What we say vs. what we mean
-
Quote:
^X^Cquit^\[ESC][ESC]^C I don't know how to quit vi
ROTFLMAO. :thumbsup:
Recently I installed Linux and had to use vi to edit some files. I hadn't used the godforsaken thing in about 30 years but managed to do what was needed without hopelessly corrupting those files. I now believe in muscle memory, since it is the only explanation for how I could insert, replace, cut, and paste text and quit with or without committing the changes. :-D
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
Recently I installed Linux and had to use vi to edit some files. I hadn't used the godforsaken thing in about 30 years but managed to do what was needed without hopelessly corrupting those files. I now believe in muscle memory, since it is the only explanation for how I could insert, replace, cut, and paste text and quit with or without committing the changes. :-D
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
I suffered that pain a while back. I switched to Visual Studio Code which works in native Linux and Linux on WSL.
In a Lounge post a couple of weeks ago, I asked about using Windows 10 to develop C++ for Linux. VS Code seemed to be a clear winner, so I'll likely switch to it someday. What's blocking me is builds, for which I use VS2017. For WSL, MS recommends CMake. That looks to be about as fun as vi, so you'd think MS would provide a tool for converting VS project files to CMake. Think again. :mad: But I did find a tool[^] that supposedly does it. What it generated seemed to do most of what was needed, but it failed on a shared properties file that controls various compiler and linker settings. So I'm stuck with VS2017 until this tool gets fixed or MS gets their act together. Porting to Linux isn't urgent, so I'd rather wait than struggle with CMake.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
In a Lounge post a couple of weeks ago, I asked about using Windows 10 to develop C++ for Linux. VS Code seemed to be a clear winner, so I'll likely switch to it someday. What's blocking me is builds, for which I use VS2017. For WSL, MS recommends CMake. That looks to be about as fun as vi, so you'd think MS would provide a tool for converting VS project files to CMake. Think again. :mad: But I did find a tool[^] that supposedly does it. What it generated seemed to do most of what was needed, but it failed on a shared properties file that controls various compiler and linker settings. So I'm stuck with VS2017 until this tool gets fixed or MS gets their act together. Porting to Linux isn't urgent, so I'd rather wait than struggle with CMake.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
creating Makefiles by hand.
You are a God amongst men.
The Science of King David's Court | Object Oriented Programming with C++
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
creating Makefiles by hand.
You are a God amongst men.
The Science of King David's Court | Object Oriented Programming with C++
Really? Make is nasty but simple. I use it because I can't figure out CMake. They're easy to write if you can get over their use of whitespace, which i hate
Real programmers use butterflies
-
I'm using the joke symbol, but this is so painfully accurate it can't really be considered a joke :laugh:
What we say
What we mean
Horrible hack
Horrible hack that I didn't write
Temporary workaround
Horrible hack that I wrote
It's broken
There are bugs in your code
It has a few issues
There are bugs in my code
Obscure
Someone else's code doesn't have comments
Self documenting
My code doesn't have comments
That's why it's an awesome language
It's my favorite language and it's really easy to do something in it
You're thinking in the wrong mindset
It's my favorite language and it's really hard to do something in it
I can read this Perl script
I wrote this Perl script
I can't read this Perl script
I didn't write this Perl script
Bad structure
Someone else's code is badly organized
Complex structure
My code is badly organized
Bug
The absence of a feature I like
Out of scope
The absence of a feature I don't like
Clean solution
It works and I understand it
We need to rewrite it
It works but I don't understand it
emacs is better than vi
It's too peaceful here, let's start a flame war
vi is better than emacs
It's too peaceful here, let's start a flame war
IMHO
You are wrong
Legacy code
It works. but no one knows how
^X^Cquit^\[ESC][ESC]^C
I don't know how to quit vi
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
Really? Make is nasty but simple. I use it because I can't figure out CMake. They're easy to write if you can get over their use of whitespace, which i hate
Real programmers use butterflies
Whitespace?! And you diss Python because it gives indentation significance? Why do people put up with this shite?
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
Whitespace?! And you diss Python because it gives indentation significance? Why do people put up with this shite?
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.Unfortunately because enough other people put up with it that it became the de facto standard. :~ X|
Real programmers use butterflies
-
Unfortunately because enough other people put up with it that it became the de facto standard. :~ X|
Real programmers use butterflies
That's almost like Yogi Berra's quote, "No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded." :laugh:
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
creating Makefiles by hand.
You are a God amongst men.
The Science of King David's Court | Object Oriented Programming with C++
-
Really? Make is nasty but simple. I use it because I can't figure out CMake. They're easy to write if you can get over their use of whitespace, which i hate
Real programmers use butterflies
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
Make is nasty
No more so than many other products. I used it extensively in my working life, and found it had uses beyond simple software builds.
I'm mostly referring to the syntax, and it's about as bad as perl given that it has a smaller surface area. It makes bash look positively readable by comparison.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
Me too! .. mostly because it worked well for me in 2003 and googling a makefile takes about 2 minutes, so why change?
-
I'm mostly referring to the syntax, and it's about as bad as perl given that it has a smaller surface area. It makes bash look positively readable by comparison.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
I mean specifically bad as in poorly designed. Not all syntax is created equal despite your implication to the contrary. Significant whitespace is nonsense, for example, both from a parsing standpoint, and from a usability standpoint. Technically speaking it's Broken As Designed. Same with things that cannot easily be remembered by way mnemonic or anything like that. Make is littered with that. Just like code can be readable and unreadable, so can syntax. A grammar can be well designed, or it can be designed poorly. C# is an example of a well designed grammar. Make is an example of a poorly designed grammar. It is what it is.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
I mean specifically bad as in poorly designed. Not all syntax is created equal despite your implication to the contrary. Significant whitespace is nonsense, for example, both from a parsing standpoint, and from a usability standpoint. Technically speaking it's Broken As Designed. Same with things that cannot easily be remembered by way mnemonic or anything like that. Make is littered with that. Just like code can be readable and unreadable, so can syntax. A grammar can be well designed, or it can be designed poorly. C# is an example of a well designed grammar. Make is an example of a poorly designed grammar. It is what it is.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
I'm using the joke symbol, but this is so painfully accurate it can't really be considered a joke :laugh:
What we say
What we mean
Horrible hack
Horrible hack that I didn't write
Temporary workaround
Horrible hack that I wrote
It's broken
There are bugs in your code
It has a few issues
There are bugs in my code
Obscure
Someone else's code doesn't have comments
Self documenting
My code doesn't have comments
That's why it's an awesome language
It's my favorite language and it's really easy to do something in it
You're thinking in the wrong mindset
It's my favorite language and it's really hard to do something in it
I can read this Perl script
I wrote this Perl script
I can't read this Perl script
I didn't write this Perl script
Bad structure
Someone else's code is badly organized
Complex structure
My code is badly organized
Bug
The absence of a feature I like
Out of scope
The absence of a feature I don't like
Clean solution
It works and I understand it
We need to rewrite it
It works but I don't understand it
emacs is better than vi
It's too peaceful here, let's start a flame war
vi is better than emacs
It's too peaceful here, let's start a flame war
IMHO
You are wrong
Legacy code
It works. but no one knows how
^X^Cquit^\[ESC][ESC]^C
I don't know how to quit vi
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
A dear friend of mine, Richard Jones (now sadly departed), had a notice on his office wall that read "I know you think you understood what I said, but I don't think you understood that I didn't say what I meant" I have no idea where that quote came from.
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
C# is an example of a well designed grammar. Make is an example of a poorly designed grammar.
As with most things in life, it depends on your point of view.
A) Try parsing the syntax. Significant whitespace presents real technical challenges to parsers. B) Try remembering the syntax. If it can't be easily remembered, it's always going to be niche**. See also, vi. ** or replaced with something that is better.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
A dear friend of mine, Richard Jones (now sadly departed), had a notice on his office wall that read "I know you think you understood what I said, but I don't think you understood that I didn't say what I meant" I have no idea where that quote came from.
Reminds me of "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." :laugh:
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
