BugBrother

It depends on your limitations.

If you get trouble using a mouse, Emacs/Vi are better than IDEs. If you have general troubles with keyboards, IDEs are better.

Emacs has imho superior functionality. But if your neck gives you problem with the "chording" you use in Emacs (lots of cases with multiple keys pressed down at once), then Vi's modes would be helpful. [Edit: goldfeld's comments re keyboards are spot on. I have some early neck troubles, I might have to go that way too. The doctors tell me it is common in our profession, we sit still too many hours.]

Anyway, Emacs is really optimized for editing, not for learning to edit. I still recommend the trip.

An anecdote about the last paragraph:

I read online that Org Mode was the best thing since sliced bread. So I sat down and spent lots of hours to learn it. Afterwards, I thought -- "wtf did I just do?! I could get > 50% of that functionality from a web/iPad app I would learn in ten minutes?! Was that really worth the time?" Then I realised that I can write/edit Org modes lists almost as good as todo lists on paper; it was so far down in the brain stem it took no attention from what I was writing.

Something like that was my hobby project to learn JavaScript well. (Using the Org::Parser from CPAN.) Far from complete.

I got stuck on that I am unable to create a good UX. :-) You want to give all users a grounding in Emacs and you want to make it usable for others, at the same time.

Now the plan is to get a MVP off the ground and make the View system simple enough so designers can rewrite it and rework the look and command structure.

(This is not just to make a commercial web app based on Emacs, with all income assigned to FSF for fun. Promise. :-) The plan really is GPL.)

Oh, please... the author is doing funny turn of phrases in every second paragraph. But sure, it is "racist" to joke about female celebrities?

(That said, I have no clue what Hanna Montana was. But Miley Cyrus is hardly extreme, even for mainstream music.

[Edit: And if copying black music culture should be condemned, I don't know how much will remain? :-) Not only in the US. I guess the jokes are about the contrast with Montana? Sure women often gets the short stick in criticism, but don't throw the baby out with the water. Enough discussion, please. ]

)

The fourth time I write this, THEN you claim to have answered!

Strange that you forgot to link, troll...

I am just going to note that in five^H^H^H^H six^H^H^H seven comments you carefully avoid discussing how I motivate that you are a bad troll: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809359

I am just going to note that in five^H^H^H^H six comments you carefully avoid discussing how I motivate that you are a bad troll: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809359

Trying to avoid that is admitting I am correct.

(And to call an obvious troll for troll is not insulting.)

I am just going to note that in five comments you carefully avoid discussing how I motivate that you are a bad troll: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809359

Trying to avoid that is admitting I am correct.

(See my declaration on how to handle trolls in GP.)

Looks really cool, I'll read it carefully tonight.

It seems as a biochemical equivalent to the organic chem "porn" blog posts "things I won't work with".

On consideration, this was interesting.

You are called troll because of stupid statements on basic points.

You refuse to talk about WHY you are stamped a troll in multiple comments -- instead you complain in big blocks of text about impoliteness!

This is a common troll strategy, but does it really work?

Do a causal reader miss that you refuse to talk about why you are called troll -- and just see two people complaining about each others?

Edit: So your smoke screen of complaints will change my behavior. :-) The next troll with your strategy will just get a note that he refuses to touch why he is called troll + link.

Sigh, I'll just note that you missed yet another opportunity to explain your strange statements that some of Perl 5's older and stronger features are not Perly.

(You even quoted part of my comment where I discussed that.)

But it is informative with indignation, while repeatedly refusing to discuss criticism.

>>In case it was an honest mistake, I was referring

You wrote "I've flagged your post for your last sentence before your parentheses."

Which was what I discussed. (I did have a 2nd parenthesis, too.)

>>I'm not making any claims about Perl.

I quoted you twice as saying two old language features, which are probably best among the std scripting languages, goes against being Perl. At least one of those features is from the 1990s.

That might mean something different than making claims, but you have carefully not touched it, despite multiple opportunities (while being both called "troll" and down voted over that).

>>I've flagged your post for your last sentence before your parentheses.

Which were that you made wild claims about stuff you obviously know nothing.

>>I actually haven't made a single claim about Perl

:-)

In the same comment you make explicit claims about what is part of "real" Perl and what is not:

>>My main point is that you could brand anything you want as Perl. It doesn't have to still be Perl to be called Perl.

(Quite fun, considering that programmable language extensions have been on CPAN (/in the Perl binary) for lots of years!)

Originally, I reacted to this claim about what is "real" Perl:

>>even though the modern language has [..] standard computer science constructs like OOP and Unicode etc that require coding against a different abstraction than Perl.

That is not [ignorant] claims about Perl?! (There are more examples.)

Again:

The Perl Unicode support is one of the best of the scripting languages -- and todays std OO (Moo[se]) is arguably better than the other scripting languages.

And OO has been in Perl 5 since the start (1990s).

TL;DR: 1. TRIVIALLY bad claims. 2. Long messages without touching the bad claims. 3. "I never made any claims at all".

The point was not your analogy. The point was that you made wild claims about something you obviously have no clue about.

(That is why you write so damn much text about something else. Standard behavior for non serious people that are shown to be wrong.)

And the environment changes for everything in computing. Perl is extensible. The use is very different today compared to e.g. before the millennium before testing took over.

So go troll on some subject you know.

(Perl 6 is a different language in the same family. Quite a few features have been backported.)

>>After the list of reasons people dislike it are resolved, it won't be Perl.

So "people" will never like Perl? Good argument! :-)

Well, what are the reasons to dislike Perl, then?

>>OOP and Unicode etc that require coding against a different abstraction than Perl.

1. Perl, with Moose, has arguably the best OO of the common scripting languages (inspired by the Common Lisp Object System).

2. Perl has probably the best Unicode support of the common scripting languages.

Basic advice:

To be a language war troll you need to know enough so you can make people angry. If they laugh at you, it is a failure.

I remember when I did C++ for a few years, long ago. I used to reread the Effective series of books every few months. I realize that C++ has use cases, but the pain... I'll buy Meyers a beer if I ever see him.

Check CPAN, there are good signature modules. (No links; they have been posted often, I write on an iPad while eating pizza without fork/knife.)

Edit: After pizza, clean hands. :-) Just google "cpan method signatures" or similar. The extensible syntax of Perl is really cool. Here is a Moose specific example with type constraints: http://search.cpan.org/~ether/MooseX-Method-Signatures-0.47/...

Isn't OpenBSD a special case? Most really security conscious organizations seem to use outdated tools, because the new tools haven't been vetted/verified/etc yet.

(That is one reason I stay away from security work. The theory is fascinating, but the practice is just not fun.)

I am a bit fascinated by the lack of replies to my simple query... :-) :-(

It has been argued for years that network services is a weak spot for Apple (maps, network drives, etc). They hopefully will do better in the future.

Personally, as a happy Amazon customer, one aspect is funny. I get insight into how satisfied Microsoft users must have felt in the 90s when the monopolistic criminality became widely known. :-)

Edit: Any suggested alternative stores, which deliver paper books all over EU? (Sigh, I am happy with Amazon.)

>>I still can't figure out what your "original point" is

Strange that it took you half a dozen comments of repeating other stuff to ask for what I referenced in every comment?

I think you troll or actively try to hide the subject. I just mentioned the trivial point again here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7799415

(And, well, I only read your first sentence again.)

I have no problem with what you wrote. But again -- this was around WWII, the world is very different now.

Everyone but the Palestinians have let go of that period -- the Arab world refuse to give them citizenships, to keep them suffering and hating. (And the Japanese over some islands.)

My point was that juntas must have external enemies, that is hardly controversial. The West is the popular enemy. The juntas which steal countries probably must demonize the working democracies, to motivate oppressing the slaves' demands for human rights.

(But you can join meric and the juntas in demonizing USA instead? :-) Certainly, realpolitik is dirty even for democracies, no country is perfect.)

You claim that one copyright deletion by Amazon of a 60+ years old book is as bad as the gigantic oppression of press etc in dictators?

Even despite the angry public reaction, which hurt Amazon?

At least be a competent troll, that was just sad. :-) :-(

The first sentence:

>>Your original point is that their actions are close to 60 years ago, right? If not, quote it again please

No, it was not. And I think you know that.

The first thing you commented on was:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7795134

It starts: "It seems that dictators generally need to make enemies out of the world's democracies."

My second comment starts with: "First -- that is not relevant to my point that authoritarian juntas seems to need to make external enemies out of the world's democracies."

(Similar in my third and fourth comment.)

I only read the first sentence you wrote. I lost hope of a serious answer a while back.

Chomsky's books are deleted off Kindles by NSA?! :-)

If not those, which books? "No Logo"? Books by islamists/KKK/Nazis/etc that preach violence? Mein Kampf?

Can you give ten examples of authors? :-)

Seriously, you can't look more like trolling. We are comparing with China -- there are numbers like a million(!) people doing censoring thrown around.

If you really believe what you claim, go find articles written by journalists in China how they were censored while writing news, etc. Or web censoring. Or...

One of the MySQL founders is Finnish, but it was in Sweden. (InnoDB was Finnish, iirc.)

But again -- 60+ years ago... Close to WWII.

The only ones still keeping the indignation alive from that time period are the Palestinians (because they are refused citizenship by the Arab countries) -- and Iran....? (And some Japanese islands?)

Also see my point about things working very differently, now. Go back and see the extinction of the indians or the Spanish war (I think that is the US name?). The same goes for most every country the further back in history you go; e.g. wimpy Sweden taught the Germans everything they know about atrocities to civilians...

If you have nothing to say in four comments, I doubt you have more in email.

You still haven't touched my original point. I really think you (is there more than one person?) write all this irrelevant text since you are unable to answer -- and a True believer can't change your opinion(s). So you just hide it, by damaging HN with drenching it in text.

>>Things would be different if U.S. didn't meddle in Iranian politics back in the 1950's.

You claimed that before. I discussed that, despite that it wasn't relevant to my point, in two comments. Including the GP(!).

So I assume you have nothing to say. Except that you want to drown my original point in a sea of text..?

You couldn't argue against my comment directly in place, because you were scared of getting an answer?

My point was that all undemocratic juntas need to have/create external enemies. That is hardly controversial. Today the democratic West seems to be preferred for the enemy role, so democratic opposition is treason.

>> Any form of government that "we" don't like is lying about everything

Well, you (and the juntas that can't lose elections) must be right, it is just a western conspiracy! Including those lying measurements of human/press/election/etc freedoms from Amnesty, HRW, etc!

It doesn't bother you to have the same opinions as disgusting dictators? But, of course, it is all USAs fault anyway?

I voted you up, for the humor. And for recommending to keep politics off HN.

Edit: Seriously, thanks. Your personal insults and parody of my position (hidden in another place!) was the closest I got to a relevant reply. (If you had a real answer you would have written that, so the insults say more about you than me.)

Edit 2: You even inverted my position, I never claimed "The US (and Europe) has set out to antagonize not only Iran, but Russia, and China."

Maybe so, but also not relevant for my original point.

I discussed the present situation. History is interesting, I agree, but to only start laying blame for events happening generations ago isn't a counterargument, it is lack of arguments.

(And I did answer meric's "argument" that everything happening is USA's fault by pointing out why the situation is different now. No one seems to have a counter argument?)

And for changing things in Iran et al, check the resource curse on Wikipedia. Countries that weren't democracies when they found oil didn't become democracies. (Norway already was democratic before the oil.) It is just too lucrative for the leaders to oppress the population and steal the money.

Again -- I didn't discuss or even think about US' military (or other) options for Iran. That is a totally different discussion to what I wrote about.

(I don't have enough information to have an opinion. E.g. something like the bombing of Serbia's infrastructure would be cheap and really bad for Iran, afaik. For a good answer you probably need to ask the military in "relevant" countries.)

And again, for the third time -- this has nothing to do with my point, so you guys can vote this comment down too now, since you obviously just can't give a relevant counter argument. 1/2 :-)

First -- that is not relevant to my point that authoritarian juntas seems to need to make external enemies out of the world's democracies.

Then...

Uhm, that was 60+ years ago.

The world is a different place now, after the cold war. Before 1989, juntas could say to USA -- "If you don't support us, we'll get support at the other place." Now, mostly Saudi Arabia can say that.

So for informational purposes, since you like to complain about USA, do you have any examples from the last 20 years?

(Please check the Democratic Peace Theory on Wikipedia. Not even USA starts wars with stable democracies.)

Edit: I got a down vote on both my other comments, a few minutes after I wrote this. I guess this one is good? Some other explanation? :-)