Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 151

Thread: Mono 2.8 Is Out With C# 4.0, Better Performance

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    Gimp users have been asking for single window mode since forever, and usability experts agreed with them--this isn't even news.
    Indeed: spraying windows all over the screen Gimp-style is an absolute disaster on the usability front. Maybe it's OK if all you do is boot up and run Gimp with nothing else active, but when you have fifteen Firefox windows, six Open Office documents and then run Gimp, trying to track where all its bloody windows are is a nightmare.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    The multiple windows of GIMP can be a nuissance, but have you people ever heard of a window manager? Multiple desktops? Window grouping?

    Seriously, it's 2010 and you're using Linux, how come you're complaining about things that were solved 20 years ago?

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    Sundays working are not good for the mood.

    Sorry, man.
    Hey NP Valid excuse

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    The multiple windows of GIMP can be a nuissance, but have you people ever heard of a window manager? Multiple desktops? Window grouping?

    Seriously, it's 2010 and you're using Linux, how come you're complaining about things that were solved 20 years ago?
    That's not the point. It's true that in Linux we have an assortment of window managers that can satisfy the tastes of everyone. Multiple desktops and a window manager properly configured mitigate the pain, but don't solve the problem. The Gimp's floating window interface has been loathed since always, you can't pretend it's been just a few people who didn't know what a WM is (or that we don't know it either). Usability panels arrived at the same conclusion as those users, as well as the people at Adobe. Multiple monitors or very small screens are the only cases where a floating model is an advantage.

    All these years, every time somebody complained about the lack of a single window interface in The Gimp somebody would appear justifying this model or dismissing the complain as a bad habit from Photoshop. Well, it turned out we were right.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    If there's a bug in the C compiler then it will crash. And odds are you're using gcc for both.



    So if you want 'control' why are you using C rather than assembler? That's simpler and gives you total control and hence must be more reliable, right?

    Most crashes in C are due to duff pointers, buffer overflows and incorrect memory management through malloc and free; C++ has features to drastically reduce those problems, so any substantial program which uses them is likely to be more robust in C++ than C.
    More control not complete control.

    You're arguing with the wrong person. I'm stating why people do it, not why people should do it. I use C++ for everything. I think it's better. But, knowing how it works, things can go wrong. It can go wrong in C too but some developers prefer having more control than standard C++.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    That's not the point. It's true that in Linux we have an assortment of window managers that can satisfy the tastes of everyone. Multiple desktops and a window manager properly configured mitigate the pain, but don't solve the problem. The Gimp's floating window interface has been loathed since always, you can't pretend it's been just a few people who didn't know what a WM is (or that we don't know it either). Usability panels arrived at the same conclusion as those users, as well as the people at Adobe. Multiple monitors or very small screens are the only cases where a floating model is an advantage.

    All these years, every time somebody complained about the lack of a single window interface in The Gimp somebody would appear justifying this model or dismissing the complain as a bad habit from Photoshop. Well, it turned out we were right.
    Seriously, I try hard. I've even read posts and blogs but I can not still understand why a single windows is better than the ability to move the windows whenever you prefer having more room in your screen. Always the points seem very moot to me.
    In my eyes the multiple windows seems to offer whatever a single window does plus something more.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    That's fine, especially now that we will have both options. There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" here, if you find the floating windows UI comfortable that's your preference. It just happens that a lot of people did not, and the same was concluded by both Adobe UI designers and the usability people in charge of revamping The Gimp. This is what I mean when I say "we were right", i.e. that it was considered sufficiently important by both a good number of users, developers (at last) and UI experts.

    So it would be foolish if I tried to convince you about how to best use The Gimp, you know what works best for you. For me it all boils down to having to manage more than one window. Sure, with a tiling WM (or kwin's grouping, but this is quite new), things aren't that bad. But I don't see how the possibility of rearranging the panels outweights the extra burden of actually rearranging them. I don't gain any extra space by moving them around because I want both the tools and the working document visible at all times, with no overlap. With more than one image loaded things used to get out of control rather quick. It's a similar principle to tabbed browsing, or the tabs in Thunderbird 3, or tabbed documents in text editors or IDEs. I don't want an extra window for more of the same, nor two parts of the same program separated for no obvious reason. If I had two monitors or were to edit an image on a netbook I might value more the floating interface.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Gentoo GCC 4.5 porting. I'm counting 116 bugs caused by a minor version change of a single compiler. God forbid that you should try with Clang or ICC instead.

    Or take a look at the C++ portability guide for Mozilla: "don't use static constructors", "don't use exceptions", "don't use RTTI", "be careful of variable declarations that require construction or initialization" - just read for yourself, there's some golden stuff. They forbid half the language in there, for god's shake!

    Is this how mature languages work? Because if so, just give me immature C# which I can compile with any compiler and have that single binary run on every supported OS *and* CPU architecture, without recompilation or strange compatibility issues. It just works (and I have done this time and time before). And if I need the extra speed, I'll inject native code into the hotspots and precompile the rest at installation time.

    It's amazing what a non-retarded language spec can do for you.

    PS: how's your C++ ABI feeling today?
    1.) genius clang is barely functional as still is under heavy development, so it's ridicioulus to bring that one out (you bother in check what clang is and in what state is LOL, take read it here http://clang.llvm.org/)

    2.) ICC doesnt count either since icc is not GNU compliant aka it misses some extensions added to the specification especificaly made to use in the GNU framework and it compile garbage(aka crappy performance) in AMD too since is for intel processors only. (is the same on windows btw, icc is incompatible with Viual Studio. that is why programs created with ICC are huge cuz you need to recompile all the dependicies using ICC)

    3.) gcc 4.5 is not a minor revision genius, a minor revision is 4.4.1 for example, and yes gcc 4.5 need some additional iron out cuz it include a whole new series of technology to be closer performance wise to commertial compilers like graphite, SSA trees, C++0x, etc

    4.) mozilla is the worth example you could ever bother to find, since mozilla main focus is windows compatibility and Visual Studio compiler is the worth C/C++ implementation you will ever find, so many of those cool feature are a pain to port to VS so mozilla try to avoid it.

    5.) the rest of the post is just too lol to respond, this is free world so you are free among the oter 7 users of mono to keep using it, at least until microsoft stop paying novell to develop it and it slow fade aways.

    6.) you dont have abi in an interpreted language for god sake, lol why im wasting my time replying this ....

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    3.) gcc 4.5 is not a minor revision genius, a minor revision is 4.4.1 for example
    The usual GNU convention (also followed by Linux) for 3-part version numbers is major.minor.revision. So GCC 4.5 is a minor release, it's just that it's only "minor" compared to GCC 5.0.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    1.) genius clang is barely functional as still is under heavy development, so it's ridicioulus to bring that one out (you bother in check what clang is and in what state is LOL, take read it here http://clang.llvm.org/)

    2.) ICC doesnt count either since icc is not GNU compliant aka it misses some extensions added to the specification especificaly made to use in the GNU framework and it compile garbage(aka crappy performance) in AMD too since is for intel processors only. (is the same on windows btw, icc is incompatible with Viual Studio. that is why programs created with ICC are huge cuz you need to recompile all the dependicies using ICC)

    3.) gcc 4.5 is not a minor revision genius, a minor revision is 4.4.1 for example, and yes gcc 4.5 need some additional iron out cuz it include a whole new series of technology to be closer performance wise to commertial compilers like graphite, SSA trees, C++0x, etc

    4.) mozilla is the worth example you could ever bother to find, since mozilla main focus is windows compatibility and Visual Studio compiler is the worth C/C++ implementation you will ever find, so many of those cool feature are a pain to port to VS so mozilla try to avoid it.

    5.) the rest of the post is just too lol to respond, this is free world so you are free among the oter 7 users of mono to keep using it, at least until microsoft stop paying novell to develop it and it slow fade aways.

    6.) you dont have abi in an interpreted language for god sake, lol why im wasting my time replying this ....
    Everything you just said is wrong. I didn't believe this was possible, but people never cease to amaze me:

    1) Clang currently implements all of the ISO C++ 1998 standard (including the defects addressed in the ISO C++ 2003 standard) except for 'export' (which has been removed from the C++'0x draft). Source

    2) ICC is a mature, standards-compliant compiler. Can it compile Gentoo? The fact that you don't like its license is irrelevant.

    3) Educate yourself: " The version number has the form [i]major-version.minor-version[//i] or major-version.minor-version.micro-version, where the additional third "micro" version number (as shown above) is used for subsequent bug-fix releases in a release series."

    4) Are you insane? Take a look at the list of supported compilers and platforms. Its build system is GNU configure/make.

    5) Running out of arguments? Oh wait, you didn't have arguments in the first place.

    6) Mono is JIT compiled, not interpreted and has a well-defined ABI. Read the Debian CLI packaging policy, section 3.2.1.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •