
> >dealing with X have X in its name, or is it named something
> >"cute
On 10 Nov 2006, at 14:30, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:46PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote:
This means I can't even use my Rakefile ...
Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? Make
itself is
hateful enough, without having another incomplete and broken
v
On 11/10/06, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
And end up further into the other Great Ruby Hate of giving
programs "clever" names you'll never guess? Does the library
dealing with X have X in its name, or is it named something
"cute" and impossible to find, like "sediment" or "ant"?
To be fair, Ruby didn
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 03:40:42PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 11/10/06, David Cantrell wrote:
> >Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? Make itself is
> >hateful enough, without having another incomplete and broken version to
> >put up with thankyounotverymuchatallyoubastar
On 11/10/06, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
It seems to be a universal urge: Module::Build, Sconstruct, ...
And yes, it is enormously hateful. Just be glad people haven't
(that I know of) started using Rake (gag) to build project not
written in Ruby.
The name `rake` is just wrong, nomenclature-wise. I
On 11/10/06, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:46PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote:
> This means I can't even use my Rakefile ...
Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? Make itself is
hateful enough, without having another incomplete and broken version to
put up w
David Cantrell writes:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:46PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote:
>
>> This means I can't even use my Rakefile ...
>
> Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make?
It seems to be a universal urge: Module::Build, Sconstruct, ...
And yes, it is enormously hateful. J
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:12:46PM -0600, Luke Kanies wrote:
> This means I can't even use my Rakefile ...
Is that a typo, or have the Ruby crowd reinvented make? Make itself is
hateful enough, without having another incomplete and broken version to
put up with thankyounotverymuchatallyoubastard
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 02:47:14AM -0800, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
>Perhaps I have been poisoned by dpkg, but the sort order of such a
>version number seems obvious to me. I suppose it might be wrong though.
I still take the approach that if you're going to call it a "number" it
should
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 10:33:28AM +, Nik Clayton wrote:
> Luke Kanies wrote:
> >*I* don't mind. Ruby doesn't mind. But oh now, RubyGems declares that
> >I cannot have a version number that looks like that:
> >
> >Malformed version number string 0.20.0-svn
>
> Not to diminish your hate, but
demerphq wrote:
On 11/10/06, Martin Ebourne wrote:
CPAN is great as a website, and that's where it should have stayed.
The web site came AFTER.
Heck, I never liked history anyway.
But at least they're headed in the right direction then.
Cheers,
Martin.
Luke Kanies wrote:
I currently spend all my time in Ruby, but I fortunately don't have to
deal much with RubyGems. I say fortunately, because, like all software,
it's hate-worthy. I personally think it's a bit more hate-worthy than
it should be, and here's an example.
Some people run releas
On 11/10/06, Martin Ebourne wrote:
CPAN is great as a website, and that's where it should have stayed.
The web site came AFTER.
Yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 23:47 -0800, Patrick Quinn-Graham wrote:
> Uh, you're hating ruby for calling it's package management system
> "RubyGems"? That's like hating perl for CPAN or php for whatever it
> is php has. Now obviously CPAN is hate-worthy, but not for it's name,
> surely.
>
> And R
On 9-Nov-06, at 11:42 PM, Martin Ebourne wrote:
So I've not even attempted to do any ruby programming. But I have done
endless amounts of programming in a dozen other languages.
That post was meaningless gibberish to me. I find it difficult to
believe that ruby has come up with such completely
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 20:12 -0600, Luke Kanies wrote:
> I currently spend all my time in Ruby, but I fortunately don't have
> to deal much with RubyGems. I say fortunately, because, like all
> software, it's hate-worthy. I personally think it's a bit more hate-
> worthy than it should be, an
I currently spend all my time in Ruby, but I fortunately don't have
to deal much with RubyGems. I say fortunately, because, like all
software, it's hate-worthy. I personally think it's a bit more hate-
worthy than it should be, and here's an example.
Some people run released versions of my
33 matches
Mail list logo
