At 04:40 PM 2001.05.17 +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>Any idea what the going rate for a NeXT black box is these days?
Err, well, you seem to be able to get the motherboard for $40 now:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1238589018
You're on your own for the rest of the part
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 12:59:53PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > The -> to . conversion [...] will be a wonderful thing.
>
> To be honest, I never understood the point of that conversion. Is it an
> attempt to make Perl look more like VB? Or like Java? Or trying to save
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:27:32AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Delphi rules.
>
> Still not as good Interface Builder + Objective C + AppKit +
> NeXTSTEP...
Having used both, I totally disagree. YMMV of course :-)
Interface Builder is damn good but plenty of stupid shit in it (why
am I setti
Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> you see quite a few go on Yahoo .. Indys seem to be about 100 quid,
OK, that's slightly more than the shipping from Londres to Baaf...
--
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 10:13:23AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> p.s. I have never used Delphi.
scores 8/10 as a B&D language (it *is* related to Pascal :-)
scores 9/10 for does-what-you-expect
OTOH the documentation (when I used it) scored -1.
(Whereas VB3 (or was it VB4) scored - because i
On Thu, 17 May 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
> > Dave // Just got a 1995 vintage Indy :-)
>
> Indys are very nice indeed. However, I think I got a pretty good deal
> when I swapped mine for a loaded Sun SS1000e :-)
I remember paying $stupid for an indy not very long ago as part of an
online edit
David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Indys are very nice indeed. However, I think I got a pretty good deal
> when I swapped mine for a loaded Sun SS1000e :-)
Sellout!
--
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 04:40:42PM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I tried to use VB once. I kept thinking "Why isn't this as good as
> > Interface Builder is on NeXTSTEP?" Actually, I find myself thinking
> > that when I use almost any IDE...
>
> A
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tried to use VB once. I kept thinking "Why isn't this as good as
> Interface Builder is on NeXTSTEP?" Actually, I find myself thinking
> that when I use almost any IDE...
Any idea what the going rate for a NeXT black box is these days?
Dave // Just g
Now I'm not buying into the argument on either side, but it does remind
me of a lovely quote by Australian programming legend Alan Kennington:
Eiffel is some sort of avant-garde French computing
movement which believes that programming is reactionary
and oppressive. Inste
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:26:17AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> I tried to use VB once. I kept thinking "Why isn't this as good as
> Interface Builder is on NeXTSTEP?" Actually, I find myself thinking
> that when I use almost any IDE...
Heh. Same here, although if you discount Interface Builder
Paul Makepeace wrote:
> The -> to . conversion [...] will be a wonderful thing.
To be honest, I never understood the point of that conversion. Is it an
attempt to make Perl look more like VB? Or like Java? Or trying to save
keystrokes? Simplify the lexer?
The array seemed fine to me the way it
* Nathan Torkington ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Greg McCarroll writes:
> > I don't think Perl 6 can be a tremendous leap forward, not because
> > of RFC's along the lines of `Perl must stay Perl', but because
> > the next leap forward is VisualPerl which will be as much about
> > IDE as core lang
* Simon Cozens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:06:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > of RFC's along the lines of `Perl must stay Perl', but because
> > the next leap forward is VisualPerl which will be as much about
> > IDE as core language. Now lets not get hung up on t
* Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
>
> > I don't think Perl 6 can be a tremendous leap forward, not because
> > of RFC's along the lines of `Perl must stay Perl', but because
> > the next leap forward is VisualPerl which will be as much about
> >
Paul Makepeace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:06:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > And just to complete my final blasphemy, Visual Basic, may have
> > a shit language behind it, it may have performance problems,
> > it may be very limited and may force you to implem
Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Leon Brocard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Coo, coo, see the fabled perl6, remark how it looks just like perl5,
> > wonder if anything's different and if there's a point to all this ;-)
>
> Blasphemy ahead ..
>
> I don't think Perl 6 can b
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> I don't think Perl 6 can be a tremendous leap forward, not because
> of RFC's along the lines of `Perl must stay Perl', but because
> the next leap forward is VisualPerl which will be as much about
> IDE as core language. Now lets not get hung up on th
* Matthew Byng-Maddick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Hey Nat, keep up the rants, they're great reading. :)
>
could someone forward me the response it got lost in the
middle of my BT/ADSL problems last night
--
Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:06:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> And just to complete my final blasphemy, Visual Basic, may have
> a shit language behind it, it may have performance problems,
> it may be very limited and may force you to implement the guts
> as of any serious program you write a
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 04:48:41PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
[VB]
> It's a wonderful fantasy, but the only type of problem I solve that
> could fit that approach are those tedious CGI+database CRUD things.
> Everything else requires original thought and invention, and I'll chew
> my left nut
Greg McCarroll writes:
> I don't think Perl 6 can be a tremendous leap forward, not because
> of RFC's along the lines of `Perl must stay Perl', but because
> the next leap forward is VisualPerl which will be as much about
> IDE as core language. Now lets not get hung up on the IDE bit
> of that s
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:06:22PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> of RFC's along the lines of `Perl must stay Perl', but because
> the next leap forward is VisualPerl which will be as much about
> IDE as core language. Now lets not get hung up on the IDE bit
> of that statement
So, let me get thi
* Leon Brocard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Coo, coo, see the fabled perl6, remark how it looks just like perl5,
> wonder if anything's different and if there's a point to all this ;-)
Blasphemy ahead ..
I don't think Perl 6 can be a tremendous leap forward, not because
of RFC's along th
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:53:27PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Leon Brocard writes:
> > Coo, coo, see the fabled perl6, remark how it looks just like perl5,
> > wonder if anything's different and if there's a point to all this ;-)
>
> Jihad on Leon, anyone? :-)
>
> perl6 is supposed to loo
Leon Brocard writes:
> Coo, coo, see the fabled perl6, remark how it looks just like perl5,
> wonder if anything's different and if there's a point to all this ;-)
Jihad on Leon, anyone? :-)
perl6 is supposed to look a lot like perl5. If it didn't, we'd call
it Python or something like that. T
Coo, coo, see the fabled perl6, remark how it looks just like perl5,
wonder if anything's different and if there's a point to all this ;-)
- Forwarded message from Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2
To:
27 matches
Mail list logo
