pretoriusB

>I'm a Sublime Text 2 owner, but the continued lack of a Linux/ARM build nor any announced plans for the same mean I won't be upgrading.

Damn! There goes the whole of the Linux/ARM community!

>As someone who only used IDE debuggers all his (short) programming career, I was wondering, how do you debug without a visual debugger?

I'd ask the reverse of you. Why do you spend time in a debugger at all? For 99% of the bugs logical thinking and a few printfs work faster and better ran blindly running around setting breakpoints and examining values.

>Are these changes really worth the "3.0" tag?

Absolutely.

>Goto to symbol is great, but all other bullet points taste like what I expected 2 to have once it left beta (basically, speed and not letting plugins crash my session).

I bought ST2 without expecting all these features. Taking the effort to add out-of-process plugins? That's more that the TextMate guy has done in all 6 years of dabbling with 2.

On top of that, it has other nice stuff I want. It might be OK calling it 2.5, but it's not a scam by any imaginable stretch of the word.

>Isn't this a clever way to make users buy into a paid upgrade for a stable version of an editor they already bought?

No. Did you find ST2 any less stable than any other editor out there? I use it for a year for working on 3-4 different languages and it never has crashed on me.

So, I appreciate the cynicism but it's misguided here.

Wow! Does that man ever sleep?

And I thought 2 development has slowed down after release (sparse new dev builds etc).

We'll have Sublime Text 3 before Textmate 2 beta 2.

>Some of these programmers are terrible. Some are awesome. I dare say, just like in NYC? :)

Only with a different percentage of terrible and awesome.

>Do all Indian/Pakistani/Egyptian/etc. hackers deserve to be painted with the same brush?

No, of course there are great Indian/Pakistani/etc programmers.

But generalising is not about being fair or accurate.

Generalisation is a compromise between being accurate and making a decision in time.

It's about being accurate _enough_ to make decisions as correct as possible without getting lost in the minutiae.

And the reason people generalise about Indian/etc programmers is because they have been burned a lot of times by them (and not as many times by NYC programmers).

If I had a nickel for every "please sir, solve my programming problem from me" type by an Indian programmer in an internet forum I would be rich. And a lot of those posters are not kids in school. They openly admit they work for a company, programming.

You probably missed the "kidding aside" part, where I write in the middle of my comment "KIDDING ASIDE".

>The vast majority of mankind do not have safe and enjoyable life.

My sentiments exactly.

>The reason for that is not enough progress.

No, the reason for that is not enough political action for solving that.

It's not like we don't have enough food, resources of technology to solve all of those problems. And it's not like any new technology is applied to solving them.

People are dying (by the millions) by problems that can be solved by 200 and 300 year old technology.

>So now you vote for stopping progress forever for the fears of safety?

Why not?

Because you believe in "progress" as in an inherently good metaphysical entity?

I'd take safety and a better life for the vast majority of mankind over progress anyday.

>Trust in a US justice system where my data might be? Well, we've seen that plays out. The US justice system scares the hell out of me. So much so that I personally avoid everything I can that might bring me with in the orbit of the US justice system.

And you think this kind of polical anti-US-justice-system rants help you in this? You are already on the top list of potential targets, if not for anything else, just for the above comment.

Kidding aside, it's not about the cloud. The cloud is a detail in this discourse. If you cannot trust the justice system or the government you fight, vote, motivate people, organize etc to change them and how they work.

Just avoiding this or that (in this case, the cloud) means nothing in the grand scheme of things. They'll get you in another way.

People try to use a Desktop OS like OS X like a development workstation targeting Linux and the full Linux userland and then complain.

Go to any developer's conference and it's 80+ MBP and Air's with OS X. Do you hear them bitch?

Use a Virtual Machine or a remote/cloud etc server like the pros do. It's 2013. It's not rocket science.

"Oh, I tried installing something and I broke my MacPorts" -- well, cry me a river.

Do you know how many times I (and millions of people) have struggled with borked RPMs and DEBS, external repos not being totally compatible, latest stuff only being available on experimental repos, having to revert to manual compilation, messing with hardware drivers et all in Linux?

>When I used Mac OS X, everything was very shiny, but also not fully there, functionally. You almost had everything you need, but those few packages that needed to be manually built.

It seems like you wanted to use OS X for something it wasn't intended: a programming workstation to target Linux deployment.

Use a Virtual Machine for that. You'll get an environment like the one you deploy to, snapshots, easy backup, multiple versions of deployment environments with provisioning AND your desktop remains clean.

The reverse situation (trying to use a Linux system as a Desktop machine) is terribly IMHO. As soon as you step in common 2013 Desktop use (e.g edit the video files from your camera or use some proprietary software, hardware etc) you are in a world of pain.

I except from any desktop OS I use in 2013 FULL multimedia capabilities, consuming AND editing, and with a large variety of software offerings to chose from for each.

Now, if you're satisfied with just a terminal a browser window and a way to play mp3 and avis, sure, use Linux.

Any specific problem with it?

A lot of people complain about the Finder because other people do so.

I've used Unices since Sun OS days. I've used Linux for 15 years (from RedHat 5 and Mandrake to Ubuntu 12.04). I've used Windows for 6 years. I've used Macs for 8 years.

What exactly is the problem with the Finder compared to what's offered on the other platforms?

Specific, measurable, gripes. Not "it feels slow" junk.

>I think he's saying that he replaced Ubuntu 12.04 with OS X. Now he's using the same software, but the command-line tools have fewer features and it costs more money.

Right, because all you use your desktop computer for is command-line tools.

Or because using Brew, MacPorts et al to upgrade all command-line tools (if one wants, since most of the newer "features" are things you'd use once in a blue moon if you're lucky anyway) is very difficult.

(Not to mention that lots of people don't do any work on their Desktop/Laptop's command line itself anyway, even in Linux, but in some remote system or a virtual machine...)

>Also, if you have "minimalism concerns" you probably have some goal other than using your computer to be maximally productive.

Except if, crazy I know, this "minimalist" thing actually helps you with being maximally productive, instead of being some guy spending his days tinkering with insignificant stuff and getting various bits to work together deluding himself he is achieving something...

>If you must use Safari, though, OS X is probably the platform of choice.

Or if you also want multimedia to work as GOD intended or do any work with them. Or if you want to run essential for tons of people proprietary applications not available for Linux, from the Creative Suite to Autocad to whatever...

Yes, it's "Linux done right".

"Y is X done right" is a common idiom. It doesn't imply that Y is a variant of X.

E.g in the case he means OS X is a unix-clone (actually a fully certified UNIX) that has made the right choices, Desktop wise, unlike Linux.

Having a Desktop that works 99% of the time, and isn't made by amateur hour volunteers that either let things stagnate for ages (GTK+), or change their ideas every second month (from UI direction to media framework), is not "GUI frippery". Except if you spend all your time buried in the command line to begin with.

The only bad things about OS X are due to the proprietary and closed nature of some of the components (and the older versions used for some unix userland stuff). Implementation and experience wise, the whole desktop is miles ahead of Gnome/KDE.

Even Miguel De Icaza agrees, and he's the one of the handful who bloody started "Desktop Linux".

Seems like I've been "slow banned" for the above.

Taking people's money and giving the job less that what you promised is apparently OK, but scolding someone for doing it is to be frowned upon.

I don't think denial is the best way to cope with the news.

Last time I checked C++11 has been an ISO standard since last August, with MS and Clang ramping up their support for it.

Sorry, but I'm not a native english speaker, so the joke went over my head.

(And while I now recognise "wither" I didn't knew at all about the "wilt" word)

>This guy has worked on all sorts of awesome shit that he gives completely free to the community.

Wasn't those things sponsored by his employeer, Engine Yard?

He worked on them on their time and dime.

>I initially anticipated that I'd be able to spend a number of full-time months on the work. I ended up being able to allocate time on a less consistent basis

So you pocketed money from Kickstarter contributors to do something, and then you put the project in the back burner and gave priority to something else.

And not for serious health or personal reasons (which would be totally understandable). Just to start another business.

Nice.

Will keep it in mind the next time somebody asks me to fund a Kickstarter project.

Damn it gets even more amusing!

A Google search for "Wilt Wither 2003" doesn't return anything relevant (at least in the first 2-3 pages).

I'm amused by the above comment, and all the wild assumptions it makes.

Whereas a Bloom filter is relatively well known (in compsci circles), how many people know:

1) Who Wilt and Wither are? 2) What they "described back in 2003"?

Are they scientists? Did they wrote a paper in 2003 describing something similar? Have them or anybody else implemented anything based on their description?

The use of the word "just" especially, is, err, especially misguided.

Can you point to other implementations? If not then it's not "just an implementation", it's the FIRST FRIGGING IMPLEMENTATION!

>Anonymity and cruelty are orthogonal concepts - there is nothing about anonymity that implies or requires cruelty

You'd be surprised. Do you have anything to validate that statement?

Because the empirical observations of anybody on this internet thing (forums, comment threads, etc) suggest otherwise.

Perhaps you start from a logical premise ("I don't see any connection between cruelty and anonymity") but forgot to take into account human psychology factors (e.g "Hmm, I can harass that guy a little harder, it's not as if he knows who I am and can get back at me").

>I think it might be fairer to look at AMZN's price to revenue ratio and compare that with other big companies which have margins AMZN might reasonably have when they start trying to make profits.

There is no indication that they will ever make huge profits. The Amazon you see is that Amazon you WILL see for the next 10-15 years at least.

This looks like a goofy amateur science thing.

>"The CymaScope is a new type of scientific instrument that makes sound visible."

Really? Because we have been making sound visible for centuries. I have around 40 plugins in my Logic Pro that "make sound visible".

>"The CymaScope has applications in almost every branch of science simply because vibration underpins all matter. The ability to see such vibrations permits a depth of study previously unavailable to scientists, engineers and researchers."

Really? Because it seems rather simple to make one...

>"Music, in the absolute sense, is the invisible geometry of the cosmos, a delicate tracery of frequencies that harmonise with each other and from which all matter manifests."

Only if you define "music" very loosely, and probably not even then.

>You are talking about how currently HTML5 is implemented, but there is a long road of optimizations, HTML is a new technology and HTML5 is not yet here

What exactly makes a "long road of optimizations" incompatible with having one engine? As a matter of fact I don't expect any competing engine to disrupt of surpass Webkit in overall speed for the next 10 years (except maybe by some inconsequential amount in some neglected area).

>Do you remember anyone talking about hard javascript engine optimization until Google Chrome "attacked" with their implementation and anybody tried to catch up.

Yes. In fact SquirrelFish was the first new gen Javascript engine, started long before Google Chrome came out. Plus "two weeks after Chrome's launch, the WebKit team announced a new JavaScript engine, SquirrelFish Extreme, citing a 36% speed improvement over Chrome's V8 engine."

Let me guess: for some BS superficial reason, like:

1) Getting the chance to switch to Android which is, like, soooooo much better (and "open")?

2) Getting the chance to live life without constant connectivity, and appreciating the small things?

>The arguments to common UNIX commandline tools like sed or xargs are without doubt going to be longer-lived than the arguments to your helper script, likely even longer than the language your helper script was written in, and maybe even longer than the idioms and philosophies you had in mind when you were building your tool(s).

Yes. Sad isn't it?

It's not as if they were perfect when the were designed.

>I think it's a good statement. But I also recognize a dangerous dystopian world with only one render implementation. The competition between Trident/Gecko/Webkit/Presto pushed the web forward, not a single one of them — the whole process has done it.

What competition with Trident? Trident was already stagnant when Gecko started.

And it's not like Gecko added anything significant.

All of them mostly copied Webkit's innovations (canvas, css transformations, a strong push to pass the ACID3 test, JITed javascript engine, etc).

>urrently rendering HTML5 and its transformations is a complex subject, without competition we don't know if there are better ways to accomplish this task.

Why, did anyone told you that the various engines differ in how the go about those in any real way that matters?

It's mostly duplicated code and similar approaches.

And even if it wasn't you can have different approaches in the ONE AND SAME codebase easily. Test alternatives out and see what works better. It's even easier when everybody is using the same engine, because you don't have to also implement EVERYTHING else yourself in order to implement one thing differently.