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: 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: 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 //

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

On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 11:57:15AM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > >microsoft has a whole new broken^Wshiny development environment for you! > > From the words you've accidentally forgot to delete, I sense that you > dislike C#. Is this based on experience or on the fact that it comes > from Microso

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

> I don't know exactly how .NET is controlled, but when a definition is > publicly defined, the control only affects your ability to call the > definition with your changes a ".NET version", not your ability to make > changes. I merely need to cite MS-DOS and Win32 as a counterexample. > For exam

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

Peter da Silva wrote: PubliclyPubliclyEasily SystemDefined?Controlled? Implemented? C# and .NET Yes No No C and UNIX Yes Yes Yes I don't know exactly how .NET is controlled, but w

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

> Why isn't any system with a language (such as x86-compatible hardware, or any > operating system exposing system calls, or any editor with it's set of > commands and menus) "a part of a lock-in strategy"? When it's an open system. That is, when the interfaces and protocols are publicly defined

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

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 03:10:30PM +0100, Abigail wrote: > print sqrt(9) + 7; # Prints 10. > print sqrt (9) + 7; # Prints 4. > > # Code1 is run if %hash is non-empty. Code2 is always run. > # Code3 is always run. Code4 is run if %hash{Code3} is true. > if %hash {Code1} {Code

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

Peter da Silva wrote: Luckily, the autobahns were open systems... Not for Jews. Not until Hitler was dead. Well, if Microsoft dies, we'll be left with the open specification of .NET. About as open as POSIX and more open than Java, isn't it? In practice, it doesn't matter today, since the o

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

> From the words you've accidentally forgot to delete, I sense that you > dislike C#. Is this based on experience or on the fact that it comes from > Microsoft? You know, they say the German highways built at the time of > Hitler are still decent highways. Luckily, the autobahns were open systems

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

Aaron J. Grier wrote: visual C++? I use that one rarely, for reasons explained below. I hate the builder, but the IDE is pretty good (considering the fact it's C++). why aren't you playing^Wdeveloping in C#? 1. Most code I write runs on bare metal targets (because it should) and/or on L

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

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > {emacs,vi}+gdb is not Visual C++ (I mean the IDE with decent > definition look-up and interactive debugging, not the hateful > builder). It's not that easy to write something better than (even a > hateful) commercial product into whic

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

Abigail writes: > On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 08:30:52AM +, Smylers wrote: > > > Multiplication is supposed to be commutative, yet interchanging its > > operands can yield a different result. > > Addition is also commutative, yet '3 + 4 * 5' yields a different > result from '4 + 3 * 5'. Sure, b

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

pe...@taronga.com writes: >> It is just operator precedence, which already makes multiplication >> non-commutative if you ignore it. C also makes "f (b) * c" different >> than "f c * (b)", although its semantics are less surprising (unless, >> perhaps, c is parenthesized as well). Is that hatefu

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

> It is just operator precedence, which already makes multiplication > non-commutative if you ignore it. C also makes "f (b) * c" different > than "f c * (b)", although its semantics are less surprising (unless, > perhaps, c is parenthesized as well). Is that hateful in C? Um, "f (b) * c" in C b

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

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 08:30:52AM +, Smylers wrote: > > Yes it is! It trips people up in practice. Multiplication is supposed > to be commutative, yet interchanging its operands can yield a different > result. Addition is also commutative, yet '3 + 4 * 5' yields a different result from '4

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

Smylers writes: > Abigail writes: > >> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 05:15:15PM +, Smylers wrote: >> >> > Abigail writes: >> > >> > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 05:18:45PM +0100, Juerd wrote: >> > > >> > > > But the following set of wishes clashes heavily: >> > > > >> > > > - () can be used for gro

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

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 01:31:18PM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > > > > >>From the git documentation: > > > > > >"For example the Mozilla repository is reported to be almost 12 GiB > >when stored in SVN using the fsfs backend. The fsfs backend also > >requires over 240,000 files in one directory to

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

From the git documentation: "For example the Mozilla repository is reported to be almost 12 GiB when stored in SVN using the fsfs backend. The fsfs backend also requires over 240,000 files in one directory to record all 240,000 commits made over the 10 year project history. The exact same h

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

* Yossi Kreinin [2006-12-23 11:10]: > >They use an older version of Perforce which they've made > >custom changes to in order to support their Lovecraftian > >process > > A Lovecraftian process is an exceedingly appropriate name for > the CMMI family of processes, in particular. I think I'll > bo

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

On 12/23/06, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > > In case you didn't notice, that's not been true for rather a while. Sure, but whoever got hooked on bk can't easily switch to something else now, can they? > > And the assertion that all linux fans were into bitkeeper was wrong > too: it clearly divided th

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

In case you didn't notice, that's not been true for rather a while. Sure, but whoever got hooked on bk can't easily switch to something else now, can they? And the assertion that all linux fans were into bitkeeper was wrong too: it clearly divided the community. Probably. I didn't make

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

They use an older version of Perforce which they've made custom changes to in order to support their Lovecraftian proces A Lovecraftian process is an exceedingly appropriate name for the CMMI family of processes, in particular. I think I'll borrow it. How did they change Perforce - does it c

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

* Smylers [2006-12-23 09:35]: > I don't see pointing out hate in one as being a defence > of the other: I am quite open to them both being hateful > simultaneously! Hear, hear! Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

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

Abigail writes: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 05:15:15PM +, Smylers wrote: > > > Abigail writes: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 05:18:45PM +0100, Juerd wrote: > > > > > > > But the following set of wishes clashes heavily: > > > > > > > > - () can be used for grouping (to override precedence

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

Jonathan Stowe writes: > See also Perl::Critic Loathsome, but fortunately optional. If only there we a w...@hates-developer-cults.com... Sean

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

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 05:15:15PM +, Smylers wrote: > Abigail writes: > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 05:18:45PM +0100, Juerd wrote: > > > > > But the following set of wishes clashes heavily: > > > > > > - () can be used for grouping (to override precedence) > > > - () can be used to enclose

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

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 05:52:36PM +0100, Juerd wrote: > Abigail skribis 2006-12-22 17:34 (+0100): > > > The parens for sqrt(9) are a post-circum-fix operator in Perl6. > > A *what*? > > postcircumfix, one of the two binary operators. > > unary prefix ++foo > unary postfix

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

On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 17:34 +0100, Abigail wrote: > If you say so. I bet there's also a deeper reason - Larry doesn't seem > to be the person to make arbitrary decisions to make life more difficult > just for the sake of it. > Yeah but this is the *community* rewrite of Perl right? ... > Yep.

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

* Sean Conner [2006-12-22 21:45]: > And language family wise, C and Perl are close (compared to, > say, Perl and Erlang). Don't let looks deceive you. C and Perl are about as close as Java and Javascript. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

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

It was thus said that the Great Abigail once stated: > > > > You are right that Perl 6 is less friendly (you could say hostile) for > > people with different whitespace styles than Perl 5 was. > > Yep. Were one of the features of Perl1 to Perl5 was the fact that people > coming from different sch

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

* Juerd [2006-12-22 17:15]: > And if you really must use whitespace (for example, a newline > character), you can explicitly escape it, but only if you use > the dot-notation: > > print sqrt\ > .(9) + 7; # Prints 10. > > print sqrt\ .(9) + 7; # Prints 10. > > This syntax

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

* Yossi Kreinin [2006-12-22 15:15]: > AFAIK Microsoft projects are managed by a source control system > they won't sell, which makes me think they distribute > SourceSafe as one way to prevent competition. They use an older version of Perforce which they've made custom changes to in order to supp

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

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Juerd wrote: > > But the following set of wishes clashes heavily: > > - () can be used for grouping (to override precedence) > - () can be used to enclose subroutine arguments > - subroutines can also be used without () > > The solution is to use heuristics, that cause inconsis

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

On Dec 22, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Juerd wrote: [perl5 stuff that's a little bit hateful but actually sane for perl] Then I see this: It's nice for all those people coming from C and Java, who started to learn Perl. Um. No. The perl5 behaviour is *less hateful* for people coming from traditio

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

Abigail writes: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 05:18:45PM +0100, Juerd wrote: > > > But the following set of wishes clashes heavily: > > > > - () can be used for grouping (to override precedence) > > - () can be used to enclose subroutine arguments > > - subroutines can also be used without () > > P

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

Abigail skribis 2006-12-22 17:46 (+0100): > Ah, come on. Perl has been around for 17 years. I've seen thousands of > postings of Usenet, mailing list, and even Perlmonks. I've yet to see > *any* posting were someone was getting confused that > 'function (EXPR1) + EXPR2' > was parsed as '(functi

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

Abigail skribis 2006-12-22 17:34 (+0100): > > The parens for sqrt(9) are a post-circum-fix operator in Perl6. > A *what*? postcircumfix, one of the two binary operators. unary prefix ++foo unary postfixfoo++ unary circumfix {foo} binary infix f

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

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 05:33:12PM +0100, Juerd wrote: > Abigail skribis 2006-12-22 16:43 (+0100): > > > >print sqrt(9) + 7; # Prints 10. > > > >print sqrt (9) + 7; # Prints 4. > > The space influences precedence. > > That's a result, not the cause. > > The cause is that the space tells

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

H.Merijn Brand skribis 2006-12-22 17:29 (+0100): > > I think that's pretty usable. > Keep on dreaming. I'm not dreaming. Unlike you, I have actually already used Perl 6 quite a lot. It is usable. Personally I think Perl 6 should not be called Perl. It's not a new version of Perl 5. > It'll brea

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

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 05:18:45PM +0100, Juerd wrote: > H.Merijn Brand skribis 2006-12-22 16:03 (+0100): > > > In Perl6: > > > print sqrt(9) + 7; # Prints 10. > > > print sqrt (9) + 7; # Prints 4. > > I know something was going to change, but to make a language unusable? > > The parens

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

Peter da Silva skribis 2006-12-22 10:22 (-0600): > - subroutines can not be used without () Many languages have that. I personally like to code without. Maybe I'm influenced too much by BASIC, Perl and Ruby. -- korajn salutojn, juerd waalboer: perl hacker convoluti

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

Smylers skribis 2006-12-22 15:30 (+): > > And don't forget perl6. > There's a difference. Yossi was passing diff the -b flag, which ignores > changes in amounts of whitespace (but still sees as significant the > difference between having some whitespace and having none at all). > > The aspect

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

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:18:45 +0100, Juerd wrote: > H.Merijn Brand skribis 2006-12-22 16:03 (+0100): > > > In Perl6: > > > print sqrt(9) + 7; # Prints 10. > > > print sqrt (9) + 7; # Prints 4. > > I know something was going to change, but to make a language unusable? > > The parens for

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

Abigail skribis 2006-12-22 16:43 (+0100): > > >print sqrt(9) + 7; # Prints 10. > > >print sqrt (9) + 7; # Prints 4. > The space influences precedence. That's a result, not the cause. The cause is that the space tells Perl that () is NOT the function call parens anymore. The real source

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

On Dec 22, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Juerd wrote: Or you could write a grammar that suits your programming style better. But the following set of wishes clashes heavily: - () can be used for grouping (to override precedence) - () can be used to enclose subroutine arguments - subroutines can also be use

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

H.Merijn Brand skribis 2006-12-22 16:03 (+0100): > > In Perl6: > > print sqrt(9) + 7; # Prints 10. > > print sqrt (9) + 7; # Prints 4. > I know something was going to change, but to make a language unusable? The parens for sqrt(9) are a post-circum-fix operator in Perl6. Postcircumfix op

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

Now, you might wonder what was gained by having this monster. It enables you to leave of the parenthesis in an if statement. Perl goes from a formfree language to a language with syntactically whitespace for the benefit of making parenthesis around a conditional optional. "Before the revolution

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

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 09:16:08AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > On Dec 22, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Abigail wrote: > >In Perl6: > > > >print sqrt(9) + 7; # Prints 10. > >print sqrt (9) + 7; # Prints 4. > > Holy Mary's Abscessed Teeth. > > Is this because whitespace is significant in the pars

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

Abigail writes: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 03:27:51PM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > > > Well, I guess BitKeeper is right - whitespace matters in Makefiles, > > Python scripts and ASCII art. > > And don't forget perl6. There's a difference. Yossi was passing diff the -b flag, which ignores chang

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

On Dec 22, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Yossi Kreinin wrote: I've never seen anything like it. Sure you have. The UNIX shell works this way. But the UNIX shell doesn't pretend to be an expression-based language.

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

On Dec 22, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Abigail wrote: In Perl6: print sqrt(9) + 7; # Prints 10. print sqrt (9) + 7; # Prints 4. Holy Mary's Abscessed Teeth. Is this because whitespace is significant in the parse tree, or because sqrt( is a token? Or don't I want to know?

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

On Dec 22, 2006, at 7:57 AM, Jonathan Stowe wrote: That is understating matters somewhat. Sourcesafe is worse than, well anything really, and only marginally better than not having revision control at all. Actually that last might be open for debate. I don't know anything more about Sourcesafe,

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

On Dec 22, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Yossi Kreinin wrote: P.S. I think that people who truly hate Perl miss one point - most people behind it and using it have really nice attitude and good, practical intentions. "The road to Perl is paved with good intentions". Thank you, that's going in my .signatu

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

On Dec 22, 2006, at 7:32 AM, Abigail wrote: And don't forget perl6. (HATE! HATE! HATE! perl6 is one language I won't code in - for exactly this reason). Oh, do go on. I need the few remaining illusions I may have about Perl6 actually fixing Perl stripped away, like a bad paint job in a hurr

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

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 15:10:30 +0100, Abigail wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 03:56:22PM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > > Abigail wrote: > > > > > >>Well, I guess BitKeeper is right - whitespace matters in Makefiles, > > >>Python scripts and ASCII art. > > > > > > > > >And don't forget perl6. (HA

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

Yossi Kreinin wrote: I do think BitKeeper would end up in the gutter where it belongs if BitMover didn't make it appealing to Linux fans, exploiting the well-known fundamentalism of people believing in Un*x. For instance, my sysadmin refers to Windows as "Must Die": "This box runs Must Die

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

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 04:19:33PM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > > > >In Perl6: > > > >print sqrt(9) + 7; # Prints 10. > >print sqrt (9) + 7; # Prints 4. > > > ># > ># Code1 is run if %hash is non-empty. Code2 is always run. > ># Code3 is always run. Code4 is run if %hash{Code

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

> In Perl6: print sqrt(9) + 7; # Prints 10. print sqrt (9) + 7; # Prints 4. # # Code1 is run if %hash is non-empty. Code2 is always run. # Code3 is always run. Code4 is run if %hash{Code3} is true. # if %hash {Code1} {Code2} if %hash{Code3} {Code4} Oh, this

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

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 03:56:22PM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > Abigail wrote: > > > >>Well, I guess BitKeeper is right - whitespace matters in Makefiles, > >>Python scripts and ASCII art. > > > > > >And don't forget perl6. (HATE! HATE! HATE! perl6 is one language I won't > >code in - for exactl

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

Jonathan Stowe wrote: On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 15:27 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: SourceSafe is worse than BitKeeper, That is understating matters somewhat. Sourcesafe is worse than, well anything really, and only marginally better than not having revision control at all. Actually that last migh

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

On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 15:27 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > SourceSafe is worse than BitKeeper, That is understating matters somewhat. Sourcesafe is worse than, well anything really, and only marginally better than not having revision control at all. Actually that last might be open for debate.

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

Abigail wrote: Well, I guess BitKeeper is right - whitespace matters in Makefiles, Python scripts and ASCII art. And don't forget perl6. (HATE! HATE! HATE! perl6 is one language I won't code in - for exactly this reason). I'm not very knowledgable about Perl, but I thought Perl 6 had tho

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

On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 03:27:51PM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote: > > Well, I guess BitKeeper is right - whitespace matters in Makefiles, Python > scripts and ASCII art. And don't forget perl6. (HATE! HATE! HATE! perl6 is one language I won't code in - for exactly this reason). Abigail pgpM4PQ

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

I use a GUI program showing differences between files in order to commit the changes to a revision control system. I don't want to see diffs in whitespace. Quiz: how did I tell the program to ignore these diffs? 1. Pressed a button 2. Passed a command-line flag 3. Set an environment variable 4.