At Fri, 7 Oct 2005 19:33:29 +1000, Peter Chubb wrote:
Aren't there any emacs users on this list? my top ten are:
Xemacs (editing)
Xemacs (mail reading/writing)
Xemacs (web browsing)
Xemacs (compiling, with make, distcc and ccache underneath)
Xemacs (remote editing, with tramp)
Xemacs
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:30:02 -0700
Angus Lees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Fri, 7 Oct 2005 19:33:29 +1000, Peter Chubb wrote:
Aren't there any emacs users on this list? my top ten are:
Xemacs (editing)
Xemacs (mail reading/writing)
Xemacs (web browsing)
Xemacs (compiling, with make,
Peter Chubb wrote:
Aren't there any emacs users on this list? my top ten are:
Xemacs (mail reading/writing)
Xemacs (web browsing)
Xemacs (compiling, with make, distcc and ccache underneath)
Xemacs (remote editing, with tramp)
Xemacs (teminal window for other command line apps)
Xemacs
At Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:46:46 +1000, Alan L Tyree wrote:
I've never tried Xemacs - are there any traps for young players when
installing both?
Not really. Default values for some options are different between the
two, as are some elisp package versions and unusual keybindings (M-g
is one that
Aren't there any emacs users on this list? my top ten are:
Xemacs (editing)
Xemacs (mail reading/writing)
Xemacs (web browsing)
Xemacs (compiling, with make, distcc and ccache underneath)
Xemacs (remote editing, with tramp)
Xemacs (teminal window for other command line apps)
Xemacs (games!)
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 19:33:29 +1000
Peter Chubb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aren't there any emacs users on this list? my top ten are:
Xemacs (editing)
Xemacs (mail reading/writing)
Xemacs (web browsing)
Xemacs (compiling, with make, distcc and ccache underneath)
Xemacs (remote editing,
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 10:30:36PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not everyone codes so that time_t is equivalent to int so there's nothing
wrong with time_t being a long (and fix the code that can't handle it).
Of course not. The synopsis for time(2) on v7 Unix says
| long time(0)
|
| long
On Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 18:23:40 +1000, O Plameras wrote:
Matthew Hannigan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:09:40AM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
and as C is closely bound
to hardware architecture you must have said something about these data
Actually, C is not necessarily that closely
Benno wrote:
On Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 18:23:40 +1000, O Plameras wrote:
Matthew Hannigan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:09:40AM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
and as C is closely bound
to hardware architecture you must have said something about these data
#include stdio.h
struct verify {
char initials[2];
int birthdate;
};
int main(void)
{
struct verify holes;
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes.initials[0]));
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes.initials));
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes.birthdate));
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes));
return 0;
}
Given that the word-byte
On Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 10:15:49 +1000, O Plameras wrote:
Benno wrote:
On Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 18:23:40 +1000, O Plameras wrote:
snippety
What do you mean ? Can you illustrate with C codes ? Do you mean that a
struct
are not allocated contiguous memory ? Do you mean a struct components are
On Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 19:44:44 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include stdio.h
struct verify {
char initials[2];
int birthdate;
};
int main(void)
{
struct verify holes;
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes.initials[0]));
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes.initials));
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes.birthdate));
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include stdio.h
struct verify {
char initials[2];
int birthdate;
};
int main(void)
{
struct verify holes;
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes.initials[0]));
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes.initials));
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes.birthdate));
printf (%d\n, sizeof(holes));
return 0;
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 07:44:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
k, I am a newb, so someone plz quickly explain to me why the variable
'initial'
takes 2 bytes, 'birthdate' takes 4 bytes but the struct which is 2+4 = 6
bytes
takes 8 bytes?
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q2.13.html
--
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 12:28:51PM +1000, Matthew Hannigan wrote:
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q2.13.html
A better link, to the whole faq is
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/
What's remarkable is the amount of space in the faq
devoted to exactly the issues mentioned in this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:13:34AM +0800, James wrote:
tick-tock-tick-tock-bing! 64 bit ints are touted as being an easier fix than
re-org'ing the epoch, so 64bit ints WILL happen and 64bit machines are better
equipped to handle this
Thanks.
Mike
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Matthew Hannigan wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:09:40AM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
and as C is closely bound
to hardware architecture you must have said something about these data
Actually, C is not necessarily that closely bound to hardware architecture.
The the following
On Sunday 02 October 2005 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:09:40AM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
and as C is closely bound
to hardware architecture you must have said something about these data
Actually, C is not necessarily that closely bound to
James wrote:
On Sunday 02 October 2005 10:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Likewise the POSIX C does not mandate struture
alignment.
The POSIX C stuff has nothing to do here with the issue if you examine
the post.
Read my post !
The statement was that data type is closely bound
O Plameras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, also, in that case I should also include sizeof(unsigned) which
in C programming
is usually the same as sizeof(int). But we learned again that we must
satisfy ourselves
first hand.
if (sizeof(unsigned) != sizeof(int)) printf(Buggy compiler!\n);
On 9/29/05, Angus Lees [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:00:09 +1000, Bruce Badger wrote:
In fact, the very best of the JITing VMs can get performance that
exceeds that attainable by static compilation - because there is
more information available at run time to base the
At Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:12:54 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
let integer_array = [| 1 ; -2 ; 3 ; -4 ; 5 ; -6 ;
-7 ; 8 ; -9 ; 32727000 |] ;;
Array.mapi (fun i x
- Printf.printf integer_array[%d] = %d\n i x
) integer_array ;;
Hey, my first actual perl6
Angus Lees wrote:
At Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:12:54 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
let integer_array = [| 1 ; -2 ; 3 ; -4 ; 5 ; -6 ;
-7 ; 8 ; -9 ; 32727000 |] ;;
Array.mapi (fun i x
- Printf.printf integer_array[%d] = %d\n i x
) integer_array ;;
Hey,
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 05:17:21PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
[...]
Even Python has a better version (although not as nice as O'Caml)
of this:
integer_array = [ 1, -2, 3, -4, 5, -6, -7, 8, -9, 32727000]
for k in range (len (integer_array)):
print integer [%d] = %d
Sam Couter wrote:
O Plameras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In doing so I have a dramatic change in the way my program now behaves.
No. A for loop is just a different way of expressing a while loop;
they're different syntax but identical in behaviour. Watch:
Yes I have changed the
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:52:29PM +1000, Bruce Badger wrote:
[...]
integerArray := #(1 -2 3 -4 5 -6 -7 8 -9 32727000 9876543210).
[...]
(can you other guys handle the big number I added at the end OK?)
Python handles it and other arbitrary length integers with no trouble.
-Andrew.
--
Bruce Badger wrote:
On 9/29/05, Andrew Bennetts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python can be nicer than that:
integer_array = [1, -2, 3, -4, 5, -6, -7, 8, -9, 32727000]
for index, value in enumerate(integer_array):
print integer [%d] = %d % (index, value)
So can Smalltalk!
On 9/29/05, O Plameras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Badger wrote:
integerArray := #(1 -2 3 -4 5 -6 -7 8 -9 32727000 9876543210).
On my Computer which is a 32-bit, my C compiler is able to handle Integer
size 4 bytes = 32 bits. So 2 exponent 32 less 1 is 2147483647. This is
the max
that
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 07:39:51PM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
With C on 64-bit your number will not be a problem as an integer. C
integer is size 8 bytes = 64 bits. So 2 exponent 64 less 1 can be
handled.
This isn't correct; there are two main models for 64 bit computing.
LP64 where longs and
Ian Wienand wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 07:39:51PM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
With C on 64-bit your number will not be a problem as an integer. C
integer is size 8 bytes = 64 bits. So 2 exponent 64 less 1 can be
handled.
This should be 8 bytes = 64 bits.
So 2 exponent (64-1) -
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:42:41PM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
This should be 8 bytes = 64 bits.
So 2 exponent (64-1) - 1 = max int size in 64 bit machine.
I think you missed my point. An int is still only 32 bits on a 64 bit
machine. On a 64 bit machine running Linux a long will be 64 bits,
Ian Wienand wrote:
It's no wonder people use
Python/Perl/OCaml/Haskell/Smalltalk so they don't have to worry about
any of this.
Indeed!!
I've been spending ***way*** too much time in the day job fiddling
around with fscking linked lists in C, knowing all along that doing
it in O'caml
Does anybody have a 64-bit computer ?
Are you able to compile and run the following code and publish the
results ?
Thanks.
#include stdio.h
int main(void)
{
printf(size of a char is %d\n, sizeof(char));
printf(size of a short is %d\n, sizeof(short));
printf(size of a int
Ian Wienand wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:42:41PM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
This should be 8 bytes = 64 bits.
So 2 exponent (64-1) - 1 = max int size in 64 bit machine.
I think you missed my point. An int is still only 32 bits on a 64 bit
machine. On a 64 bit machine running
O Plameras wrote:
Does anybody have a 64-bit computer ?
Are you able to compile and run the following code and publish the
results ?
I tested an example almost identical to this (also tested sizeof (void*))
and it was published in the book I co-authored:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:59:26PM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
It is easy to check if one has a 64-bit machine. I'm curious to
know.
Have a look at the AMD64 ABI, for example
http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf
Figure 3.1 gives you the size of types.
-i
signature.asc
Description:
quote who=Erik de Castro Lopo
I've been spending ***way*** too much time in the day job fiddling around
with fscking linked lists in C, knowing all along that doing it in O'caml
would have been trivial and fun. In C its such a PITA.
If you coded in glib, you wouldn't have to worry about silly
Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Erik de Castro Lopo
I've been spending ***way*** too much time in the day job fiddling around
with fscking linked lists in C, knowing all along that doing it in O'caml
would have been trivial and fun. In C its such a PITA.
If you coded in glib, you wouldn't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/Desktop $ gcc sizeof.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/Desktop $ ./a.out
size of a char is 1
size of a short is 2
size of a int is 4
size of a long is 8
size of a float is 4
size of a double is 8
O Plameras wrote:
Does anybody have a 64-bit computer ?
Are you able to compile and run
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:23:16PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
QuantumG wrote:
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
You will notice that something like the Array.mapi function is
much less likely to contain errors than the C for loop.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the ML designers were going to borrow syntax they only had a few
places to borrow from: FORTRAN, one of the Algol-like languages, LISP
or maybe APL. Borrowing from CPL or BCPL wouldn't have been entirely silly
even back then (although the smart money would have
Felix Sheldon wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/Desktop $ gcc sizeof.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/Desktop $ ./a.out
size of a char is 1
size of a short is 2
size of a int is 4
size of a long is 8
size of a float is 4
size of a double is 8
Thanks for this.
The only change from 32-bit to 64-bit machine as
O Plameras wrote:
The only change from 32-bit to 64-bit machine as far as
data type sizes are concerned is 'long'.
E, sizeof (void*) and any other pointer is 8 on 64 bit
systems and 4 on 32 bit systems. This is a very important
difference.
Erik
--
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 22:40 +1000, O Plameras wrote:
...
This means that there is going to be minimal improvements from
a 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
I had wanted to buy a 64-bit CPU, but with this I will defer.
I need to check that documentation re AMD64.
ROTFL.
You might want to check void *
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:40:47PM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
The only change from 32-bit to 64-bit machine as far as
data type sizes are concerned is 'long'. Changed from 4 to 8 bytes.
This resolves the argument comprehensively.
This means that there is going to be minimal improvements from
Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 22:40 +1000, O Plameras wrote:
...
This means that there is going to be minimal improvements from
a 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
I had wanted to buy a 64-bit CPU, but with this I will defer.
I need to check that documentation re AMD64.
ROTFL.
O Plameras wrote:
I was anticipating 64-bit will give similar improvements in speed
from a 16-bit to 32-bit machine. I have a good idea of the change
in speed from 16-bit to 32-bit. It appears this is not going to be
the case with 16-bit to 32-bit.
Any speed up moving from 16 to 32 bits was
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
O Plameras wrote:
I was anticipating 64-bit will give similar improvements in speed
from a 16-bit to 32-bit machine. I have a good idea of the change
in speed from 16-bit to 32-bit. It appears this is not going to be
the case with 16-bit to 32-bit.
Any
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
O Plameras wrote:
I was anticipating 64-bit will give similar improvements in speed
from a 16-bit to 32-bit machine. I have a good idea of the change
in speed from 16-bit to 32-bit. It appears this is not going to be
the case with 16-bit to 32-bit.
Any
O Plameras wrote:
Given two CPUs one 32-bit and another 64-bit with the same Megahertz or
clock speed, the 64-bit is significantly faster.
That is not right.
As you saw from the sizeof experiment, the only thing that changes
when going from 32 bits to 64 bits is sizeof(long) and sizeof
Please do not CC me on replies. I am subscribed to the list.
O Plameras wrote:
So what is the reasoning why the int are still 4 bytes instead of 8 bytes ?
Can anyone clarify ?
There are a whole bunch of things in programs where a 32 bit integer
is sufficient and 64 bits is complete
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Please do not CC me on replies. I am subscribed to the list.
O Plameras wrote:
So what is the reasoning why the int are still 4 bytes instead of 8 bytes ?
Can anyone clarify ?
There are a whole bunch of things in programs where a 32 bit integer
is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:59:26PM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
I am now not sure because I don't have a 64-bit machine.
It is easy to check if one has a 64-bit machine. I'm curious to know.
Actually, just checking one 64 bit machine would not be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:35:22PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
The very existance and popularity of Python is a perfect counter
example.
Python only got popular because Europe was so very desperate to write
code in something that was not
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:01:59AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, just checking one 64 bit machine would not be enough.
If you stick to Linux and gcc then you get fairly consistent results
but C is bigger than gcc (only slightly).
I'd suggest it is the other way around; gcc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:40:47PM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
This means that there is going to be minimal improvements from
a 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
Since all your pointers are now twice as large, any data structure
that uses linked lists (or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 07:44:01AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
In addition, C is used for low level programming where the programmer
needs to be able to address 32 bit hardware registers. If int was
64 bits, what would you use for accessing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:59:26PM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
I am now not sure because I don't have a 64-bit machine.
It is easy to check if one has a 64-bit machine. I'm curious to know.
Actually, just
Gr.
Can't you guys change the subject line?
I was REALLY interested in the top ten thread
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
O Plameras wrote:
Many books in C programming teaches that 64-bit machines have 8 bytes
int size, at least the ones I gone through.
I have never personally seen such a book.
I have not gone through your book
that you
co-authored. Did you or your book say anything about int sizes in
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
O Plameras wrote:
Many books in C programming teaches that 64-bit machines have 8 bytes
int size, at least the ones I gone through.
I have never personally seen such a book.
What did you say about Basic Data Types in your book as it is essential
to
On Friday 30 September 2005 06:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what is the reasoning why the int are still 4 bytes instead of 8 bytes
?
Can anyone clarify ?
There are a whole bunch of things in programs where a 32 bit integer
is sufficient and 64 bits is complete overkill. The first
On Friday 30 September 2005 06:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means that there is going to be minimal improvements from
a 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
Since all your pointers are now twice as large, any data structure
that uses linked lists (or trees) is now also twice as large.
Since memory
At Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:17:21 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
for 1 .. @integer_array {
say integer_array[$_] = @integer_array[$_];
}
Yeah sorry. Did I mention it was my first ever perl6 program?
Try this version, note the iterator, the typed array (compile-time
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:09:40AM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
and as C is closely bound
to hardware architecture you must have said something about these data
Actually, C is not necessarily that closely bound to hardware architecture.
The following quote is from wikipedia
On 9/28/05, Mike MacCana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 11:17 +1000, David wrote:
mutt for speed
squirrelmail for pictures, html, pdf, other gui crap, etc.
You might be interested in roundcube. OSS webmail like Squirrelmail,
except it doesn't look like arse.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 03:54:55PM +1000, Mike MacCana wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 11:17 +1000, David wrote:
mutt for speed
squirrelmail for pictures, html, pdf, other gui crap, etc.
You might be interested in roundcube. OSS webmail like Squirrelmail,
except it doesn't look like arse.
O Plameras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In doing so I have a dramatic change in the way my program now behaves.
No. A for loop is just a different way of expressing a while loop;
they're different syntax but identical in behaviour. Watch:
for (initialise; guard; increment) { body }
initialise;
At Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:00:09 +1000, Bruce Badger wrote:
On 9/27/05, Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are large classes of problems where running speed is an
important issue. Static typing does make for faster run times
and in cases where that moves your program from being
hi
F-Spot rocks when it comes to photo management. Almost as good as
Google's picasa. :-)
does someone can suggest a good and fast(!) image browser for linux? sth
like acdsee for windows?
i cannot try f-spot because my debian box cannot resolve some depencies.
br, gottfried
--
SLUG -
G'day Gottfried and all...
does someone can suggest a good and fast(!) image browser for linux? sth
like acdsee for windows?
i cannot try f-spot because my debian box cannot resolve some depencies.
gThumb image view under gnome is the most acdsee like...
# apt-get install gthumb
should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) cvs
That's ... if you have more than 1 person working on the code.
... or even if you're working alone.
As for programming languages I recommand:
C/C++ (gcc/g++)
perl
shell (script)
Java
Python
--
Sam Eddie Couter | mailto:[EMAIL
QuantumG wrote:
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
You will notice that something like the Array.mapi function is
much less likely to contain errors than the C for loop.
What I noticed is that they invented syntax when they could have just as
easily have used C syntax. Way to knife your
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
You will notice that something like the Array.mapi function is
much less likely to contain errors than the C for loop.
I can modify my C-program to remove that problem in the ff. So,
as to whether a C-program is more prone to error relies on the
manner and style
O Plameras wrote:
I can modify my C-program to remove that problem in the ff. So,
as to whether a C-program is more prone to error relies on the
manner and style of coding and not intrinsic to C-language. Don't
you think ?
I don't think its specific to the C language, I think its intrinsic
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
O Plameras wrote:
I can modify my C-program to remove that problem in the ff. So,
as to whether a C-program is more prone to error relies on the
manner and style of coding and not intrinsic to C-language. Don't
you think ?
I don't think its specific to the
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Nice troll or was it?
read The End Of History And The Last Programming Language.
Best I can find for a web reference:
http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~leavens/ComS541Fall97/hw-pages/history/gabriel.html
Basically if your language is new and you don't have a C
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
All you've done is replace the for loop with a while loop. You are
still setting the start condition and the end condition for the
looping operation. These are things the compiler (or rather the
language) expect you to do.
In Io (a dynamically typed language)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 03:57:25PM EST, Grant Parnell wrote:
For starters what apps do you tend to use the most?
In no particular order:
links2 - web browsing.
mutt - email
nano - text/document editing.
pdftotext/html, catdoc etc - Utilities to convert PDF/word documents to
text for reading
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 03:57:25PM EST, Grant Parnell wrote:
For starters what apps do you tend to use the most?
It seems a sad state of linux on the desktop where nearly everyone has
replied with what would be considered command-line apps. Or perhaps
there was a joke there I missed. I
On Wed Sep 28, 2005 at 09:01:00 +1000, Dave Kempe wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 03:57:25PM EST, Grant Parnell wrote:
For starters what apps do you tend to use the most?
It seems a sad state of linux on the desktop where nearly everyone has
replied with what would be considered command-line
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 18:25 +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) cvs
That's ... if you have more than 1 person working on the code.
... or even if you're working alone.
One can argue that CVS is only useful if you are working alone ;0
Rob
--
GPG key
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:46:20PM +1000, O Plameras wrote:
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
You will notice that something like the Array.mapi function is
much less likely to contain errors than the C for loop.
I can modify my C-program to remove that problem in the ff. So,
as to whether a
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 09:09:38AM +1000, Benno wrote:
On Wed Sep 28, 2005 at 09:01:00 +1000, Dave Kempe wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 03:57:25PM EST, Grant Parnell wrote:
For starters what apps do you tend to use the most?
Personally I find mutt a better email client than any other mail
On 9/28/05, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they are doing low volumes, I can't imagine a punter using mutt. It's
really hard to convince someone raised on gui that consoles are actually
easier.
Perhaps we could have a SLUG talk on mutt?
I've heard so many good things about mutt, so I'l
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 11:29:29AM +1000, Bruce Badger wrote:
On 9/28/05, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they are doing low volumes, I can't imagine a punter using mutt. It's
really hard to convince someone raised on gui that consoles are actually
easier.
Perhaps we could have a SLUG
* David [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake thus:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 11:29:29AM +1000, Bruce Badger wrote:
On 9/28/05, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they are doing low volumes, I can't imagine a punter using mutt. It's
really hard to convince someone raised on gui that consoles are actually
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 11:17 +1000, David wrote:
mutt for speed
squirrelmail for pictures, html, pdf, other gui crap, etc.
You might be interested in roundcube. OSS webmail like Squirrelmail,
except it doesn't look like arse.
http://www.roundcube.net/
Mike
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's
Grant Parnell wrote:
For this Friday's SLUG meeting we're doing a newbie oriented talk for the
second half of the meeting and SLUGlets will be where all the tech guru's
head for a chat on random stuff like coding and key signing etc.
It just occurred to me that we should get a run-down of
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:57, Grant Parnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For this Friday's SLUG meeting we're doing a newbie oriented talk for the
second half of the meeting and SLUGlets will be where all the tech guru's
head for a chat on random stuff like coding and key signing etc.
It just
quote who=Grant Parnell
For starters what apps do you tend to use the most?
Here's my top 10 list:-
gnome-terminal
firefox (squirrelmail,google)
gimp
openoffice
evince
gaim
evolution
palm sync
xchat
rhythmbox
I also suggest showing off f-spot, totem, and some cool stuff like celestia,
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 15:57 +1000, Grant Parnell wrote:
gnome-terminal
firefox (squirrelmail,google)
qfaxreader
nautilus
xv (old, small image viewer)
gimp
openoffice
nagit's openoffice.org /nag
gnumeric
xmms
grip
evolution
terminal server client (remote desktop for windows)
project
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 19:45 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
I'll bite :-). My somewhat unorthodox list:
gcc
of course.
Plus:
vim - because my 20-something year unix veteran fingers already know the
key strokes
Valgrind
How did we ever live without it?
wget / curl - because
Desktop apps? For this I read gui, gentle learning curve, suitable for
people who dislike learning about the computer.
In no special order the ones I use regularly and like are
firefox
rhythmbox
sound juicer
sweep
gqview
wesnoth
oowriter or abiword (equally good in different ways)
lifrea
xine
Konqueror - using fish to transfer files - fish://user@host
Konqueror - to display man/info pages
freenx
--
Regards,
Graham Smith
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Peter Miller wrote:
C offers you enough rope to hang yourself.
C++ offers a fully equipped firing squad, a last cigarette and
a blindfold.
and better type safety that sh, tcl, php and a shit load of other
advanced make-the- type-up- at-run-time you-can-only-find- bugs-by-
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Thats why I'm so keen on O'Caml. It offers even more static analysis
than C and C++. Its significantly more difficult to write bugs into
an O'Caml program than a C or C++ program.
Sounds like the antithesis of Objective-C and other dynamically typed
languages.
QuantumG wrote:
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Thats why I'm so keen on O'Caml. It offers even more static analysis
than C and C++. Its significantly more difficult to write bugs into
an O'Caml program than a C or C++ program.
Sounds like the antithesis of Objective-C and other dynamically
On 9/27/05, Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with dynamic typing is that it postones testing for an
important class of errors (type errors) until run time.
Nah. In fact the oposite is true. Static typing is just another form
of premature optimisation!
I make extensive
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
