pkmays
Re:Promises guide from W3C has beautiful ECMAScript 6 programming style
on Sunday October 19, 2014 @04:22AM (#8477645)
http://domenic.me
Editor Domenic Denicola's website
Re:Stupid, Stupid xBox
on Wednesday February 13, 2013 @04:19AM (#5212170)
Developing for the console seems really harsh.
Somewhat related, an indie company managed to get a fighting game out on PSN and XBLA. It just got an update on PS3, but it can't get updated for Xbox because the patch is bigger than 4MB. [1]
Keep in mind, these are free updates that fix bugs and stability issues, not paid DLC. Even so, patching is really, really expensive. [2]
[1] http://shoryuken.com/2013/01/08/skullgirls-xbox-360-patch-de...
[2] http://kotaku.com/5884842/wait-it-costs-40000-to-patch-a-con...
Re:Windows 8 Arrives
on Thursday October 25, 2012 @05:34PM (#4699683)
Oddly, Windows 7 Pro does have DVD support out of the box.
Re:Wayland (X11 replacement) 1.0 Officially Released
on Tuesday October 23, 2012 @04:36AM (#4687115)
Wayland can eventually fill the role on Linux perhaps. X11 is built to run on many more operating systems.
This is my main issue with Wayland. Whence portability?
Re:Wayland (X11 replacement) 1.0 Officially Released
on Tuesday October 23, 2012 @12:05AM (#4686624)
Wayland isn't going to replace X11, it's going to be an alternative to X11.
Re:Python 3.3.0 released
on Saturday September 29, 2012 @10:03AM (#4589582)
Not mentioned among the major features: Windows builds have finally moved to Visual Studio 2010.
Re:Digia to pay Nokia €4 million for Qt [...]
on Friday August 10, 2012 @03:50PM (#4367902)
Glad to hear this. Digia has treated Qt very good.
Re:Gnome: Staring into the abyss
on Friday July 27, 2012 @06:33AM (#4300816)
I'm not a fan of KDE, but I do like Qt. Qt seems to suffer from kitchen sink syndrome, but the core GUI API is well designed.
If someone did for Qt what XFCE/LXDE did for GTK+, I think it could catch on.
Re:Gnome: Staring into the abyss
on Friday July 27, 2012 @06:26AM (#4300799)
Sounds about right. I think a lot of developers buy a MacBook with the intention of dual booting to Linux, but end up just sticking with OSX.
Re:C++11 in Qt 5
on Monday June 11, 2012 @03:40PM (#4096468)
Yes, Qt still uses moc. I leave it up to you to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Re:A Note on the Type (on Knuth's MetaFont)
on Friday May 25, 2012 @01:09PM (#4024437)
I found it very hard to read this. The whole time my brain kept getting distracted by how bad the fonts look.
Re:F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Coding Standard Documentation
on Sunday May 13, 2012 @06:25PM (#3968560)
He did. From http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html:
> ...I consider it a pretty good set of rules for safety critical and performance critical code. If you do embedded systems programming, you should consider it. Caveat: I had a hand in the formulation of these rules, so you could consider me biased...
Re:Wayland anti-FUD
on Friday May 11, 2012 @03:39PM (#3960952)
Whoa wait, we are really supposed to replace X with something that only works on Linux? Way to give BSD guys the middle finger.
Re:Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++
on Thursday May 10, 2012 @10:39AM (#3953723)
I'm not C++ savvy, but I know from reading Google's C++ style guide that they also disable exceptions. The guide leaves it at that and doesn't say anything more about how to deal with errors. Does anyone here know how these big Google C++ codebases handle errors instead?
Re:Dell Announces A Linux Laptop Designed For Developers
on Monday May 07, 2012 @03:54PM (#3940673)
I'm surprised they think developers would be interested in this. Having worked with Dell in IT, you couldn't pay me to use anything they put their name on. Dell have a bad reputation in both hardware and peopleware, and it's well deserved.
Re:Microsoft to C99 Developers: Use ISO C++
on Monday May 07, 2012 @03:45PM (#3940627)
There are some Good Parts to C99/C11, most of them adopted from Unix and Plan 9. Not surprisingly, most of the bad parts are all inventions.
Read the link to dmr's comment again. His argument wasn't so much that noalias was specified incorrectly, it was that the whole idea of adding any kind of alias specifier to the language is against the spirit of C. I agree, and apparently so did the C++ committee. If you want to write FORTRAN, write a FORTRAN spec. Leave C alone.
Re:Microsoft to C99 Developers: Use ISO C++
on Monday May 07, 2012 @02:12PM (#3940185)
Unlike ICC, MinGW's gcc.exe is not a drop in replacement for cl.exe. It's a separate compilation environment. The headers are different and often out of date compared to the Windows SDK. Microsoft extensions are not supported so it chokes on newer APIs like DirectX 11.
If you are a Mac or Linux weenie who just wants to port something over to Windows sure, no problem, use MinGW. But good luck getting any Visual Studio devs to rely on what is, for all intents and purposes, a second rate Win32 toolchain.
Re:Microsoft to C99 Developers: Use ISO C++
on Monday May 07, 2012 @01:46PM (#3940075)
Good for Microsoft. If they think something is standardized garbage then they shouldn't have to use it.
C99 and C11 look like mutants compared to C89. Too many bad design decisions made by a group of people who weren't involved with the initial standardization. They even did the very thing the guy who _invented_ the language explicitly told their predecessors in no uncertain terms not to do, and reintroduced noalias pointers into the language [1].
Re:Herb Sutter confirms no more support for C beyond C90 in Visual C++
on Thursday May 03, 2012 @07:29PM (#3926297)
From the Dr Dobb's link:
> The C99 standard is interesting because it was created at a time when a lot of people on the previous committee went away and did other things. And it was a smaller group that came over who were interested in a special-purpose area, and so it ended up having a lot of things that were not of general-purpose interest.
Sutter's comment seems spot on about the apparent departure of a lot of the original authors. C99 seems to have been designed by a group of people who's overriding motivation was FORTRAN envy.
Really, how many people were screaming for built-in complex types, type-generic math, or variable-length arrays? noalias even made it's way back into the language.
Take the Good Parts of C99: BCPL comments, long long, and <stdint.h>, and you've basically got MSVC's C compiler.
Good Parts of C11? Anonymous structs and unions. Plan 9 FTW.
Re:The UTF-8-Everywhere Manifesto
on Sunday April 29, 2012 @04:40PM (#3907011)
> What part of that process requires UTF-16? JavaScript doesn't require UTF-16; it just requires Unicode. You could use UTF-8 in your JavaScript implementation as well.
Actually, JavaScript _does_ require UTF-16. From the ES5.1 spec:
> A conforming implementation of this Standard shall interpret characters in conformance with the Unicode Standard, Version 3.0 or later and ISO/IEC 10646-1 with either UCS-2 or UTF-16 as the adopted encoding form, implementation level 3. If the adopted ISO/IEC 10646-1 subset is not otherwise specified, it is presumed to be the BMP subset, collection 300. If the adopted encoding form is not otherwise specified, it presumed to be the UTF-16 encoding form.
Re:The trouble with Javascript
on Friday April 27, 2012 @04:11PM (#3900829)
Thanks. Those specific complaints from the link seemed more like quality of implementation issues of typical ECMAScript editors vs Adobe's ActionScript IDE. I can live without type inference in a dynamic language, but Visual Studio and Qt Creator have spoiled me on the other features.
Re:The trouble with Javascript
on Friday April 27, 2012 @01:20PM (#3900100)
Are there really no JavaScript-capable IDEs out there that support code completion, jump to definition, re-factoring, etc? I don't see anything in the language that would preclude such features.
Re:A Forgotten Principle of Compiler Design
on Thursday April 26, 2012 @06:16AM (#3893172)
Speak of the devil.
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2012/n334...
Re:Apollo program source code
on Wednesday April 25, 2012 @09:51AM (#3889099)
I bet a lot of folks under the Iron Curtain would have loved to have had access to these documents back in the day.
Re:Adobe Officially Unveils CS6, $49/Month All-Inclusive Subscription ...
on Monday April 23, 2012 @04:22AM (#3877851)
Photoshop Elements is actually a totally different product. Someone who's very comfortable with the Photoshop workflow might not like Elements at all.
There actually was a Photoshop Light: Photoshop LE. I got a free copy of Photoshop 5.5 LE along with a Wacom tablet. It really was a stripped down Photoshop. Imagine someone had sprinkled #ifdef PHOTOSHOP_LE everywhere and then said "Ship it!"
It was nearly the perfect product for me. The only really annoying limitation was working with a single step of undo/redo. I taught me to be very deliberate with my brush strokes. :D
NASA 1981: The Bug Heard Round the World
Re:C Finally Gets A New Standard
on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @02:51PM (#3823767)
The threads.h header comes directly from the Dinkumware Compleat C library. I would have preferred a stdthread.h with more pthread.h like struct/function naming.
Re:C Finally Gets A New Standard
on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @03:49AM (#3821231)
It seems to me if ANY one group of people should be allowed to add new keywords to the user namespace, it should be the standard bearers. The whole _Keyword thing is something only a committee could love.
Re:JavaScript Trickshot: E4X
on Thursday March 22, 2012 @05:00PM (#3741957)
Reading the E4X spec, it says the XML stuff will be folded into future standards. That obviously has not come to pass. I'm guessing JSON is the reason.