jfe

I compute the resized windows and columns on mouseup to imitate how the Acme text editor does resizing, but the event handler which computes the resize could very well be called on mousemove if preferred. Maybe it'd be worth adding that as a customization in the library interface.

Thanks. I'm not sure how many people have three mouse buttons but it wouldn't hurt to make the buttons respond to middle-clicks the same way they do to left-clicks.

Thanks. Which browser are you using? I noticed this issue in Firefox but thought I fixed it. I've tested it using the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox and it seemed to work.

Omnino does not implement the "right-click to load" functionality of Acme, as it's meant to be a general-purpose library. However, I have implemented this functionality on my personal website and plan to open-source this code as a separate library soon. You can see it here: https://spelunca.xyz/

what is with programmers and needing to defend a combination of syntax, semantics, and runtime? C++ is a programming language with advantages and disadvantages. end of story.

would you also criticize newton's principia mathematica because he expressed the concept of infinitesimals using geometry instead of using liebniz's or lagrange's arguably clearer notations?

K&R was written in a different time, where computing had stricter (but not really different) constraints, but it's still arguably the clearest expositions of the language around.

considering computing hasn't changed that much since K&R was written, it's unlikely your idea of good code differs much from what was done 40 years ago. for example, functional programming, which is the popular dogma today, was invented around that time.

take the good (it's not hard to find in a book like K&R), discard the (perceived) bad, and move on with your life.

hand-roll it. a 3-minute programming task doesn't warrant pulling in a graph of dependencies a la leftpad.

looks like the fox is guarding the hen-house.

i wonder if the size could be reduced by replacing the yacc code with a hand-written parser.

I used to think that being a software engineer meant you were intelligent, and worked hard to earn the title, but after working in the industry for 6 years, I decided that, large-scale software project management problems aside, industrial computing just isn't that hard relative to math and the sciences.

Once you know a dozen languages and understand the running themes of computing, it's all sort of old-hat. Ironically, as the field has been flooded with young, inexperienced devs to satisfy market demand, the titles of "software developer" or "nerd" have become social badges to indicate one's intelligence and cutting-edge-ness. We use 50-year-old operating systems and call ourselves innovators.

Maybe, like Groucho Marx, I just don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member, but I think that if you're looking to level-up intellectually, studying math and science, but especially math, is the way to do it. I was never good at math, but I've spent the past year teaching myself calculus and the struggle has been well worth the expansion in my world-view.

iirc dennis ritchie was an applied mathematician.

every framework we use -- library, language, runtime, operating system, hardware -- makes decisions that constrain what we can express.

languages like haskell, lisp, or ruby may make it easy to create new control structures that blend well with the existing syntax, but new control structures don't help if it's still annoying to write, say, very long lines of free-form text -- a problem that xml handles more gracefully than lisp. syntax makes a difference.

i think it's unlikely we'll win a several-orders-of-magnitude decrease in complexity by confining ourselves to the syntax decisions of one language.

i feel like each "new" general-purpose language project is just nipping at the boot-heels of the much bigger problem of constructing large-scale systems that can be fully understood by a few (2-3) people.

VPRI's research has shown that one important method for constructing large-scale systems that can be understood by small teams is to have a pipeline of problem-specific languages that express major portions of the system. they were able to reduce LOC for a typical OS with networking and graphics by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude.

general-purpose languages can't compete with DSLs in terms of expression, and yet we keep inventing them. i think our lack of imagination is starting to show. compilation and language design will need to become much more common-place if we expect to continue scaling up.

a tower of babel in computing is healthy, no matter how much employers want us to be easily-replaceable cogs in an IT machine.

I'm compiling a computing research publication/invention "greatest hits" to help myself and others learn what's already been done, and avoid, as Alan Kay would say, "reinventing the flat tire." Your suggestions for noteworthy publications or inventions are welcome.

so easy, any 10 year old with 30 years' experience can do it.

true tolerance tolerates the intolerant.

Do a substantial number of IRC users actually care that the current version of IRC lacks the features that IRCv3 proposes, or are we just modernizing because we want to make writing IRC bots more complicated?

The value of literate programming is proportional to the novelty of the material it documents.

You captured 18 months of personal depression in 7 lines :)