On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Joerg Zinke wrote:
> toki pona to the rescue!
http://en.tokipona.org/wiki/Dark_teenage_poetry
I'm sold.
--Andrew Hills
On 07/11/2012, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Which languages qualify as suckless?
>
> C, body language.
Language
> Which languages qualify as suckless?
C, body language.
On 07/11/2012, Joerg Zinke wrote:
> Loglan is way to over-engineered and bloated.
> toki pona to the rescue!
"Training your mind to think in Toki Pona can lead to many deeper
insights about yourself or the world around you." [1]
Well, it can lead to many shallow insights about its creator.
[1]
On 06/11/2012, Alex Hutton wrote:
> Which languages qualify as suckless?
Only Unicode-extended Lazy K.
λ is for wimps.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:07:03PM -0500, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 12:58:09PM +1100, Alex Hutton wrote:
> > Which languages qualify as suckless?
>
> Loglan for new development, English for legacy support.
>
Loglan is way to over-engineered and bloated.
toki pona to the rescu
Obviously C. Also you have to love Xlib, GTK+ and vintage console terminals.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Alex Hutton wrote:
> On 7 November 2012 03:00, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > b...but I though Go was suckless? ;_;
>>
>>
>> No. There was only one person pretendi
> Which languages qualify as suckless?
Only Brainfuck. Anything more is superfluous.
C++ & Java.
On Nov 7, 2012 2:58 AM, "Alex Hutton" wrote:
> On 7 November 2012 03:00, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > b...but I though Go was suckless? ;_;
>>
>>
>> No. There was only one person pretending go to be suckless because of
>> its pseudo Plan 9 heritage.
>>
>>
> Wh
On 7 November 2012 09:58, Alex Hutton wrote:
> Which languages qualify as suckless?
Have you not noticed http://hg.suckless.org/ ?
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 12:58:09PM +1100, Alex Hutton wrote:
> Which languages qualify as suckless?
Loglan for new development, English for legacy support.
Hope this helps
On 7 November 2012 03:00, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
>
> > b...but I though Go was suckless? ;_;
>
>
> No. There was only one person pretending go to be suckless because of
> its pseudo Plan 9 heritage.
>
>
Which languages qualify as suckless?
Cheers,
Alex
Quoth Galos, David:
> For what it's worth, I'd submitted a patch (attached) to Gottox, the
> guy who wrote sltar, which added creation support, but he never wound
> up applying it.
cls wrote really good clean create support for sltar, I'm pretty
sure. He should have copied the code into sbase, bu
For what it's worth, I'd submitted a patch (attached) to Gottox, the
guy who wrote sltar, which added creation support, but he never wound
up applying it.
With that, and pipes to gzip, or bzip2, you can have all the tar
functionality you know and love.
But, at the same time, plan9 tar works well,
On 6 November 2012 11:00, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:00:06 +0100 Andreas Krennmair
> wrote:
> > * Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> [2012-11-06 16:20]:
> > >On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:10:33 +0100 Andreas Krennmair
> wrote:
> > >> Hello everyone,
Greetings.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:00:06 +0100 Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> * Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> [2012-11-06 16:20]:
> >On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:10:33 +0100 Andreas Krennmair
> >wrote:
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> Yesterday, out of frustration and boredom, I started a minimalistic
>
* Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> [2012-11-06 16:20]:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:10:33 +0100 Andreas Krennmair wrote:
Hello everyone,
Yesterday, out of frustration and boredom, I started a minimalistic
implementation of tar in Go which I named rat ('tar' reversed, but also
'ridiculously abysmal
Greetings.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:10:33 +0100 Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Yesterday, out of frustration and boredom, I started a minimalistic
> implementation of tar in Go which I named rat ('tar' reversed, but also
> 'ridiculously abysmal tar'). Today, I reached a point whe
On 2012-11-06, at 12:00, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> It currently supports the tar operations c, t and x (which makes it a bit
> more useful than sltar) and the options -f, -C, -v, -z and -j (for
> decompression only).
Cool. Did you consider auto detecting compression from file name and/or conte
19 matches
Mail list logo
