On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:27 AM, David Tweed wrote:
>> "obviously safe machine code"
>
> hahahahahah
Would you care to elaborate on this? The compilation problem is
asymmetric: there's going to be lots of code sequences that are in
fact inno
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:27 AM, David Tweed wrote:
> "obviously safe machine code"
hahahahahah
--
# Kurt H Maier
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Will Light wrote:
> yeah, I'm aware that the stuff exists. just earlier today I was doing
> quite a bit of fiddling around with the current version of audiotool
> (http://www.audiotool.com/), and it's pretty cool. the potential is
> definitely there, but the poin
Galactic Basic, you fools. How the hell do you expect any other
language to be be understood by anyone other you and your
anime-figurines? You've all got about as much foresight as Jabba
the Hutt when he put Leia right next to him with a big-ass chain.
Freakin' nerf herders...
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:34 AM, David Tweed wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Will Light wrote:
>> but the notion of a browser-based terminal
>> for a local machine just seems ridiculous...and that's a mild example!
>> a browser-based music sequencer or video editor, for example, is so
I will suggest Japanese because eveRYTHING ABOUHT JAPAN IS
BESTOMGOMGPONIESKAWAIII
I'm find of the Black Speech myself. It's concise, simple, and speaks
with power:
Ash nazg durbatulûk... = One ring to rule them all...
Brusizg nar salium = I have no life
Ghashnum Mor kulat shum lapus = The Black Speech is very "metal"
Plus it's related to Elvish so being trilingual will be easy
Klingon. The rules suck less. There are nouns, and there are verbs.
All the rest is chumvey. Left-overs, for you smooth-heads.
On 16 Jun 2010, at 22:06, Matthew Bauer wrote:
sarcasm=1
I suggest converting suckless project documentation to a more simple
language, such as Esperanto.
English
Toki Pona is the only way
On Jun 16, 2010, at 11:06 PM, Matthew Bauer wrote:
sarcasm=1
I suggest converting suckless project documentation to a more simple
language, such as Esperanto.
English does not follow the Unix philosophy or the KISS principles.
The English language is old, bloated,
> Esperanto suffers from being a spoken language, and designed for
> the laity, no less. I suggest we simply write in the language of
> mathematics. Or lisp.
The language of mathematics sucks less? You gotta be kidding. it suffers from
even more bloat and modification and syntax inconsistencies
Kurt H Maier dixit (2010-06-16, 18:02):
> Lojban is a decadent bourgeois luxury. Interlingua is the staff of
> the proletariat.
Interlingua is sweet. I volunteer for proofreading the translated texts.
--
[a]
Lojban is a decadent bourgeois luxury. Interlingua is the staff of
the proletariat.
--
# Kurt H Maier
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 04:06:50PM -0500, Matthew Bauer wrote:
sarcasm=1
I suggest converting suckless project documentation to a more simple
language, such as Esperanto.
English does not follow the Unix philosophy or the KISS principles.
The English language is old, bloated, and outdated. Much
English does not follow the Unix philosophy or the KISS principles.
The English language is old, bloated, and outdated. Much of the
grammar is more complicated than it needs to be.
Surely txtspk would be a better choice, given your concerns?
http://jasonwryan.com/
Esperanto is to Euro-centric and uses ambiguous grammar. We should use
Lojban.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Matthew Bauer wrote:
> sarcasm=1
>
> I suggest converting suckless project documentation to a more simple
> language, such as Esperanto.
> English does not follow the Unix philosophy
But yet we still use X11.
X11 release date: September 1987
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:35:57PM -0500, Matthew Bauer wrote:
> > Wouldn't porting the Plan9 window system (rio I think) to Linux be a good
> > replacement for X?
>
> Not really
sarcasm=1
I suggest converting suckless project documentation to a more simple
language, such as Esperanto.
English does not follow the Unix philosophy or the KISS principles.
The English language is old, bloated, and outdated. Much of the grammar is
more complicated than it needs to be.
A constr
On 16 Jun 2010, at 17:34, David Tweed wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Will Light wrote:
but the notion of a browser-based terminal
for a local machine just seems ridiculous...and that's a mild
example!
a browser-based music sequencer or video editor, for example, is so
far off th
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:35:57PM -0500, Matthew Bauer wrote:
> Wouldn't porting the Plan9 window system (rio I think) to Linux be a good
> replacement for X?
Not really, we don't live in the 80s anymore ;)
Though certain aspects of rio are definately worth being considered in a new
window syste
Wouldn't porting the Plan9 window system (rio I think) to Linux be a good
replacement for X?
--
Matthew Bauer
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Will Light wrote:
> but the notion of a browser-based terminal
> for a local machine just seems ridiculous...and that's a mild example!
> a browser-based music sequencer or video editor, for example, is so
> far off that it's just impractical.
Just to provide so
On 15 Jun 2010, at 23:33, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
On 15 June 2010 14:05, Ethan Grammatikidis
wrote:
On 15 Jun 2010, at 12:51, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
In my opinion the problem is purely user experience:
Is this your opinion, or lines you've been fed?
My own, strangely enough. UX is on
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> You're seriously claiming that psychology doesn't come into an
> individual's interaction with tools? Have you ever read anything on
> psychology?
Yup. And you're overstating the importance of inappropriate
application of a masturbatory
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 01:28:28PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Vi is a modal clusterfuck. I mean, the crazy shit that thing does?
> It's different on every machine. Even Bill Joy doesn't use vi anymore.
vi[m] is awesome (also most popular programmer's editor)
if you dismiss vi (and especial
On 16 June 2010 12:39, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> There's no 'psychological interaction'
> with computers, unless the user is profoundly insane.
You're seriously claiming that psychology doesn't come into an
individual's interaction with tools? Have you ever read anything on
psychology?
> the fact th
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Think of it more as how the user
> interacts with the software, not on a graphical level but a
> psychological one.
Are you listening to yourself? There's no 'psychological interaction'
with computers, unless the user is profoundly ins
On 16 June 2010 11:41, Jakub Lach wrote:
> Anselm R Garbe napisał(a):
>> The point is we should design user interfaces for
>> ourselves, not for Apple users ;)
>
> Like Rob Pike? :P
Indeed.
Anselm R Garbe napisał(a):
> The point is we should design user interfaces for
> ourselves, not for Apple users ;)
Like Rob Pike? :P
regards,
- Jakub Lach
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:26:28 +0100
Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 16 June 2010 00:44, Robert Ransom wrote:
> > Try
> On 15 June 2010 18:04, v4hn wrote:
> > dwm-5.8.2 $ cat ../dwm-5.8.2-bstack.diff \
> > ../dwm-5.8.2-fibonacci.diff \
> > ../dwm-5.8.2-gridmode.diff \
> > ../dwm-5.8.2-monocle_count.diff \
> > ../dwm-5.8.2-pertag_without_bar.diff | patch
On 16 June 2010 08:42, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> I wouldn't say that careful user interface consideration results in
> sam or acme necessarily. I tried to adapt acme for quite a long time
> some years ago; and always felt uncomfortable. This doesn't mean that
> they don't work for others though.
De
On 16 June 2010 05:02, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 16 June 2010 02:32, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> Using the term 'user experience' at all, much less abbreviating it
>> 'UX,' is every bit as snotty. A lot of programmers don't give a shit
>> about 'user experience' because they are competent users o
32 matches
Mail list logo
