| Re: New HD [message #34434 is a reply to message #34426] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 11:09   |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <PM0004D40A96CCE692@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
(jmfbahciv) writes:
> Someday, the biz is going to have reap the weeds it sowed.
More likely, things will continue the way they always have:
the consultants will take the money and run.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34435 is a reply to message #34434] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 12:15 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> In article <PM0004D40A96CCE692@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
> (jmfbahciv) writes:
>
>> Someday, the biz is going to have reap the weeds it sowed.
>
> More likely, things will continue the way they always have:
Of course.
> the consultants will take the money and run.
Nope.
I consulted to my current employer for 18 years.
Now I'm working there for almost as long.
Yes, I took the money, no I didn't run.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34436 is a reply to message #34426] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 12:15 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004D40A96CCE692@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com...
> Dan Espen wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> > "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >> In <50FAA334.9214FBE8@bytecraft.com>, on 01/19/2013
>>>> >>>> >> at 08:44 AM, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> said:
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> >Hardware is still sold, a lot of the software developed in the
>>>> >>>> >> >last twenty years has been developed in the atmosphere of
>>>> >>>> >> >software
>>>> >>>> >> >should be *free*. There is little incentive for innovative
> software
>>>> >>>> >> >development.
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> There's been plenty of free innovative mainframe software. For
>>>> >>>> >> that
>>>> >>>> >> matter, there are free PC compilers and interpreters for a
>>>> >>>> >> number
> of
>>>> >>>> >> languages, some quite innovative.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > The bulk of of the PC compilers are based on 30+ year old
>>>> >>>> > technology. In the PC world language design and implementation
>>>> >>>> > has been essentially stalled for several years.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Any evidence to back up your assertion?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I don't follow GCC all that closely, but it seems to me there are
>>>> >>>> new versions and release numbers and talk of forks. Must be
>>>> >>>> something
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There are lots of new GCC releases but the fundamental design
>>>> >>> has not changed. The design holes that were in GCC more than
>>>> >>> a decade ago remain.They still don't participate in language
>>>> >>> standards
>>>> >>> there overall code generation has only minimally improved in the
>>>> >>> last 15 years. LLVM has for the most part not really changed
>>>> >>> the fundamental issues in GCC although as a project it is better
>>>> >>> managed.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Harsh words maybe but there is a lot of room for the addition of
>>>> >>> new technology but it will require major redesign and perhaps a
>>>> >>> million new lines of code.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The wikipedia page gives a different picture.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It takes bucks to participate in language standards,
>>>> >> besides, meetings are for losers.
>>>> >
>>>> > Depends on whether you can run a good meeting or not.
>>>>
>>>> A good meeting is one that doesn't happen.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, during the Y2K boom, we had "meeting training".
>>>> We got a whole bunch of rules, including one person holding a
>>>> stop watch.
>>>>
>>>> Adhering to all those rules improved a meeting, but meetings
>>>> are still not my favorite thing. Too much group think.
>>>>
>>>> > As much as we hated standards and their committees, we wouldn't
>>>> > have been able to survive or stay sane without them.
>>>>
>>>> What's better, standards or everyone using GNUMAKE?
>>>
>>> Honey, if there hadn't been all that work in the auld days
>>> by standards committees, you would not be working in the
>>> computing biz today.
>>
>> Not your honey, and BS!
>>
>> These days, the primary programming language I use is HLASM.
>> No standards committee in sight.
>
> Someday, the biz is going to have reap the weeds it sowed.
Nope, it will just carry on fine, just like it always has on that sort of
thing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34437 is a reply to message #34426] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 12:18 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Dan Espen wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> writes:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> > "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >> In <50FAA334.9214FBE8@bytecraft.com>, on 01/19/2013
>>>> >>>> >> at 08:44 AM, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> said:
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> >Hardware is still sold, a lot of the software developed in the
>>>> >>>> >> >last twenty years has been developed in the atmosphere of software
>>>> >>>> >> >should be *free*. There is little incentive for innovative
> software
>>>> >>>> >> >development.
>>>> >>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> There's been plenty of free innovative mainframe software. For that
>>>> >>>> >> matter, there are free PC compilers and interpreters for a number
> of
>>>> >>>> >> languages, some quite innovative.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > The bulk of of the PC compilers are based on 30+ year old
>>>> >>>> > technology. In the PC world language design and implementation
>>>> >>>> > has been essentially stalled for several years.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Any evidence to back up your assertion?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I don't follow GCC all that closely, but it seems to me there are
>>>> >>>> new versions and release numbers and talk of forks. Must be something
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There are lots of new GCC releases but the fundamental design
>>>> >>> has not changed. The design holes that were in GCC more than
>>>> >>> a decade ago remain.They still don't participate in language standards
>>>> >>> there overall code generation has only minimally improved in the
>>>> >>> last 15 years. LLVM has for the most part not really changed
>>>> >>> the fundamental issues in GCC although as a project it is better
>>>> >>> managed.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Harsh words maybe but there is a lot of room for the addition of
>>>> >>> new technology but it will require major redesign and perhaps a
>>>> >>> million new lines of code.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The wikipedia page gives a different picture.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It takes bucks to participate in language standards,
>>>> >> besides, meetings are for losers.
>>>> >
>>>> > Depends on whether you can run a good meeting or not.
>>>>
>>>> A good meeting is one that doesn't happen.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, during the Y2K boom, we had "meeting training".
>>>> We got a whole bunch of rules, including one person holding a
>>>> stop watch.
>>>>
>>>> Adhering to all those rules improved a meeting, but meetings
>>>> are still not my favorite thing. Too much group think.
>>>>
>>>> > As much as we hated standards and their committees, we wouldn't
>>>> > have been able to survive or stay sane without them.
>>>>
>>>> What's better, standards or everyone using GNUMAKE?
>>>
>>> Honey, if there hadn't been all that work in the auld days
>>> by standards committees, you would not be working in the
>>> computing biz today.
>>
>> Not your honey, and BS!
>>
>> These days, the primary programming language I use is HLASM.
>> No standards committee in sight.
>
> Someday, the biz is going to have reap the weeds it sowed.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
What weeds?
Whatever delusions you have about HLASM, they're wrong.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34438 is a reply to message #34432] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 12:19 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004D40A70C75526@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com...
> Dan Espen wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Tue, 2013-01-22, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> >> On 20 Jan 2013 21:51:31 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>On Sun, 2013-01-20, Christian Brunschen wrote:
>>>> >>>...
>>>> >>>> http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Do_It.txt
>>>> >>>...
>>>> >>>> It turns out he wasn't noticing the space between the 'o' and the
>>>> >>>> 'I'
> in
>>>> >>>> 'Do It'; in the sans-serif system font we were using, a capital 'I'
>>> looked
>>>> >>>> very much like a lower case 'l', so he was reading 'Do It' as
>>>> >>>> 'Dolt'
> and
>>>> >>>> was therefore kind of offended.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Seems to me that's not just the font's fault; you don't expect random
>>>> >>>words to be captitalized. Wonder why they insisted on "Do It" rather
>>>> >>>than "Do it" or "do it"?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It was not random. It was a title which tend to have initial
>>>> >> caps on words.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the texts on GUI buttons
>>>> > are to be seen as titles, like the titles of movies or songs? I don't
>>>> > seem to see that much in modern GUIs.
>>>> >
>>>> > Uh, wait, I /do/ see it. Both browsers I use (Opera, Firefox) Do It
>>>> > That Way, in menus and buttons. Now that I see it, it looks weird and
>>>> > pompous, but I didn't notice before.
>>>> >
>>>> > Perhaps it's because I'm swedish and a Unix users. Both are
>>>> > lower-case cultures. Too Much Capitalization and a text looks either
>>>> > like a song title by The Smiths, or like it was written in 1724.
>>>>
>>>> Big letters, quicker recognition.
>>>>
>>>> At least I think that's the idea.
>>>>
>>>> At least they stopped short of ALL CAPS.
>>>
>>> There is a use for all caps. The reason there are two capital letters
>>> is for word separation when no space is allowed.
>>
>> Except the GUI buttons we're talking about use spaces between words.
>> I actually see it on buttons, and menus.
>
> I understand that. But the Capitalization habit started when space was
> not a valid character to use. ShEESH.
>
>
>>
>> Never really thought about it much, but I see:
>>
>> Save Page _A_s...
>>
>> not
>>
>> Save page _a_s...
>>
>
> That's properly written. GUIs had to be "different".
Not at that level they didn’t.
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34439 is a reply to message #34428] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 12:21 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004D40A9C8C39D3@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com...
> Canbear wrote:
>> On 23 Jan 2013 16:16:40 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This newsgroup will document how and why we did the things that new
>>> kids will rediscover.
>>
>> Yeah, well... I doubt it. If it is just some rhetorical decor to the
>> other things you've said, then I get your angle.
>>
>> I have a 19th century book on torpedo technology. But nobody seems to
>> want to be rediscovering that.
>>
>> But yeah, it'll be there. Just like the old Apple and IBM electronic
>> magazines. Looking at them now, they have some nostalgic amusement,
>> but there's nothing really there that would interest any kid today.
> I don't make that assumption because making it is how knowledge gets lost.
Knowledge of how to do the fine detail of technology
that no one uses anymore ALWAYS gets lost.
We only have a very rough idea about how the egyptians
did their pyramids etc.
That’s MUCH less of a problem now we can document it
properly.
> Think of all the things which have been thrown away
> because someone made the same assumption.
There is no viable alternative.
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34450 is a reply to message #34421] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 15:38 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/24/2013 9:02 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <bfZLs.213886$Ci3.209499@fed15.iad>, on 01/23/2013
> at 10:12 PM, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:
>
>> ASCII comes from ANSI
>
> Which had trouble standardizing its own name.
>
>> The EBCDIC burroughs used was slightly
>> different than the IBM EBCDIC, for example.
>
> The EBCDIC that IBM used was slightly different than the IBM EBCDIC
> )-:
>
Yup. There were lots of different BCD character sets, and IBM never
succeeded in unifying them into one version of EBCDIC. Even with USAish
some people needed ¶ and § (paragraph and section), some needed ¢ (cent
sign), people that did text work wanted ligatures (ae), superscripts,
fractions, etc. Then of course there are our right-pondian neighbors
who insisted on their characters with funny squiggles over them, etc.,
etc. eventually someone (was it IBM) invented code pages, which carried
us for a while.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34451 is a reply to message #34437] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 15:42 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/24/2013 12:18 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>
>>> These days, the primary programming language I use is HLASM.
>>> No standards committee in sight.
>>
>> Someday, the biz is going to have reap the weeds it sowed.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
> What weeds?
>
> Whatever delusions you have about HLASM, they're wrong.
>
HLASM is its own standard. There are a couple of non-IBM assemblers for
System z, and they all claim to be HLASM compatible. If only the
situation was as clear-cut for Intel.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34457 is a reply to message #34451] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 15:59 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
> On 1/24/2013 12:18 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> These days, the primary programming language I use is HLASM.
>>>> No standards committee in sight.
>>>
>>> Someday, the biz is going to have reap the weeds it sowed.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>> What weeds?
>>
>> Whatever delusions you have about HLASM, they're wrong.
>>
>
> HLASM is its own standard. There are a couple of non-IBM assemblers
> for System z, and they all claim to be HLASM compatible. If only the
> situation was as clear-cut for Intel.
non-IBM Assemblers?
I'm pretty clear on the SLAC mods migrating into HLASM but never ran
into a non-IBM Assembler.
Any info?
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34458 is a reply to message #34390] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 16:25 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <slrnkg0q6a.ah7.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid>,
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21, Alfred Falk wrote:
> ...
>> The central emergency number was introduced to North America in 1959 in
>> Winnipeg, following the British model as 999. It was always my
>> understanding that 911 won out because it was faster on rotary dials.
>
> But not too likely to be dialled by accident or by a child just
> interested in the funny rotating thing.
>
> Sweden used to use 90000 -- one long rotation and four short.
> Perhaps it's still supported; noone wants people to die because they
> panicked and fell back to the emergency number they learned as kids.
As late as 2005 a third of distress calls in Sweden still used
90000. It will be in the switches until that figure is in the
order of a percent or so, and then there will be a recorded message.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34472 is a reply to message #34430] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 17:48 |
Shmuel (Seymour J.) M
Messages: 3286
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In <PM0004D40A5CF37887@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com>, on 01/24/2013
at 03:37 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
> I never guessed wrong. When I wrote that I thought through
> everything, I meant it. There wasn't any guessing.
You misinterpreted the question. Had you done it their way, without
taking the time to think it through, how much time would have been
lost in the long run?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34482 is a reply to message #34457] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 01:31 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/24/2013 3:59 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On 1/24/2013 12:18 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > These days, the primary programming language I use is HLASM.
>>>> > No standards committee in sight.
>>>>
>>>> Someday, the biz is going to have reap the weeds it sowed.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>> What weeds?
>>>
>>> Whatever delusions you have about HLASM, they're wrong.
>>>
>>
>> HLASM is its own standard. There are a couple of non-IBM assemblers
>> for System z, and they all claim to be HLASM compatible. If only the
>> situation was as clear-cut for Intel.
>
> non-IBM Assemblers?
> I'm pretty clear on the SLAC mods migrating into HLASM but never ran
> into a non-IBM Assembler.
>
> Any info?
>
http://www.tachyonsoft.com/
http://www.dignus.com/dasm/
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34506 is a reply to message #34473] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 08:36 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <PM0004D40A690321EE@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com>, on 01/24/2013
> at 03:37 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>
>> Both terminal and machine stand alone time was a scarce resource.
>
> But they had batch monitors by the 1950's.
>
Huh? I wish you wouldn't cut the preveious stuff out. I don't think
I've been talking about batch.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34507 is a reply to message #34434] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 08:36 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> In article <PM0004D40A96CCE692@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com>, See.above@aol.com
> (jmfbahciv) writes:
>
>> Someday, the biz is going to have reap the weeds it sowed.
>
> More likely, things will continue the way they always have:
> the consultants will take the money and run.
>
Nah, someone will fed up and start to clear out an area. The last
one I can think of was Linus' work which evolved into Linux.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34508 is a reply to message #34472] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 08:36 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <PM0004D40A5CF37887@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com>, on 01/24/2013
> at 03:37 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>
>> I never guessed wrong. When I wrote that I thought through
>> everything, I meant it. There wasn't any guessing.
>
> You misinterpreted the question.
Ah, OK. sorry about that.
> Had you done it their way, without
> taking the time to think it through, how much time would have been
> lost in the long run?
>
With the USAGE project, it would have never been shipped. With packaging,
I suppose the tapes would have remained in the same mess with double
or triple the number of tapes which would ship for a new system.
So I'd say a lot of time would be lost both in-house and lots of
customers' time. Shipping software probably benefited company-wide
because I demonstrated that an engineer should do the planning and
design of packaging. I was the first one to write a packaging spec
for each monitor release. That traveled first to TOPS-20 and then
got carried over to VMS.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34509 is a reply to message #34471] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 08:36 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <PM0004D40A8459E277@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com>, on 01/24/2013
> at 03:37 PM, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> said:
>
>> Huh? ARe talking past each other?
>
> Clearly.
>
>> EAch manufacturer's compiler was different.
>
> If you wanted your code to be portable, you wrote to the standard.
>
Right. DEC documented their extensions in blue text. You still
had to find out how the machine didn't add. But it didn't take
days nor weeks to learn this stuff. We were expected to learn it
on our own time and within a day or two.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34510 is a reply to message #34343] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 10:16 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:1624.806T1948T5035113@kltpzyxm.invalid...
> In article <kdn1er$mak$6@dont-email.me>, Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com
> (Peter Flass) writes:
>
> [snip...] [snip...]
> [snip...]
>
>> Either that or she complains I don't show her how to do something,
>> only sit down at the keyboard and type stuff, when I try to explain
>> that I'm trying to figure it out myself.
>
> I don't think many people realize just how many answers we work out
> on the fly, not really knowing them at the time they ask a question.
> I'm often reluctant to explain this; given their mindset it might
> destroy their faith in the infallibility they need us to have.
>
Yes, Charlie...it's akin to telling an innocent that "there is *no* Santa
Claus". Still, this process relieves the "innocents" from having actually
to do the work of figuring it out for themselves. They leave that work for
you, me, and others to do... All they have to admit is "I'm *not* good with
computers".
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34511 is a reply to message #34228] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 10:19 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20130122164631.bc00565c3401ede1520e1533@eircom.net...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
> Ibmekon wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>>> force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then they
>>> come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of those *every*
>>> week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the program to make it
>>> supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your "necessary and sufficient"
>>> development cycle, sir.
>>
>> That is one scenario.
>>
>> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>> flowchart.
>
> Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
>
>> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>> and go for it.
>
> I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to
> work. If I really don't know then I write isolated experimental code and
> then write the real thing. The experimental code never gets into version
> control.
>
Every program should be written *twice* ... one that works, and one to throw
away. Of course, the throw away one is the first, usually...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34512 is a reply to message #34264] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 10:33 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kdn1j1$mak$7@dont-email.me...
> On 1/22/2013 3:32 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:02:38 +1100
>> "James O. Brown" <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>>> news:20130122180918.d0069377362deb40089106f4@eircom.net...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:48:07 +1100
>>>> "James O. Brown" <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>>>> > news:20130122164631.bc00565c3401ede1520e1533@eircom.net...
>>>> >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:00 +0000
>>>> >> Ibmekon wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>>>> >>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>>>> >>>> force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then
>>>> >>>> they come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of
>>>> >>>> those *every* week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the
>>>> >>>> program to make it supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your
>>>> >>>> "necessary and sufficient" development cycle, sir.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> That is one scenario.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>>>> >>> flowchart.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hmm - I haven't drawn a flowchart in decades.
>>>> >
>>>> > Me neither.
>>>> >
>>>> >>> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>>>> >>> and go for it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I don't start coding until I know how the solution is going to work.
>>>> >
>>>> > Knowing its going to work isnt the same thing as the best way to do it
>>>> > tho.
>>>>
>>>> Very true, although usually the best way isn't required only a way
>>>> that's good enough.
>>>
>>> It may not be required, but is often worth doing it the better way
>>> even if the other way has been partly coded, particularly when the
>>> better way has much more future.
>>
>> That depends entirely on how much future the code has in the first
>> place.
>>
>
> The definition of a "one shot" is a program that's going to be run only
> once - a week (or month).
>
Yes, but think of it this way, Pete. If the program is going to "prey on
your mind"... if you can't get it out of your head until you go back and
code the efficient version... it may *save* you a lot of time and energy to
take the route of re-coding the program in the best way. The program *may*
*not* be more useful... but the programmer can get on with his/her life
unencumbered.
(Programmers can often be obcessive compusive... like the guy walking down
the street who has to touch *every* parking meter. If he misses one, his
mind will give him *no* peace. As supposedly Charles Steinmetz once said:
"No matter what your job is, or how much you are being paid, you are always
working for yourself." *You* are the one that has to be pleased with what
you do. Otherwise, you have trouble "living with yourself".)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34513 is a reply to message #34482] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 10:37 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
> On 1/24/2013 3:59 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 1/24/2013 12:18 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> These days, the primary programming language I use is HLASM.
>>>> >> No standards committee in sight.
>>>> >
>>>> > Someday, the biz is going to have reap the weeds it sowed.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>> What weeds?
>>>>
>>>> Whatever delusions you have about HLASM, they're wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HLASM is its own standard. There are a couple of non-IBM assemblers
>>> for System z, and they all claim to be HLASM compatible. If only the
>>> situation was as clear-cut for Intel.
>>
>> non-IBM Assemblers?
>> I'm pretty clear on the SLAC mods migrating into HLASM but never ran
>> into a non-IBM Assembler.
>>
>> Any info?
>
> http://www.tachyonsoft.com/
> http://www.dignus.com/dasm/
I tried the Dignus web based assembler.
It even understands AINSERT.
That's pretty cool.
Thanks.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34514 is a reply to message #34273] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 10:38 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20130122221551.3dcc4454399b61e9bf48de07@eircom.net...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:50:49 -0500
> Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...]
>> [snip...]
>>
>> The definition of a "one shot" is a program that's going to be run only
>> once - a week (or month).
>
> I was thinking more in terms of a program being used for no more
> than a few years, something which is not uncommon. I've known a good many
> pieces of code from their design to final deletion.
>
Only one caveat... if you write "throw away" software... be *sure* that you
do throw it away!!! A 100 line program that you leave laying around...
invariably someone is going to pick it up and think it useful for what
*they* are trying to do. Then *you* get stuck!!! The new person will give
you the "third degree", trying to pry any vestige of knowledge you *might*
still possess about how the program was coded. You will be stuck with
supporing the program to the extent that somehow now *you* have become the
ultimate authority on this. :-(
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34515 is a reply to message #34234] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 10:52 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:1685.805T2635T5586044@kltpzyxm.invalid...
> In article <o9ctf8tpd0bkvtu82hbp1289ev9o5nkem0@4ax.com>, Ibmekon
> (Ibmekon) writes:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:55:04 -0600, "Charles Richmond"
>> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> First, the pointy-haired bosses want the results "Right Now!!!" and
>>> force you to do a quick and dirty job to get it done quickly! Then
>>> they come back and say: "Hey, that was great!!! Give us one of those
>>> *every* week!" Now you have to go back and re-do the program to make
>>> it supportable. ISTM that's the genesis of your "necessary and
>>> sufficient" development cycle, sir.
>
> That's why I learned to do it right the first time. It's actually
> quicker in the long run (although I sometimes had to go underground
> to do it).
>
The problem is: you have to hold off the bosses pressuring you with one
hand, while your other hand is typing in the correct code. Somehow, you
have to make the bosses believe that it takes you the longer time just to
get code that works... when in reality you are using that time to create the
"do it right the first time" code.
I saw a bumper sticker on a truck once: "Micky Mouse doesn't work here. We
do it once; we do it right."
>> That is one scenario.
>>
>> Another I was alluding to is the scenario of coding without a
>> flowchart.
>
> Or having the specs change halfway through.
>
Or having the specs be... however the pointy-haired boss thinks the program
ought to work this week. This type of boss always has some suggestion for
additions... just add this one small thing to the program. *Never* mind
that you are hammering away, trying to get all the original functionality
into the program the right way.
>> After going down a few dark alleys, you see the light of a solution
>> and go for it.
>> Having achieved the goal, you retrace your steps and tidy up the
>> route.
>
> BTDT. I also do cleanup passes occasionally after ongoing
> maintenance starts making things crufty.
>
If I was working on adding or fixing feature B, and find something else
badly coded... I just go ahead and fix that too. And of course, I keep my
mouth shut about it. Let it be "charged off" to feature B, and the program
will run the better for it anyway.
>> Sort of like building a tower of playing cards, then removing some.
>> That way you can achieve a structure you could not have built from
>> scratch.
>
> "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
> but when there is nothing left to take away."
> -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make
it short." -- Blaise Pascal
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34516 is a reply to message #34236] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 11:01 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:1083.805T2341T5625390@kltpzyxm.invalid...
> In article <kdmab5$rai$2@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com
> (Charles Richmond) writes:
>
>> "Gene Wirchenko" <genew@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:gv8sf85viiooij5afflu0nr6hgl8habpe9@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:45:42 GMT, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> The faster the CPUs, the cheaper the RAM gets, the sloppier the
>>>> programmers.
>>>> Making a program fit in 4KB really concentrated the mind!
>>>
>>> No, it is being economical with one's time. Why spend lots of
>>> effort on something that does not need it?
>>
>> It's a craftsmanship and pride in work issue, Gene. Many artists
>> continue to work on their paintings and programs... after others
>> might consider them finished.
>
> An elegant design not only works better, but is often more compact
> than quick-and-dirty bloatware.
>
Which reminds me... I heard that in Japan 30 or so years ago, programmers
were expected to produce 100 lines of debugged code per day. So programmers
were *encouraged* in this way to write more statements than necessary. You
can always do in *five* lines of code, what you would be able to do in *one*
line of code... if you try hard enough.
"An engineer can do for a nickel what any damn fool can do for a dollar." --
Henry Ford
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34517 is a reply to message #34275] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 11:04 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bill Findlay" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CD24C61B.24E6C%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On 22/01/2013 21:22, in article kdmvv8$mak$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Flass"
> <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The question is not "could they?" since MacOS has been tweaked to run on
>> non-Apple hardware. The questions is "would they?" since the Mac
>> hardware is very profitable. I don't know about the running windoze
>> part - I assume it's possible (Wine, does it run on Mac?)
>
> No need for Wine.
>
> Apple support running Windows natively on Macs, and it is also possible to
> run Windows under OS X in a virtual machine.
>
You could also take a small 5-pound sledge hammer and smash your other hand
with it. But *why* would you want to inflict that kind of damage and pain
on yourself willingly??? :-)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34532 is a reply to message #34275] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 11:04 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Bill Findlay" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CD24C61B.24E6C%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On 22/01/2013 21:22, in article kdmvv8$mak$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Flass"
> <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The question is not "could they?" since MacOS has been tweaked to run on
>> non-Apple hardware. The questions is "would they?" since the Mac
>> hardware is very profitable. I don't know about the running windoze
>> part - I assume it's possible (Wine, does it run on Mac?)
>
> No need for Wine.
>
> Apple support running Windows natively on Macs, and it is also possible to
> run Windows under OS X in a virtual machine.
>
You could also take a small 5-pound sledge hammer and smash your other hand
with it. But *why* would you want to inflict that kind of damage and pain
on yourself willingly??? :-)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34533 is a reply to message #34259] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 11:07 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kdn0bd$mak$2@dont-email.me...
> On 1/22/2013 5:55 AM, greymaus wrote:
>> On 2013-01-22, James O. Brown <job654@ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, all you have to worry about is whether that someone
>>>> else will let you have it back in a format you can read
>>>
>>> Don’t have to worry about that if you have enough of a clue to keep a
>>> copy.
>>>
>>>> - or if you have to pay ransom to get it
>>>
>>> Don’t have to worry about that if you have enough of a clue to keep a
>>> copy.
>>>
>>>> - or if it is to be withheld in the name of National Security [tm US
>>>> Gov].
>>>
>>> Don’t have to worry about that if you have enough of a clue to keep a
>>> copy.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Cleaning out a friends house some years ago, and found a box of
>> photographs,
>> nobody had a clue of who, except they were taken by someone who, in my
>> time,
>> had no interest in such things.
>>
>>
>
> Major problem. I routinely run anything I want to keep thru Photoshop and
> add metadata to them with a description and date. My wife's Grandparents,
> now deceased, left us a bunch of photos with no names or dates. I went so
> far as to call Motor Vehicles to see if I could get registration
> information from a 1928 license plate, but no luck.
>
NASA recenlty tested a new (but original) engine from a Saturn V rocket...
the same engine as the ones used to send Apollo 11 into earth orbit. These
engineers wanted to see if the engine could be adapted for use on *future*
missions to the moon. Where did NASA get the late 60's rocket engine???
They got it back from the Smithsonian!!! Heaven forbit that NASA themselves
might retain such hardware for possible future needs. DUH!!!
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34534 is a reply to message #34260] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 11:10 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kdn0ho$mak$3@dont-email.me...
> On 1/22/2013 8:00 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>> In <icvcaq2r5b.fsf@home.home>, on 01/21/2013
>> at 03:54 PM, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> said:
>>
>>> Never seen it in paper form
>>
>> AFAIK IBM has stopped selling dead tree versions of new PoOps
>> editions.
>>
>
> Good thing. The last one I got was HUGE, maybe four inches or more using
> professional-grade paper (thinner than standard Xerox paper).
>
ISTM that IBM documentation was printed on what is known as India paper.
It's the same type of paper that Bibles are printed on. Before the advent
of India paper, all Holy Bibles (old and new testaments together) had to be
printed in two *volumes*! Yes, that included the Gutenburg Bible.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34535 is a reply to message #34279] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 11:12 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:50ff1360$35$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
> In <kdm9kd$mg5$2@dont-email.me>, on 01/22/2013
> at 09:01 AM, "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> said:
>
>> And I'm here to tell you... that telling people "more than they
>> wanted to know" is *not* appreciated in general.
>
> While some don't appreciate having to maintain code written by people
> with that attitude )-:
>
Sturgeon's revelation: 90% of everything is crap.
I am afraid that software inherited for maintenance... may exceed the 90%
figure. :-)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34536 is a reply to message #34329] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 11:38 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20130123154938.be983b5a22b5fbcad9f7d434@eircom.net...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:44:51 -0500
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In <kdol89$5qi$1@dont-email.me>, on 01/23/2013
>> at 07:33 AM, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>> Sometimes I'll flowchart a small piece of code if it's
>>> particularly tricky,
>>
>> I've found that it's precisely the tricky code for which flowcharts
>> are most useless. You have to carve the bird at the joints.
>
> Agreed. In fact for the trickiest piece of code I have ever written
> I only found one tool sufficiently expressive and precise to describe the
> solution. That was of course the code - I spent two days trying to write a
> detailed design document/diagram/something before giving up and writing
> the
> code while I still had all the detail and big picture in my head. After I
> had written the code I was able to extract a reasonable description to use
> as documentation for the next poor sod to see it. I'd be prepared to bet
> that that code didn't get changed at all from the time I left it to the
> time the system was decommissioned.
>
At a PPoE, we got some FORTRAN source code in an exhange agreement with
another company. One particularly tricky routine had the following comment
preceding it:
C
C IT TOO KME A LONG TIME TO UNDERSTAND THIS CODE.
C AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE YOU A LONG TIME TO UNDERSTAND IT,
C BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU HOW IT WORKS.
C
Needless to say, the other company did *not* really want to be helpful to
us.
For especially tricky routines, the following comment should be added:
************
* BEWARE *
************
All ye who enter here:
Most of the code in this module
is twisted beyond belief!
Tread carefully.
If you think you understand it,
You Don't,
So Look Again.
The above comment in some code I had... had an ASCII art drawing of a skull
and crossbones accompanying it. :-)
--
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34537 is a reply to message #34386] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 11:42 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:51005b7b$45$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
> In <kdp3vh$a12$1@dont-email.me>, on 01/23/2013
> at 11:43 AM, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> said:
>
>> Not optimize in a hardware sense (that's why I quoted it), optimize
>> in terms of the minimum amount of logic to get the job done.
>> Sometimes a flowchart can show you where some code nan be moved
>> around to eliminate extra branches, tests, etc.
>
> And sometimes a flowchart simply obscures the logic.
>
"I am going to destroy the Earth, because it obscures my view of Venus." --
Marvin the Martian on Warner Brothers cartoons
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34538 is a reply to message #34376] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 11:45 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Joe keane" <jgk@panix.com> wrote in message
news:kdph0s$mda$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <kdm9kd$mg5$2@dont-email.me>,
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> But these programmers only wanted to know enough to get their present
>> function done... any extra information was unappreciated.
>
> You know what they say, give a man a fish, and he'll be back the next
> day asking for another fish.
"Give a man a fish... and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man *how* to fish, and he'll be out on the boat all night drinking
beer." :-)
Joe, you made a good point. It seems to me... that what one gets for doing
good work, is more work to do. From the standpoint of having a job, perhaps
that could be a good thing. Actually, you don't get a promotion or higher
pay... just more work to do in the same amount of time.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34539 is a reply to message #34348] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 11:54 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Dan Espen" <despen@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:icpq0v25d0.fsf@home.home...
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2013-01-22, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> > On 20 Jan 2013 21:51:31 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>On Sun, 2013-01-20, Christian Brunschen wrote:
>>>> >>...
>>>> >>> http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Do_It.txt
>>>> >>...
>>>> >>> It turns out he wasn't noticing the space between the 'o' and the
>>>> >>> 'I' in
>>>> >>> 'Do It'; in the sans-serif system font we were using, a capital 'I'
>> looked
>>>> >>> very much like a lower case 'l', so he was reading 'Do It' as 'Dolt'
>>>> >>> and
>>>> >>> was therefore kind of offended.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Seems to me that's not just the font's fault; you don't expect random
>>>> >>words to be captitalized. Wonder why they insisted on "Do It" rather
>>>> >>than "Do it" or "do it"?
>>>> >
>>>> > It was not random. It was a title which tend to have initial
>>>> > caps on words.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the texts on GUI buttons
>>>> are to be seen as titles, like the titles of movies or songs? I don't
>>>> seem to see that much in modern GUIs.
>>>>
>>>> Uh, wait, I /do/ see it. Both browsers I use (Opera, Firefox) Do It
>>>> That Way, in menus and buttons. Now that I see it, it looks weird and
>>>> pompous, but I didn't notice before.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it's because I'm swedish and a Unix users. Both are
>>>> lower-case cultures. Too Much Capitalization and a text looks either
>>>> like a song title by The Smiths, or like it was written in 1724.
>>>
>>> Big letters, quicker recognition.
>>>
>>> At least I think that's the idea.
>>>
>>> At least they stopped short of ALL CAPS.
>>
>> There is a use for all caps. The reason there are two capital letters
>> is for word separation when no space is allowed.
>
> Except the GUI buttons we're talking about use spaces between words.
> I actually see it on buttons, and menus.
>
> Never really thought about it much, but I see:
>
> Save Page _A_s...
>
> not
>
> Save page _a_s...
>
Java conventions (and some in C++ and Pascal) say variables should be like:
LinePrinterOutput. In C, I prefer the style: line_printer_output.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34544 is a reply to message #34435] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 13:15 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <icvcam1p09.fsf@home.home>, despen@verizon.net (Dan Espen)
writes:
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> In article <PM0004D40A96CCE692@ac813fb4.ipt.aol.com>,
>> See.above@aol.com (jmfbahciv) writes:
>>
>>> Someday, the biz is going to have reap the weeds it sowed.
>>
>> More likely, things will continue the way they always have:
>
> Of course.
>
>> the consultants will take the money and run.
>
> Nope.
>
> I consulted to my current employer for 18 years.
> Now I'm working there for almost as long.
>
> Yes, I took the money, no I didn't run.
I knew that someone would come up with a counterexample.
Yes, competent consultants exist. But I spent a lot of
time cleaning up after ones whose sole competence was
in shmoozing the brass.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34545 is a reply to message #34517] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 13:20 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <kduafe$rrn$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com
(Charles Richmond) writes:
> "Bill Findlay" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:CD24C61B.24E6C%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>> On 22/01/2013 21:22, in article kdmvv8$mak$1@dont-email.me,
>> "Peter Flass" <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The question is not "could they?" since MacOS has been tweaked
>>> to run on non-Apple hardware. The questions is "would they?"
>>> since the Mac hardware is very profitable. I don't know about
>>> the running windoze part - I assume it's possible (Wine, does
>>> it run on Mac?)
>>
>> No need for Wine.
>>
>> Apple support running Windows natively on Macs, and it is also
>> possible to run Windows under OS X in a virtual machine.
>
> You could also take a small 5-pound sledge hammer and smash your
> other hand with it. But *why* would you want to inflict that kind
> of damage and pain on yourself willingly??? :-)
Who said anything about "willingly"?
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: New HD [message #34546 is a reply to message #34510] |
Fri, 25 January 2013 13:25 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <kdu7kk$9t8$1@dont-email.me>, numerist@aquaporin4.com
(Charles Richmond) writes:
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1624.806T1948T5035113@kltpzyxm.invalid...
>
>> In article <kdn1er$mak$6@dont-email.me>, Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com
>> (Peter Flass) writes:
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...]
>> [snip...]
>>
>>> Either that or she complains I don't show her how to do something,
>>> only sit down at the keyboard and type stuff, when I try to explain
>>> that I'm trying to figure it out myself.
>>
>> I don't think many people realize just how many answers we work out
>> on the fly, not really knowing them at the time they ask a question.
>> I'm often reluctant to explain this; given their mindset it might
>> destroy their faith in the infallibility they need us to have.
>
> Yes, Charlie...it's akin to telling an innocent that "there is *no*
> Santa Claus".
Good one.
> Still, this process relieves the "innocents" from having actually
> to do the work of figuring it out for themselves. They leave that
> work for you, me, and others to do... All they have to admit is
> "I'm *not* good with computers".
Still, I wish I had a dollar for every time that someone said
"I'm not good with computers" and then proceeded to tell me exactly
how to do the job...
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
