From: Rebecca Breu Date: 09:41 on 25 Oct 2006 Subject: Eclipse Well, I don't like those fancy IDE's much, but sometimes I work with Eclipse. Yesterday, a funny idea popped into my mind: Using eclipse, I wanted to print my code! In Linux! So I went to the "File" menu, searched the "Print..." entry -- but the "Print..." entry was greyed out. Wondering if I had ever seen a greyed out Print entry before, I searched through the preferences in case my printer wasn't set up correctly, but there was nothing to find. I learned that printing is not implemented yet. How stupid is that? I mean, this is Eclipse version 3.x.x, not some 0.x.alpha-pre-release. And why do they add greyed out menu entries for features not yet implemented? Well, I thought I needed no Eclipse to print my files, I have a2ps. But the indentation of the so printed source code sucks because fucking Eclipse can't produce files that look nice in plain text with monospaced fonts. Bah! I hate Eclipse. I hate proportional fonts. I hate tabs. Rebecca
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 10:00 on 25 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse Rebecca Breu <rebecca@xxxxx.xx> wrote: > I hate Eclipse. I hate proportional fonts. I hate tabs. Sorry, did you say proportional fonts - in a code editor?? Whatever will satan come up with next?!!! Yours in sheer disbelief, Martin.
From: Philip Newton Date: 10:16 on 25 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On 10/25/06, Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote: > Rebecca Breu <rebecca@xxxxx.xx> wrote: > > I hate Eclipse. I hate proportional fonts. I hate tabs. > > Sorry, did you say proportional fonts - in a code editor?? > > Whatever will satan come up with next?!!! Ligatures in a code editor. Because you really wanted an f-i ligature when you wrote $file.
From: Hakim Cassimally Date: 16:59 on 27 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On 25/10/06, Philip Newton <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 10/25/06, Martin Ebourne <lists@xxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote: > > Rebecca Breu <rebecca@xxxxx.xx> wrote: > > > I hate Eclipse. I hate proportional fonts. I hate tabs. > > > > Sorry, did you say proportional fonts - in a code editor?? > > > > Whatever will satan come up with next?!!! > > Ligatures in a code editor. Because you really wanted an f-i ligature > when you wrote $file. this seems to afflict the Haskell community, who write books full of very pretty "->" symbols and various other mathematical things, all of which you *don't actually use* when writing haskell source. osfameron
From: Tony Finch Date: 17:21 on 27 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Hakim Cassimally wrote: > > this seems to afflict the Haskell community, who write books full of > very pretty "->" symbols and various other mathematical things, all of > which you *don't actually use* when writing haskell source. I was recently reading this paper http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/PDF/SevenDeadlySins.pdf which has a few good points, but in one respect is seriously misguided. It proposes that introductory programming languages should use less confusing symbols, such as U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN instead of * and U+2190 LEFT ARROW for assignment. Never mind the fact that it's a struggle to even type the things, and that it's missing an opportunity to teach the poor dears about the arbitrariness and generally bad design of programming languages. Tony.
From: Patrick Carr Date: 18:00 on 27 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Fri, October 27, 2006 12:21 pm, Tony Finch wrote: > > I was recently reading this paper > http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/PDF/SevenDeadlySins.pdf > which has a few good points, but in one respect is seriously misguided. It > proposes that introductory programming languages should use less confusing > symbols, such as U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN instead of * and U+2190 LEFT > ARROW for assignment. Never mind the fact that it's a struggle to even > type the things, and that it's missing an opportunity to teach the poor > dears about the arbitrariness and generally bad design of programming > languages. And yet they didn't mention the superiority of APL. Strange, that. Pat
From: Jonathan Stowe Date: 20:28 on 27 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 13:00 -0400, Patrick Carr wrote: > And yet they didn't mention the superiority of APL. Strange, that. Do they even remember APL?
From: Dave Hodgkinson Date: 23:15 on 27 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On 27 Oct 2006, at 20:28, Jonathan Stowe wrote: > On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 13:00 -0400, Patrick Carr wrote: > >> And yet they didn't mention the superiority of APL. Strange, that. > > Do they even remember APL? Mmmm...quad backspace divide.
From: A. Pagaltzis
Date: 19:36 on 27 Oct 2006
Subject: Re: Eclipse
* Tony Finch <dot@xxxxx.xx> [2006-10-27 18:25]:
> It proposes that introductory programming languages should use
> less confusing symbols, such as U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN
> instead of * and U+2190 LEFT ARROW for assignment. Never mind
> the fact that it's a struggle to even type the things,
Look, a multiplication sign!
× ↠Over there!
I dunno. It remains more work to type, even if your editor isn't
dumber than technology from the stone age of personal computing,
but I spend a lot more time poring over code (and if it's just
code that I wrote 5 minutes ago) then I spend typing it. As long
as there's some restraint and the matter isn't taken to APL-esque
absurdity, the argument for better operator characters isn't so
plainly stupid. It would be nice if someday using a computer
didn't mean suffering bad typography.
In fact, not even monospace fonts are necessarily sacred. They
are currently necessary if you want to align blocks of text
across multiple lines, but that could easily be achieved with
proportional fonts by employing a scheme similar to elastic
tabstops (<http://nickgravgaard.com/elastictabstops/>;). I'm not
sure this can be implemented well without knowledge of the
document format, though, so it might not be feasible in a generic
editor.
Realistically, currently, one has to accept that computers suck
and stick with monospace fonts and ASCII operators...
Regards,
From: David Cantrell Date: 13:09 on 29 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:36:10PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Tony Finch <dot@xxxxx.xx> [2006-10-27 18:25]: > > It proposes that introductory programming languages should use > > less confusing symbols, such as U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN > > instead of * and U+2190 LEFT ARROW for assignment. Never mind > > the fact that it's a struggle to even type the things, > > Look, a multiplication sign! > > × ??? Over there! No, that was a backslash, a three, a two, and a seven. Please try again. If you disagree, then consider my usual invitation to the Unicodistas to be extended - I'll take you seriously once you've configured all my machines and all my applications to display your foolishness properly. Additionally, from looking at a unicode table, that character is visually indistinguishable from the letter x. If one can not tell the difference between this ... A=x*y; and this ... A=xxy; # is that x times y, or x squared times y, or the variable xxy? then you are, to put it bluntly, fucked. > It would be nice if someday using a computer > didn't mean suffering bad typography. It doesn't right now. TeX and LaTeX have existed for ages. There is, however, a fairly fundamental difference between documents intended for a wide non-technical audience and code. With the former it is worth putting in a little effort to make it look pretty, because the hoi-polloi think that's important. For code, what matters is clarity, ease of production and ease of maintenance. KISS applies just as much to your file format as to your algorithms. > In fact, not even monospace fonts are necessarily sacred. They > are currently necessary if you want to align blocks of text > across multiple lines, but that could easily be achieved with > proportional fonts by employing a scheme similar to elastic > tabstops (<http://nickgravgaard.com/elastictabstops/>;). I'm not > sure this can be implemented well without knowledge of the > document format, though, so it might not be feasible in a generic > editor. And given that yer average programmer works with several languages, having one generic editor is a Very Good Thing.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 13:52 on 29 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-10-29 14:10]: > No, that was a backslash, a three, a two, and a seven. Please > try again. If you disagree, then consider my usual invitation > to the Unicodistas to be extended - I'll take you seriously > once you've configured all my machines and all my applications > to display your foolishness properly. Here's a nickel, get yourself some technology from this decade. The only hurdle I had to overcome was recompile a single package with*out* a non-default switch added to work around bugs in the UTF-8 support of old libraries, ironically enough. Nothing other than adding `charset=utf-8` in local lingo to a few config files was necessary beyond that. Or don't bother. Monolinguals can afford to stay blithely ignorant of any progress in the state of affairs. > Additionally, from looking at a unicode table, that character > is visually indistinguishable from the letter x. If one can > not tell the difference between this ... > > A=x*y; > > and this ... > > A=xxy; # is that x times y, or x squared times y, or the variable xxy? > > then you are, to put it bluntly, fucked. Here's a nickel, find a font that doesn't suck. > > It would be nice if someday using a computer didn't mean > > suffering bad typography. > > It doesn't right now. TeX and LaTeX have existed for ages. You are hereby cordially invited to use LaTeX as the display engine for your next GUI project. > There is, however, a fairly fundamental difference between > documents intended for a wide non-technical audience and code. > With the former it is worth putting in a little effort to make > it look pretty, because the hoi-polloi think that's important. Whereas a coder like you is too hardcore for such concepts as "easy on the eye." That's for those who don't know what *really* matters. Real programmers thrive on ugliness. > For code, what matters is clarity, ease of production and ease > of maintenance. KISS applies just as much to your file format > as to your algorithms. My editor would suddenly get harder to use if the text were more legible? What? > > In fact, not even monospace fonts are necessarily sacred. > > They are currently necessary if you want to align blocks of > > text across multiple lines, but that could easily be achieved > > with proportional fonts by employing a scheme similar to > > elastic tabstops > > (<http://nickgravgaard.com/elastictabstops/>;). I'm not sure > > this can be implemented well without knowledge of the > > document format, though, so it might not be feasible in > > a generic editor. > > And given that yer average programmer works with several > languages, having one generic editor is a Very Good Thing. When the obvious is important, it can bear to be restated. Yours truly,
From: Peter da Silva Date: 16:18 on 29 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse > Whereas a coder like you is too hardcore for such concepts as > "easy on the eye." That's for those who don't know what *really* > matters. Real programmers thrive on ugliness. This is a real problem. It's hard enough to find a monospaced font that (a) makes it easy to=20 distinguish just all the symbols in USASCII, let alone Unicode, and (b)=20= is easy on the eye. I've found several, but it's taken some searching,=20= and I'm willing to bet that none of them have all of "=CB=9F=CB=A3x=E2=85=B9= " distinct. Fonts are software, and therefore hateful.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 01:58 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-29 17:20]: > >Whereas a coder like you is too hardcore for such concepts as > >"easy on the eye." That's for those who don't know what > >*really* matters. Real programmers thrive on ugliness. > > This is a real problem. > > It's hard enough to find a monospaced font that (a) makes it > easy to distinguish just all the symbols in USASCII, let alone > Unicode, and (b) is easy on the eye. I've found several, but > it's taken some searching, I'll be the first to agree. An inordinate amount of what passes for fonts out there is a pile of trash. > and I'm willing to bet that none of them have all of "ËŸË£xâ…¹" > distinct. I use Bitstream Vera Sans Mono as my workhorse monospace font and I'm not finding a whole lot to hate about it. Here f.ex. the characters you show are all clearly distinct. The whole Vera family has much to commend it (except for Vera Serif being kinda ugly), but then, it's made by freakin' *Bitstream*, so that's not surprising, merely the exception from the rule. > Fonts are software, and therefore hateful. Absolutely. At this point I'd much rather lay down a chunk of money for a good font than for software. Sincerely,
From: David Cantrell Date: 20:10 on 01 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:52:18PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-10-29 14:10]: > > No, that was a backslash, a three, a two, and a seven. Please > > try again. If you disagree, then consider my usual invitation > > to the Unicodistas to be extended - I'll take you seriously > > once you've configured all my machines and all my applications > > to display your foolishness properly. > Here's a nickel, get yourself some technology from this decade. You say that without realising that all the machines I regularly use had their operating system either bought or downloaded within the last two years. Likewise all the software I run on them. > Or don't bother. Monolinguals can afford to stay blithely > ignorant of any progress in the state of affairs. I'm sure monoliguals can. I, however, am not one of them. As it happens, I receive and read email in six languages, two of which fit into ASCII (and only five of which fit into ISO-Latin-$n). I can only read the other four languages reliably when I'm sitting in front of a Mac, and using an inefficient GUI MUA. Consequently, I am very acutely aware of what limited progress there has been in the state of affairs. Aware, and disappointed. > > Additionally, from looking at a unicode table, [multiplication sign] > > is visually indistinguishable from the letter x. > Here's a nickel, find a font that doesn't suck. Here's a "nickel", whatever that may be (I prefer zinc, it's more useful in Scrabble), find a clue. Given that I'm using the default monospace font on this 'ere modern machine, and given that unless both the multiply sign and the letter x are next to each other I can't tell the difference, you apparently need one. Or are you going to change your mind and suggest that perhaps I shouldn't be using software from this decade after all? Along with your chunk of random metal, I'll let you in on a secret for free. I *work* with and *use* computers. I stopped tinkering in obscure corners of desktop and server operating systems* when they ceased to be a hobby. If Unicode is so well-supported then I jolly well expect it to Just Work. It doesn't. I can only assume that if it works for you, you must still be a mere hobbyist with sufficient spare time to waste. I envy you. * tinkering with hardware and control systems is far more rewarding. It makes louder bangs and a more interesting variety of smells.
From: Patrick Quinn-Graham Date: 20:24 on 01 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On 1-Nov-06, at 12:10 PM, David Cantrell wrote: > Along with your chunk of random metal, I'll let you in on a secret for > free. I *work* with and *use* computers. I stopped tinkering in > obscure corners of desktop and server operating systems* when they > ceased > to be a hobby. If Unicode is so well-supported then I jolly well > expect > it to Just Work. It doesn't. I can only assume that if it works for > you, you must still be a mere hobbyist with sufficient spare time to > waste. I envy you. I'll assume that you're being deliberately difficult with the "random metal" comments. Funnily enough, I bet most people on this list work with and use computers. However, I'm also in the camp of most of the time not wanting to waste spare time, and yet I have a computer that's quite capable of handling unicode with no apparent problems whatsoever (including "just working"). If you do not then either you're doing it deliberately to be difficult, or well... who knows. My linux box at (my last) work I used for about a year seemed to handle it perfectly well too. > * tinkering with hardware and control systems is far more rewarding. > It makes louder bangs and a more interesting variety of smells. Can't argue with that at all. ~patrick
From: jrodman Date: 21:47 on 01 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:24:06PM -0800, Patrick Quinn-Graham wrote: > On 1-Nov-06, at 12:10 PM, David Cantrell wrote: > > >[...] > >If Unicode is so well-supported then I jolly well expect it to Just > >Work. It doesn't. > >[...] > > [...] > I have a computer that's quite capable of handling unicode with no > apparent problems whatsoever (including "just working"). > [...] > My linux box at (my last) work I used for about a year seemed to > handle it perfectly well too. I suppose you were using one of the Linuxes that has a policy of providing "pleasant defaults". A view I wish I could find more than around 2% of the time in the software domain. My poison-of-choice, Debian, has a general policy of providing minimal defaults. That is the program's behavior without configuration files, in most cases anyway. (Full disclosure: I don't know if this is a real policy or just common practice on this distro, additionally I'm sure this informal policy is broken at the worst possible times.) It's harder to go as far wrong with minimal, as with sumptuous configuration, but it means the warts in the software are not papered over in the manner your Linux of choice managed with env variables that wonderfully break down in some situations. Result, my default locale is the same as that named "C". In other words, nonascii characters will never be displayed by compliant programs. I actually configured my local machine to support ISO-8859-1 many years ago--one of the reasons that Unicode does not excite me. Hooray for data migration (filenames, config file contents, TAGS on file formats stupid enough to put the metadata in custom binary formats, and so on). However, the colocated Debian mail host I use--which I installed only a year or so ago--is still set up with no locale save the default (ascii), and moreover somehow ssh or Debian conspires not to bring my locale across when I ssh, as if my terminal would become less capable of character display because ssh is involved in the datastream. I'm sure there are situations where you wouldn't want the locale to be transferred across, but getting back to those sane defaults... It's amazing how infrequently software authors care about getting things right to start, instead of providing lots of twiddly knobs and files to ask the software to not be stupid. (Speaking of which, some software on this computer does not obey $XDG_DATA_HOME, resulting in ~/.local/share/Trash/files being created despite it, in addition to ~/data/Trash/files and ~/.Trash. Please all you idiot developers, stop creating dotted directories.) Sometimes it's just too much work to cut through all the idiocy to figure out who is guilty in what amounts. -josh
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:59 on 02 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx <jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-11-01 22:50]: > It's amazing how infrequently software authors care about > getting things right to start, instead of providing lots of > twiddly knobs and files to ask the software to not be stupid. Amen. I think developers should be forced to occasionally delete their dotfiles and restricted from creating new ones for a while. That would probably beat the blank slate experience of many apps into shape rather quickly. Regards,
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 02:44 on 02 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse > I think developers should be forced to occasionally delete their > dotfiles and restricted from creating new ones for a while. That > would probably beat the blank slate experience of many apps into > shape rather quickly. That way leads to applications that are only usable by the developer. Your Jedi mind tricks won't work here. There's no royal road to non- hateful software.
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 22:05 on 01 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 20:10 +0000, David Cantrell wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:52:18PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-10-29 14:10]: > > > No, that was a backslash, a three, a two, and a seven. Please > > > try again. If you disagree, then consider my usual invitation > > > to the Unicodistas to be extended - I'll take you seriously > > > once you've configured all my machines and all my applications > > > to display your foolishness properly.It just works out of the box > > Here's a nickel, get yourself some technology from this decade. >=20 > You say that without realising that all the machines I regularly use ha= d > their operating system either bought or downloaded within the last two > years. Likewise all the software I run on them. No idea what you've been downloading or buying, but I've had no trouble with any of these multilingual posts and I've not done anything special with this Fedora Core 5 installation. I probably had to install one or more of the extra language fonts because they aren't considered default on an english language install, but certainly nothing more than that. I think that's entirely reasonable - if a whole bunch of unnecessary fonts were installed by default wasting disk space I'd be among those complaining. Oh, and the multiply and x looked entirely distinguishable here. Not that I'm advocating such use in a programming language, that would be hateful. Unicode works in pretty much any program I use on the desktop, even good old fashioned xterm. The filesystem works perfectly well too: % touch =E3=81=A2=E3=81=B2=E3=82=8F % ls -al total 28 drwxr-xr-x 2 martin martin 4096 Nov 1 21:58 ./ drwxr-xr-x 119 martin martin 12288 Nov 1 21:58 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 martin martin 0 Nov 1 21:58 =E3=81=A2=E3=81=B2=E3=82=8F %=20 That's output directly from xterm, using the default bitmap font, it looks like that too (well, assuming it worked at your end :)). The only thing I've found that's not quite there was filename completion with zsh. With menu completion it expands the filenames to their escape codes which isn't much use, but when you complete it the correct characters appear. All in all, pretty impressive, although I've not tried to see what happens for right-to-left languages... Cheers, Martin.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 23:32 on 01 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-11-01 21:15]: > Given that I'm using the default monospace font on this 'ere > modern machine, and given that unless both the multiply sign > and the letter x are next to each other I can't tell the > difference, you apparently need one. The monospace font I'm using ships by default with every current Linux distro and has for a while. I have no trouble telling the two apart, even when they're not next to each other. > Along with your chunk of random metal, I'll let you in on > a secret for free. I *work* with and *use* computers. Welcome to the club. > If Unicode is so well-supported then I jolly well expect it to > Just Work. It doesn't. I can only assume that if it works for > you, you must still be a mere hobbyist with sufficient spare > time to waste. I envy you. Tinkering was required only for a single package in my case, and then because *that* was using technology from last decade; and I did it over the course of several months because I had better things to do. Everything else? Just Worked. Regards,
From: jrodman Date: 23:44 on 01 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 12:32:33AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-11-01 21:15]: > > Given that I'm using the default monospace font on this 'ere > > modern machine, and given that unless both the multiply sign > > and the letter x are next to each other I can't tell the > > difference, you apparently need one. > > The monospace font I'm using ships by default with every current > Linux distro and has for a while. I have no trouble telling the > two apart, even when they're not next to each other. I've tried to stay out of it, but consider me a failure. Whether or not it's possible to differentiate between x and whatever the multiply symbol looks like for you and is represented by in your character set, it's still a completely stupid idea to start mixing in easily confused symbols into a programming language. Usability and readability are not going to be improved by adding in every character that you in your particular configuration do not have a problem differentiating. Maybe you didn't mean to imply this was a good idea, but that's the message I've been getting for the past some odd emails. -josh
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:50 on 02 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx <jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-11-02 00:50]: > Usability and readability are not going to be improved by > adding in every character that you in your particular > configuration do not have a problem differentiating. No need to attack a straw man. I don't think anyone claimed we should be imitating APL. Note the alternatives to carefully choosing a few characters from beyond ASCII: using long, spelled-out identifiers; or using sequences of ASCII punctuation characters. Each of these choices has the potential to make code less readable in some occasions but will be more appropriate than the other choices on other occasions; which is which would have to be decided case by case. That is what design is all about. Regards,
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi Date: 01:19 on 02 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse > > Whether or not it's possible to differentiate between x and whatever the > multiply symbol looks like for you and is represented by in your > character set, it's still a completely stupid idea to start mixing in > easily confused symbols into a programming language. Usability and Like 0 and O and o, I and l and 1 and |, ' and `, : and ;, , and ., etc.? > readability are not going to be improved by adding in every character > that you in your particular configuration do not have a problem > differentiating. > > Maybe you didn't mean to imply this was a good idea, but that's the > message I've been getting for the past some odd emails. > > -josh > >
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi Date: 13:53 on 29 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse > >> × ??? Over there! > > No, that was a backslash, a three, a two, and a seven. Please try > again. If you disagree, then consider my usual invitation to the > Unicodistas to be extended - I'll take you seriously once you've Viva la Revolución! > configured all my machines and all my applications to display your > foolishness properly. My consultations fees are very reasonable, I require caviar and champagne only three times a day, not four. While the Hatefulness derivative of the universe is at best zero, but more probably positive, one can choose. These days I choose only systems that do handle Unicode, out of the box. Like this OS and email client. > Additionally, from looking at a unicode table, that character is > visually indistinguishable from the letter x. Again, choice: in my screen × and x are different. While using styli and clay pads might still be neat, let's get on with the program and prefer machines/applications that do support Unicode. (And Unicode 5.0 includes cuneiform, if you are feeling nostalgic.) > If one can not tell the > difference between this ... > > A=x*y; > > and this ... > > A=xxy; # is that x times y, or x squared times y, or the variable xxy? > > then you are, to put it bluntly, fucked. > >> It would be nice if someday using a computer >> didn't mean suffering bad typography. > > It doesn't right now. TeX and LaTeX have existed for ages. > > There is, however, a fairly fundamental difference between documents > intended for a wide non-technical audience and code. With the former it > is worth putting in a little effort to make it look pretty, because the > hoi-polloi think that's important. For code, what matters is clarity, > ease of production and ease of maintenance. KISS applies just as much > to your file format as to your algorithms. > >> In fact, not even monospace fonts are necessarily sacred. They >> are currently necessary if you want to align blocks of text >> across multiple lines, but that could easily be achieved with >> proportional fonts by employing a scheme similar to elastic >> tabstops (<http://nickgravgaard.com/elastictabstops/>;). I'm not >> sure this can be implemented well without knowledge of the >> document format, though, so it might not be feasible in a generic >> editor. > > And given that yer average programmer works with several languages, > having one generic editor is a Very Good Thing. >
From: Phil Pennock Date: 16:08 on 29 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On 2006-10-29 at 08:53 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > While using styli and clay pads might still be neat, let's get on > with the program and prefer machines/applications that do support > Unicode. (And Unicode 5.0 includes cuneiform, if you are feeling > nostalgic.) Wrong species. Trolls gnaw marks in bones. For writing capability, Ogham would work better. It's in Unicode too and support is in many widespread fonts. For historical accuracy, runic alphabets, even if they are more tricky to incise with teeth. The U16A0-U16FF range covers that. -Phil
From: Tony Finch Date: 01:05 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > While the Hatefulness derivative of the universe is at best zero, but > more probably positive, one can choose. These days I choose only > systems that do handle Unicode, out of the box. Like this OS and > email client. Ahahahaha. You might think that. Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:53:26 -0500 From: Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@xxx.xx> To: David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> CC: hates-software@xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Eclipse User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Tony.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 01:31 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * Tony Finch <dot@xxxxx.xx> [2006-10-30 02:10]: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > While the Hatefulness derivative of the universe is at best > > zero, but more probably positive, one can choose. These days > > I choose only systems that do handle Unicode, out of the box. > > Like this OS and email client. > > Ahahahaha. You might think that. > > Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:53:26 -0500 > From: Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@xxx.xx> > To: David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> > CC: hates-software@xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx > Subject: Re: Eclipse > User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 He is correct: Thunderbird does Unicode out of the box, and so does OS X. Your point was? Sincerely,
From: Dan Noe Date: 01:38 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 02:31:29AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > > While the Hatefulness derivative of the universe is at best > > > zero, but more probably positive, one can choose. These days > > > I choose only systems that do handle Unicode, out of the box. > > > Like this OS and email client. > > > > Ahahahaha. You might think that. > > > > Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:53:26 -0500 > > From: Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@xxx.xx> > > To: David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> > > CC: hates-software@xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > Subject: Re: Eclipse > > User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909) > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > He is correct: Thunderbird does Unicode out of the box, and so > does OS X. > > Your point was? I think the point was: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 While they support Unicode just fine they don't seem to be using it... not that I'm commenting on the merits of using it or not using it. -D
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 02:04 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * Dan Noe <dpn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-30 02:40]: > I think the point was: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > While they support Unicode just fine they don't seem to be > using it... not that I'm commenting on the merits of using it > or not using it. He would get flamed from here to next week if he were sending UTF-8 mails with characters > 127 to this list. FWIW my mutt is set up so it will send US-ASCII when there are no beyond-ASCII characters in the body. Sincerely,
From: H.Merijn Brand Date: 07:31 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:04:39 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > * Dan Noe <dpn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-30 02:40]: > > I think the point was: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > While they support Unicode just fine they don't seem to be > > using it... not that I'm commenting on the merits of using it > > or not using it. > > He would get flamed from here to next week if he were sending > UTF-8 mails with characters > 127 to this list. I just did. Please flame me in Unicode, so it will be amusing :) > FWIW my mutt is set up so it will send US-ASCII when there are > no beyond-ASCII characters in the body.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 13:31 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-10-30 08:35]: > I just did. Please flame me in Unicode, so it will be amusing :) 爟! Sincerely,
From: H.Merijn Brand Date: 14:00 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:31:25 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-10-30 08:35]: > > I just did. Please flame me in Unicode, so it will be amusing :) >=20 > =E7=88=9F! Hmm. character byte UTF-32 encoded as glyph name 2652 2652 00721F E7 88 9F =E7=88=9F Unknown character in ra= nge CJK Unified Ideographs --=20 H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/) using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11, & 11.23, SuSE 10.0, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 14:14 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-10-30 15:00]: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:31:25 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: >> * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-10-30 08:35]: >>> I just did. Please flame me in Unicode, so it will be amusing >>> :) >> >> 爟! > > Hmm. Errm, blah. I meant ç«. Sincerely,
From: H.Merijn Brand Date: 14:36 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:14:38 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-10-30 15:00]: > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:31:25 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> w= rote: > >> * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-10-30 08:35]: > >>> I just did. Please flame me in Unicode, so it will be amusing > >>> :) > >> > >> =E7=88=9F! > >=20 > > Hmm. >=20 > Errm, blah. I meant =E7=81=AB. Hah, NICE! I know that character U+00706B is my surname in Chinese :) I might go use that is a sig. --=20 H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/) using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11, & 11.23, SuSE 10.0, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi Date: 01:45 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse Tony Finch wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: >> While the Hatefulness derivative of the universe is at best zero, but >> more probably positive, one can choose. These days I choose only >> systems that do handle Unicode, out of the box. Like this OS and >> email client. > > Ahahahaha. You might think that. > > Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:53:26 -0500 > From: Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@xxx.xx> > To: David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> > CC: hates-software@xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx > Subject: Re: Eclipse > User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Ahahahaha. That a program knows how to do Unicode doesn't mean it has to *force* Unicode. The ó of Revolución fit fine in Latin-1. This doesn't: 人. Or one doesn't need to go Chinese, just Greek: αδγ. > Tony.
From: Darrell Fuhriman Date: 01:58 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse > Ahahahaha. That a program knows how to do Unicode doesn't mean > it has to *force* Unicode. The =C3=B3 of Revoluci=C3=B3n fit fine in = Latin-1. > This doesn't: =E4=BA=BA. Or one doesn't need to go Chinese, just = Greek: =20 > =CE=B1=CE=B4=CE=B3. Now, my question is why Mail.app felt the need to change the font of =20= the text that followed =E4=BA=BA, but not that before it. It's = certainly =20 not that what the body of the message told it to do. Darrell
From: H.Merijn Brand Date: 07:29 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:45:08 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@xxx.xx> wrote: > Tony Finch wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > >> While the Hatefulness derivative of the universe is at best zero, but > >> more probably positive, one can choose. These days I choose only > >> systems that do handle Unicode, out of the box. Like this OS and > >> email client. > >=20 > > Ahahahaha. You might think that. > >=20 > > Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:53:26 -0500 > > From: Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@xxx.xx> > > To: David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> > > CC: hates-software@xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > Subject: Re: Eclipse > > User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909) > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 >=20 > Ahahahaha. That a program knows how to do Unicode doesn't mean > it has to *force* Unicode. The =C3=B3 of Revoluci=C3=B3n fit fine in Lat= in-1. > This doesn't: =E4=BA=BA. Or one doesn't need to go Chinese, just Greek: = =CE=B1=CE=B4=CE=B3. =C5=A4=E1=B8=A9=C4=95 =C4=AF=C5=9D=C8=8F-10646 =CA=82=C8=87=C5=A5 =C4=8B=C7= =92=E1=B9=BF=C8=87=C9=BE=E1=B9=A7 =C3=AB=E1=B9=8B=C8=AF=E1=B9=B7=E1=B8=A1= =E1=B8=A7 =C5=B3=C6=AB=E1=B8=9F-8 =E1=B8=9F=C8=AD=C8=93 =E1=B9=83=C5=B7 =C9= =96=C7=9F=E1=B8=AF=E1=B8=BB=E1=BA=8F =C6=9E=C4=99=C3=A8=C6=8C=C5=9F =C8=83=C6=9E=C4=8F =C6=92=C5=8F=C8=91 =E1=BA=8D=C5=A3=E1=B8=9B=C9=BD=E1=B8= =BF'=E1=B9=A7 =E1=BA=9A=C3=B1=C9=97 =C3=B5=C6=AB=C4=A7=C4=9B=E1=B9=9D "=E1= =B9=87=C8=B1=C9=BE=E1=B8=BF=E1=BA=A3=C9=AB" =C3=A2=C6=A5=E1=B9=95=C4=BE=C3= =AE=E1=B8=89=E1=BA=A3=CA=88=C4=AD=C5=91=E1=B9=89=C5=9F, =E1=BA=97=E1=B8=A5= =C3=AB =C6=92=C8=AB=C5=88=E1=B9=AB -=C9=B1=E1=B8=AF=E1=B9=A3=C4=8B-=C6=92=C8=89=E1=BA=8D=C3=A8=C9=97-=E1=B9=83= =E1=B8=99=E1=B8=91=C3=AD=C3=BA=C9=B1-=C9=BD-=C5=88=C3=B6=E1=B9=9F=C9=B1=E1= =BA=A7=C9=AD--14-130-75-75-=C4=89-70-=C8=89=C5=9B=C5=9110646-1 =E1=B9=A9=C7=96=C8=8B=C5=A3=C5=9F =C3=AB=E1=B9=8B=C3=B6=C7=9A=C7=A5=C4=A7 = =C8=9B=C8=B1 =C7=A5=C3=AC=E1=B9=BF=E1=B8=9B =C4=8D=E1=B8=B7=C4=99=C4=85=C5= =95 =C3=A1=C9=B2=E1=B8=91 =E1=B8=8B=C3=AE=C5=9F=C5=A3=C8=89=C4=89=C6=AD =C4= =8D=E1=B8=A3=C7=9F=C9=BE=C8=81=C4=8D=E1=B9=AF=C3=AB=E1=B9=99=E1=B9=A9 =C5= =A3=C4=A7=E1=BA=9A=E1=B9=AF =E1=BA=A3=C5=99=C3=A9 =C5=9D=C8=8B=E1=BA=93=C3= =A2=C9=93=C5=80=E1=B8=9D =E1=B8=9E=E1=B9=93=C9=BC =C4=91=C5=91=C4=8D=C3=B9=E1=B8=BF=C3=AA=E1=B9=89= =CA=88=C5=9F =C5=A3=C9=A6=E1=BA=A7=C8=9B =C9=B3=E1=B8=95=C3=AB=E1=B8=91 =E1= =B9=B6=E1=B9=85=C9=A8=C4=87=C5=8D=E1=B8=91=C8=87, =C4=BD=C7=94=C4=8D=C8=8B= =E1=B8=91=C3=A3 =C5=9E=C7=9F=E1=B9=89=C5=9D =C3=9C=C9=B3=C8=8B=C4=89=C8=AF= =E1=B8=8D=E1=B8=9B =C7=BB=C9=B3=C9=97 =E1=B8=BC=E1=B9=BB=C4=89=E1=B8=AF=C6=8C=E1=BA=9A =C4=86= =C6=A1=E1=B9=85=E1=B9=A1=E1=B9=91=C4=BA=C4=97 =C8=81=E1=B9=99=C3=AA =C9=A0= =E1=B9=8F=C3=B6=E1=B8=8D =C4=95=C6=9E=C8=AF=C8=95=C4=9D=E1=B8=A7 =C6=92=C3= =B4=C5=95 =C9=B1=C4=97. --=20 H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/) using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11, & 11.23, SuSE 10.0, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
From: jrodman Date: 07:36 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 08:29:54AM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:45:08 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@xxx.xx> wrote: > > Ahahahaha. That a program knows how to do Unicode doesn't mean > > it has to *force* Unicode. The ?? of Revoluci??n fit fine in Latin-1. > > This doesn't: ???. Or one doesn't need to go Chinese, just Greek: ??????. > > ??????? ??????-10646 ?????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ???????-8 ??????? ????? ????????????? ?????????? > ?????? ?????? ?????????????'??? ??????? ??????????? "???????????????" ????????????????????????????, ???????? ????????? > -??????????-???????????-???????????????-??-??????????????--14-130-75-75-??-70-??????10646-1 > ??????????? ????????????? ???? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ??????????????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????????????? > > ???????? ???????????????????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????????????, ????????????? ????????? ???????????????? > ?????? ???????????????? ????????????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ????. Wow, it's like reading japanese web pages in the 90s all over again. See also: it's all greek to me. -josh
From: Earle Martin Date: 10:42 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse T24gMzAvMTAvMDYsIEguTWVyaWpuIEJyYW5kIDxoLm0uYnJhbmRAeHM0YWxsLm5sPiB3cm90ZToK PiDhuJ7huZPJvCDEkcWRxI3DueG4v8Oq4bmJyojFnyDFo8mm4bqnyJsgybPhuJXDq+G4kSDhubbh uYXJqMSHxY3huJHIhywgxL3HlMSNyIvhuJHDoyDFnsef4bmJxZ0gw5zJs8iLxInIr+G4jeG4mwo+ IMe7ybPJlyDhuLzhubvEieG4r8aM4bqaIMSGxqHhuYXhuaHhuZHEusSXIMiB4bmZw6ogyaDhuY/D tuG4jSDElcaeyK/IlcSd4binIMaSw7TFlSDJscSXLgoKQmVzdCBoYXRlcy1zb2Z0d2FyZSBwb3N0 IGV2ZXIhCgpJbmNpZGVudGFsbHksIEkgaGF0ZSB0aGUgaGF0ZXMtc29mdHdhcmUgYmxvZy1zdHls ZSBhcmNoaXZlIGJlY2F1c2UgaXQKY2FuJ3QgY29wZSB3aXRoIFVuaWNvZGUuIENvbnRyYXN0IHRo ZSBhYm92ZSB3aXRoOgpodHRwOi8vcmViZWNjYS5oYXRlcy1zb2Z0d2FyZS5jb20vMjAwNi8xMC8y NS9jZWMzYjlmOC5odG1sCgotLSAKRWFybGUgTWFydGluCiAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9kb3du bG9kZS5vcmcvCmh0dHA6Ly9wdXJsLm9yZy9uZXQvZWFybGVtYXJ0aW4vCg==
From: Jonathan Stowe Date: 11:25 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse T24gTW9uLCAyMDA2LTEwLTMwIGF0IDEwOjQyICswMDAwLCBFYXJsZSBNYXJ0aW4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ IE9uIDMwLzEwLzA2LCBILk1lcmlqbiBCcmFuZCA8aC5tLmJyYW5kQHhzNGFsbC5ubD4gd3JvdGU6 DQo+ID4g4bie4bmTybwgxJHFkcSNw7nhuL/DquG5icqIxZ8gxaPJpuG6p8ibIMmz4biVw6vhuJEg 4bm24bmFyajEh8WN4biRyIcsIMS9x5TEjciL4biRw6MgxZ7Hn+G5icWdIMOcybPIi8SJyK/huI3h uJsNCj4gPiDHu8mzyZcg4bi84bm7xInhuK/GjOG6miDEhsah4bmF4bmh4bmRxLrElyDIgeG5mcOq IMmg4bmPw7bhuI0gxJXGnsivyJXEneG4pyDGksO0xZUgybHEly4NCj4gDQo+IEJlc3QgaGF0ZXMt c29mdHdhcmUgcG9zdCBldmVyIQ0KPiANCj4gSW5jaWRlbnRhbGx5LCBJIGhhdGUgdGhlIGhhdGVz LXNvZnR3YXJlIGJsb2ctc3R5bGUgYXJjaGl2ZSBiZWNhdXNlIGl0DQo+IGNhbid0IGNvcGUgd2l0 aCBVbmljb2RlLiBDb250cmFzdCB0aGUgYWJvdmUgd2l0aDoNCj4gaHR0cDovL3JlYmVjY2EuaGF0 ZXMtc29mdHdhcmUuY29tLzIwMDYvMTAvMjUvY2VjM2I5ZjguaHRtbA0KPiANCg0KQWN0dWFsbHkg SSB0aGluayBpdCBjYW4ndCBoYW5kbGUgZGlmZmVyZW50IENvbnRlbnQtVHJhbnNmZXItRW5jb2Rp bmcgLQ0KeW91ciBtZXNzYWdlIHNob3dzIHVwIGFzIHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBiYXNlNjQuDQoNCi9K XCAgDQo=
From: Simon Wistow Date: 12:21 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:42:58AM +0000, Earle Martin said: > Incidentally, I hate the hates-software blog-style archive because it > can't cope with Unicode. Contrast the above with: > http://rebecca.hates-software.com/2006/10/25/cec3b9f8.html Fixed in SVN http://thegestalt.org/simon/utf8test/2006/10/30/1e56bc9b.html
From: sabrina downard Date: 12:34 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse PiDFpOG4qcSVIMSvxZ3Ijy0xMDY0NiDKgsiHxaUgxIvHkuG5v8iHyb7huacgw6vhuYvIr+G5t+G4 oeG4pyDFs8ar4bifLTgg4bifyK3IkyDhuYPFtyDJlsef4biv4bi74bqPIMaexJnDqMaMxZ8KPiDI g8aexI8gxpLFj8iRIOG6jcWj4bibyb3huL8n4bmnIOG6msOxyZcgw7XGq8SnxJvhuZ0gIuG5h8ix yb7huL/huqPJqyIgw6LGpeG5lcS+w67huInhuqPKiMStxZHhuYnFnywg4bqX4bilw6sgxpLIq8WI 4bmrCj4gLcmx4biv4bmjxIstxpLIieG6jcOoyZct4bmD4biZ4biRw63DusmxLcm9LcWIw7bhuZ/J seG6p8mtLS0xNC0xMzAtNzUtNzUtxIktNzAtyInFm8WRMTA2NDYtMQo+IOG5qceWyIvFo8WfIMOr 4bmLw7bHmselxKcgyJvIsSDHpcOs4bm/4bibIMSN4bi3xJnEhcWVIMOhybLhuJEg4biLw67Fn8Wj yInEicatIMSN4bijx5/JvsiBxI3hua/Dq+G5meG5qSDFo8Sn4bqa4bmvIOG6o8WZw6kgxZ3Ii+G6 k8OiyZPFgOG4nQo+Cj4g4bie4bmTybwgxJHFkcSNw7nhuL/DquG5icqIxZ8gxaPJpuG6p8ibIMmz 4biVw6vhuJEg4bm24bmFyajEh8WN4biRyIcsIMS9x5TEjciL4biRw6MgxZ7Hn+G5icWdIMOcybPI i8SJyK/huI3huJsKPiDHu8mzyZcg4bi84bm7xInhuK/GjOG6miDEhsah4bmF4bmh4bmRxLrElyDI geG5mcOqIMmg4bmPw7bhuI0gxJXGnsivyJXEneG4pyDGksO0xZUgybHEly4KCkNocmlzdCwgbWFu LCBpdCdzIE1vbmRheSBtb3JuaW5nIHNpeCBBTSwgYW5kIEkgaGF2ZW4ndCBldmVuIG1hZGUgYSBw b3QKb2YgY29mZmVlIHlldDsgSSBjYW4ndCBhZmZvcmQgdG8gd2FzdGUgdGhlIHN0b3JlLWJvdWdo dCBzdHVmZiBJIGRvCmhhdmUgbGF1Z2hpbmcgb250byB0aGUga2V5Ym9hcmQuICBEb24ndCBkbyB0 aGlzIHRvIG1lLgoKLS1zLiwgd2hvIGhhcyBiZWVuIHVudXN1YWxseSBzaWxlbnQgb24gdGhlIHNv ZnR3YXJlLWhhdGluZyBmcm9udApsYXRlbHkgYnV0IG9ubHkgYmVjYXVzZSBzaGUncyBiZWVuIGZp eGluZyBzb21lIHRydWx5IHN0dW5uaW5nbHkgc3R1cGlkCk91dGxvb2sgY2xpZW50IHByb2JsZW1z IGFuZCBkb2Vzbid0IHdhbnQgdG8gYmVsYWJvciB0aGUgb2J2aW91cyAoYW5kCmdldCB0aGUgb2Js aWdhdG9yeSByZXNwb25zZSBmcm9tIEEuIFBhZ2FsdHppcyB0aGF0IGl0J3MgdG9vIGVhc3kgdG8K aGF0ZS4gIFdoaWNoIGl0IG1heSBiZSwgYnV0IHRydXN0IG1lIHdoZW4gSSBzYXkgeW91J2Qgc3Rp bGwgZmluZCBpdCBpbgp5b3VyIGhlYXJ0IGlmIHlvdSBoYWQgdG8uICBPaCwgdHdvLWdpZyAiZm9s ZGVyIiBmaWxlIHNpemUgbGltaXRhdGlvbnMKcmVzdWx0aW5nIGluIHZhZ3VlICJBY2Nlc3MgZGVu aWVkIiBlcnJvcnMsIGhvdyBJICpoZWFydCogeW91ISkuCg==
From: Darrell Fuhriman
Date: 12:59 on 30 Oct 2006
Subject: Re: Eclipse
--Apple-Mail-1--777598795
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
> resulting in vague "Access denied" errors, how I *heart* you!).
>
I =E2=9D=A4 Mail.app
Wait, no I don't, because undoubtedly this email will come back to =20
me, and Mail.app will show two fonts, whereas as I type it, there is =20
only one.
So, screw it: {Good Software}=3D=E2=88=85
Darrell
=20=
--Apple-Mail-1--777598795
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=UTF-8
<HTML><BODY style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; =
-khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; ">resulting in vague "Access denied" errors, how I =
*heart* you!).</DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; =
margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal =
normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; =
min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; =
margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I <FONT =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Zapf Dingbats">=E2=9D=A4 =
</FONT>Mail.app</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal =
12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; ">Wait, no I don't, because undoubtedly this email =
will come back to me, and Mail.app will show two fonts, whereas as I =
type it, there is only one.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; =
margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal =
normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; ">So, screw it: {Good Software}=3D<FONT =
class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Hiragino Kaku Gothic =
Pro">=E2=88=85</FONT></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: =
0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal =
12px/normal Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro; min-height: 18px; "><BR></DIV><DIV =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; "><FONT class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Hiragino =
Kaku Gothic Pro">Darrell</FONT></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; =
margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal =
normal normal 12px/normal Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro; min-height: 18px; =
"><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal =
12px/normal Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro; min-height: 18px; =
">=C2=A0</DIV></BODY></HTML>=
--Apple-Mail-1--777598795--
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 17:25 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse This is what you sent: > <HTML><BODY style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; = > -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = > style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = ... > style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = > margin-left: 0px; ">Wait, no I don't, because undoubtedly this email = > will come back to me, and Mail.app will show two fonts, whereas as I = > type it, there is only one.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = > margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal = ... Please to tell Mail.app to use plain text only.
From: Darrell Fuhriman
Date: 18:07 on 30 Oct 2006
Subject: Re: Eclipse
> This is what you sent:
>
Only part of it.
I also sent:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
It's not my fault you look at the wrong one.
Darrell
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 18:12 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse > It's not my fault you look at the wrong one. You wouldn't be having it switch fonts on you if you hadn't told it to pretend it was a web browser in the first place. Thus demonstrating that HTML mail is hateful, no matter what software is involved.
From: Darrell Fuhriman Date: 22:35 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse > You wouldn't be having it switch fonts on you if you hadn't told it > to pretend it was a web browser in the first place. Bah. My web browser would be lame for doing that to. d.
From: Peter da Silva Date: 01:15 on 31 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Oct 30, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote: >> You wouldn't be having it switch fonts on you if you hadn't told it >> to pretend it was a web browser in the first place. > Bah. My web browser would be lame for doing that to. Well, of course. Lameness is an inescapable part of the hatefulness of web browsers. Which is why having anything (anything at all) try and be a web browser is hateful.
From: Phil Pennock Date: 23:07 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On 2006-10-30 at 12:12 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > You wouldn't be having it switch fonts on you if you hadn't told it > to pretend it was a web browser in the first place. Possibly not true. I've seen both Thunderbird and Mulberry switch fonts part-way through when they've encountered unicode code-points which sent them searching for a font which has an appropriate glyph. Switching back again after the relevant run of text seems unpopular with MUA authors. And I've very certain that this was "text/plain; charset=UTF-8". -Phil
From: Peter da Silva Date: 01:17 on 31 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Oct 30, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2006-10-30 at 12:12 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: >> You wouldn't be having it switch fonts on you if you hadn't told it >> to pretend it was a web browser in the first place. > Possibly not true. I've seen both Thunderbird and Mulberry switch > fonts > part-way through when they've encountered unicode code-points which > sent > them searching for a font which has an appropriate glyph. I don't know about Mulberry but isn't Thunderbird part of the Mozilla suite, and thus imbued with web-browser hatefulness by definition?
From: Tony Finch Date: 13:27 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, sabrina downard wrote: > fixing some truly stunningly stupid Outlook client problems IJLTS To: <Undisclosed-recipients:;> Tony.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 13:43 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * sabrina downard <viv@xxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-10-30 13:35]: > she's been fixing some truly stunningly stupid Outlook client > problems and doesn't want to belabor the obvious (and get the > obligatory response from A. Pagaltzis that it's too easy to > hate. Which it may be, but trust me when I say you'd still find > it in your heart if you had to. <3 Or, as the case might be, â¤. :-) Hate away. Sincerely,
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 13:40 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-10-30 08:35]: > The iso-10646 set covers enough utf-8 for my daily needs and > for xtemm's and other "normal" applications, the font > -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--14-130-75-75-c-70-iso10646-1 suits > enough to have clear and distict characters that are sizabl?e > > For documents that need Unicode, Lucida Sans Unicode and Lucida > Console are good enough for me. Thank goodness for transliterators... :-) I'm not sure what would be "sadder": if you did this manually, or if you have code on hand to do that. :-) Sincerely,
From: H.Merijn Brand Date: 14:04 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:40:33 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-10-30 08:35]: > > The iso-10646 set covers enough utf-8 for my daily needs and > > for xtemm's and other "normal" applications, the font > > -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--14-130-75-75-c-70-iso10646-1 suits > > enough to have clear and distict characters that are sizabl?e > > > > For documents that need Unicode, Lucida Sans Unicode and Lucida > > Console are good enough for me. > > Thank goodness for transliterators... :-) I'm not sure what would > be "sadder": if you did this manually, or if you have code on > hand to do that. :-) It is the latter, and using it here is just some side effect fun. It was written to generate valid unicode by generating random diacritical marks on latin characters to test an interface that should be able to deal with it. Maybe I'm sick. I prefer to be sick like this rather than to be bound to be forbidden to think out of the box most SW writers seem to be confined by.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 14:18 on 30 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * H.Merijn Brand <h.m.brand@xxxxxx.xx> [2006-10-30 15:05]: > It was written to generate valid unicode by generating random > diacritical marks on latin characters to test an interface that > should be able to deal with it. Ah. That is interesting. I thought it would be something like those scripts used by kiddies on IRC to randomly convert characters to k3wl lookalikes. > Maybe I'm sick. I prefer to be sick like this rather than to be > bound to be forbidden to think out of the box most SW writers > seem to be confined by. *rolleyes* Sincerely,
From: Phil Pennock Date: 00:06 on 05 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On 2006-10-27 at 20:36 +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > Look, a multiplication sign! > > × ↠Over there! > > I dunno. It remains more work to type, even if your editor isn't > dumber than technology from the stone age of personal computing, > but I spend a lot more time poring over code (and if it's just > code that I wrote 5 minutes ago) then I spend typing it. As long > as there's some restraint and the matter isn't taken to APL-esque > absurdity, the argument for better operator characters isn't so > plainly stupid. It would be nice if someday using a computer > didn't mean suffering bad typography. You bastard. I just spent 20 minutes trying to debug some Perl I'd just written which wasn't working, only to discover that for the first time ever I'd tried using an 'x' as a multiplication operator for a computer. Three times. My mind was contaminated with recollections of Real Math. Gaaaah! ObHate: broken software which allows you to use something other than an FQDN for the right-hand-side of a Message-Id. "klangraum"?
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 05:45 on 05 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse * Phil Pennock <phil.pennock@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-11-05 01:10]: > ObHate: broken software which allows you to use something other > than an FQDN for the right-hand-side of a Message-Id. > "klangraum"? That's my host name. Dunno why mutt doesn't put an FQDN there, though I wonder how "klangraum.home.local" would be much better. Regards,
From: Tony Finch Date: 17:54 on 05 Nov 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Phil Pennock wrote: > > I just spent 20 minutes trying to debug some Perl I'd just written which > wasn't working, only to discover that for the first time ever I'd tried > using an 'x' as a multiplication operator for a computer. Three times. > My mind was contaminated with recollections of Real Math. Of course Perl uses x to multiply strings and * to multiply numbers. Yay for non-polymorphic operators! Even more fun in O'Caml where integer arithmetic is + - * / and floating point arithmetic is +. -. *. /. . Tony.
From: A. Pagaltzis
Date: 19:17 on 05 Nov 2006
Subject: Re: Eclipse
* Tony Finch <dot@xxxxx.xx> [2006-11-05 18:55]:
> Of course Perl uses x to multiply strings and * to multiply
> numbers. Yay for non-polymorphic operators! Even more fun in
> O'Caml where integer arithmetic is + - * / and floating point
> arithmetic is +. -. *. /. .
Yeah, because it's obviously better when
a + b
can do two different things depending on the types of the values,
resulting in things like
1 + 2 + " bottles"
producing a semantically different result from
"Bottles: " + 1 + 2
as in Javascript. Clearly, having to write
"" + a + b
is better than having to write
a . b
Regards,
From: Yossi Kreinin
Date: 19:42 on 07 Nov 2006
Subject: Re: Eclipse
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> Yeah, because it's obviously better when
>
> a + b
>
> can do two different things depending on the types of the values,
> resulting in things like
>
> 1 + 2 + " bottles"
>
> producing a semantically different result from
>
> "Bottles: " + 1 + 2
>
> as in Javascript. Clearly, having to write
>
> "" + a + b
>
> is better than having to write
>
> a . b
>
The problem with brain-crippled features built into a programming language is
that there's a finite amount of these, and eventually you run out of them. To
solve this problem, C++ comes with powerful facilities enabling an arbitrary
amount of user-defined brain-crippled features.
For instance, boost.org (an organization dedicated to boosting C++'s
brain-crippled features) came up with the following piece of work:
//this prints all elements of v, as expected by people who can actually expect
anything from this kind of shit:
for_each(v.begin(), v.end(), cout << _1 << endl);
//but this prints "elem: " only before the FIRST listed element, since the
operator overloading from hell done in the global object `_1' can't affect the
evaluation of `cout << elem: "'
for_each(v.begin(), v.end(), cout << "elem: " << _1 << endl));
Of course, none of the advanced overloading, conversion and context-sensitive
code fuck-up techniques was used for the prosaic task of making the following
code using the "standard" C++ string and file types compile:
void print(string name)
{
ofstream file(name);
file << "If c_str means 'C string', why should I say c_str() to pass a C++
string to a C++ file constructor" << endl;
file << "Don't get me started about namespace std" << endl;
}
-- Yossi
From: David Cantrell Date: 12:40 on 29 Oct 2006 Subject: Re: Eclipse On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 05:21:54PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > I was recently reading this paper > http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/PDF/SevenDeadlySins.pdf > which has a few good points, but in one respect is seriously misguided. It > proposes that introductory programming languages should use less confusing > symbols, such as U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN instead of * and U+2190 LEFT > ARROW for assignment. Never mind the fact that it's a struggle to even > type the things, and that it's missing an opportunity to teach the poor > dears about the arbitrariness and generally bad design of programming > languages. Perhaps Damian owns shares in a company making APL keyboards :-)
Generated at 10:28 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi