On 13/08/2014 11:42, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
By the way, you keep replying to people, and quoting them, but
deleting their name. Please leave the attribution in place, so we
know who you are replying to.
That's what the "References:"-Header is there for.
The References header is for the benefi
Wolfgang Keller wrote:
> I've been using mail and news for over 20 years now, you definitely
> don't need to teach me anything.
Except common courtesy.
You may have been rude for over 20 years, but I don't have to put up with it
for a second longer.
> Good Bye,
Agreed.
*plonk*
--
Steven
-
> >> > Because on such operating systems, each and every application is
> >> > an entirely self-contained package that doesn't need any
> >> > "packages" or "installers" to use it.
> >
> >> For people who have never used such a system it's probably
> >> difficult to see the advantages.
> >
> > Tha
> >> By the way, you keep replying to people, and quoting them, but
> >> deleting their name. Please leave the attribution in place, so we
> >> know who you are replying to.
> >
> > That's what the "References:"-Header is there for.
>
> The References header is for the benefit of news and mail cl
On 2014-08-12 02:07, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> It is rude to deliberately refuse to give attributes
> >
> > While I find this true for first-level attribution, I feel far
> > less obligation to attribute additional levels (and the verbosity
> > they entail).
>
> I cannot disagree with that.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I cannot disagree with that. I consider that the first-level attribution
> MUST be given, second-level SHOULD be given, and third- and subsequent
> levels MAY be given, where MUST/SHOULD/MAY have their conventional
> meanings from RFC 2119
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:27:25 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2014-08-12 10:11, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> It is rude to deliberately refuse to give attributes
>
> While I find this true for first-level attribution, I feel far less
> obligation to attribute additional levels (and the verbosity they
>
On 2014-08-12 10:11, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> It is rude to deliberately refuse to give attributes
While I find this true for first-level attribution, I feel far less
obligation to attribute additional levels (and the verbosity they
entail). If the reader is really that interested in who said what
Wolfgang Keller wrote:
>> By the way, you keep replying to people, and quoting them, but
>> deleting their name. Please leave the attribution in place, so we
>> know who you are replying to.
>
> That's what the "References:"-Header is there for.
The References header is for the benefit of news a
On 2014-08-11, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
> [somebody, but we don't know who, wrote]...
>> By the way, you keep replying to people, and quoting them, but
>> deleting their name. Please leave the attribution in place, so we
>> know who you are replying to.
>
> That's what the "References:"-Header is
On 2014-08-06, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
>> > Because on such operating systems, each and every application is an
>> > entirely self-contained package that doesn't need any "packages" or
>> > "installers" to use it.
>
>> For people who have never used such a system it's probably difficult
>> to see t
On 11/08/2014 10:08, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
By the way, you keep replying to people, and quoting them, but
deleting their name. Please leave the attribution in place, so we
know who you are replying to.
That's what the "References:"-Header is there for.
Sincerely,
Wolfgang
The references
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:37 PM, alister
wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:08:43 +0200, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
>
>>> By the way, you keep replying to people, and quoting them, but deleting
>>> their name. Please leave the attribution in place, so we know who you
>>> are replying to.
>>
>> That's wha
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:08:43 +0200, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
>> By the way, you keep replying to people, and quoting them, but deleting
>> their name. Please leave the attribution in place, so we know who you
>> are replying to.
>
> That's what the "References:"-Header is there for.
>
> Sincerely,
> >> > Thankfully, all actually user-friendly operating systems (MacOS,
> >> > TOS, RiscOS, probably AmigaOS, MacOS X) spare(d) their users the
> >> > bottomless cesspit of "package management" and/or "installers".
> >> >
> >> > Because on such operating systems, each and every application is
> >>
> > Linux was made by geeks who didn't have a clue of ergonomics for
> > screenworkers and didn't care to get one.
>
> I can only repeat what you said earlier:
>
> "You should get a clue in stead [sic] of just fantasizing up
> assumptions based on ignorance."
>
> I daresay that Linus Torvalds sp
Wolfgang Keller wrote:
> Linux was made by geeks who didn't have a clue of ergonomics for
> screenworkers and didn't care to get one.
I can only repeat what you said earlier:
"You should get a clue in stead [sic] of just fantasizing up assumptions
based on ignorance."
I daresay that Linus Torva
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
>> > Thankfully, all actually user-friendly operating systems (MacOS,
>> > TOS, RiscOS, probably AmigaOS, MacOS X) spare(d) their users the
>> > bottomless cesspit of "package management" and/or "installers".
>> >
>> > Because on such operati
> I've worked with both. Quite honestly, I really wish that other
> operating systems had gone down this route. MS didn't possibly to make
> it harder to steal software,
>From the perspective of the computer-literate, proficient
screenworker, MS always got and gets everything completely wrong.
> > Because on such operating systems, each and every application is an
> > entirely self-contained package that doesn't need any "packages" or
> > "installers" to use it.
> For people who have never used such a system it's probably difficult
> to see the advantages.
That's the whole point.
The
> > Thankfully, all actually user-friendly operating systems (MacOS,
> > TOS, RiscOS, probably AmigaOS, MacOS X) spare(d) their users the
> > bottomless cesspit of "package management" and/or "installers".
> >
> > Because on such operating systems, each and every application is an
> > entirely self
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Duncan Booth
wrote:
> So far they seem to have kept a pretty low profile; I suspect largely
> because until recently PTVS only worked with the pay versions of Visual
> Studio.
>
Not true. When it didn't work with the free express versions of VS, it
worked with th
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Duncan Booth wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, software development on Windows is something of a
>>> ghetto, compared to the wide range of free tools available for
>>> Linux.
>
> I remember writing this. But I don't remember when it was. Presum
Duncan Booth wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, software development on Windows is something of a
>> ghetto, compared to the wide range of free tools available for Linux.
I remember writing this. But I don't remember when it was. Presumably some
time in the last six months :-)
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Unfortunately, software development on Windows is something of a
> ghetto, compared to the wide range of free tools available for Linux.
> Outside of a few oases like Microsoft's own commercial development
> tools, it's hard to do development on Windows. Hard, but not
> i
Am 03.08.2014 02:04, schrieb Gregory Ewing:
MRAB wrote:
RISC OS didn't have a menu bar at the top of each window either; its
menus were all pop-up. You didn't have to keep flicking the mouse at
all!
The main reason for having a menu bar is discoverability. The
idea is that you can browse throug
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> It's a little awkward when you have
>> an invoicing screen and you put something like "P&O Shipping" as your
>> customer name, and suddenly Alt-O takes you someplace different.
>
>
> An app that did that would be s
Roy Smith wrote:
These days, I'm running multiple 24 inch monitors. The single menu bar
paradigm starts to break down in an environment like that.
Yes, that's an issue. However, even on a large screen, most of
my windows are at least half a screen high, putting their tops
a considerable distan
MRAB wrote:
RISC OS didn't have a menu bar at the top of each window either; its
menus were all pop-up. You didn't have to keep flicking the mouse at
all!
The main reason for having a menu bar is discoverability. The
idea is that you can browse through the menus and get a feel
for what commands
Chris Angelico wrote:
It's a little awkward when you have
an invoicing screen and you put something like "P&O Shipping" as your
customer name, and suddenly Alt-O takes you someplace different.
An app that did that would be seriously broken, wouldn't it?
The & should only be interpreted that way
In article ,
Gregory Ewing wrote:
> > And don't mention the menu bar across the top, separated from the
> > window to which it belonged.
>
> That seems to be a matter of taste. There are some
> advantages to the menu-bar-at-top model. It's an easier
> target to hit, because you can just flick t
On 2014-08-02 01:00, Gregory Ewing wrote:
MRAB wrote:
[snip]
And don't mention the menu bar across the top, separated from the
window to which it belonged.
That seems to be a matter of taste. There are some advantages to the
menu-bar-at-top model. It's an easier target to hit, because you can
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> The "easier target for the mouse" argument is valuable ONLY
>> when you use the mouse to access the menu bar. If you use the keyboard
>> (and take advantage of mnemonic letters), it's much more useful to
>> have the
Olaf Hering wrote:
How does "a package" differ? Its "a package" here and there.
Just use the correct tools to inspect "a package", like
'rpm -qliv $package' to see what "a package" is all about.
Splitting the package up creates a problem, which you
then need to invent a special tool to solve. S
Chris Angelico wrote:
The "easier target for the mouse" argument is valuable ONLY
when you use the mouse to access the menu bar. If you use the keyboard
(and take advantage of mnemonic letters), it's much more useful to
have the menu bar attached to its window.
Seems to me that if you use the k
On Sat, Aug 02, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> MacOSX doesn't currently have an automatic dependency
> manager, but if it did, things would still be a lot neater
> and tidier than they are in Linux or Windows, where what
> is conceptually a single object (a package) gets split up
> and its parts scattered
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> MRAB wrote:
>> in MacOS, even if I had a directory window open, I had to navigate to the
>> directory in the Save dialog.
>
> Yes, that was annoying. It wasn't a problem to begin with,
> because the original Mac was strictly single-tasking --
MRAB wrote:
I'd heard people say how user-friendly Apple Macs were, but when I got
to use one I was somewhat disappointed.
Well, they were compared to MS-DOS and the like, which was
all that was within reach of the general public when the
first Mac appeared. RISCOS came along somewhat later.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> The installer has basically three choices.
>> 1) Install libnettle inside the application directory
>> 2) Install libnettle to some system library directory
>> 3) Don't install libnettle, and demand that someone els
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 08/01/2014 08:39 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> The installer has basically three choices.
>> 1) Install libnettle inside the application directory
>> 2) Install libnettle to some system library directory
>> 3) Don't install libnettle, and d
Chris Angelico wrote:
The installer has basically three choices.
1) Install libnettle inside the application directory
2) Install libnettle to some system library directory
3) Don't install libnettle, and demand that someone else (perhaps the
user, or the system package manager) install it.
Opti
On 2014-08-01 18:16, Dietmar Schwertberger wrote:
Am 01.08.2014 13:10, schrieb Wolfgang Keller:
Because on such operating systems, each and every application is an
entirely self-contained package that doesn't need any "packages" or
"installers" to use it.
For people who have never used such a s
On 08/01/2014 08:39 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> The installer has basically three choices.
> 1) Install libnettle inside the application directory
> 2) Install libnettle to some system library directory
> 3) Don't install libnettle, and demand that someone else (perhaps the
> user, or the system pa
Am 01.08.2014 13:10, schrieb Wolfgang Keller:
Because on such operating systems, each and every application is an
entirely self-contained package that doesn't need any "packages" or
"installers" to use it.
For people who have never used such a system it's probably difficult to see
the advantage
Steven D'Aprano :
> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> If you have ten Python apps, you'll have ten Python installations.
>
> A horrible thought. Hard drives are cheap, but not that cheap
Well, iPhones aren't *that* expensive...
>> Also the applications have no way to communicate outside their
>> respect
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Nicholas Cole wrote:
> Actually, that's not right. RiscOS had and OS X has (I'm sure the
> others do as well) a concept that is similar to a shared library. But
> the joy of an application bundle is that installing an application
> does not scatter its own files
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
>> Thankfully, all actually user-friendly operating systems (MacOS,
>> TOS, RiscOS, probably AmigaOS, MacOS X) spare(d) their users the
>> bottomless cesspit of "package management" and
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing he's referring to the modern fad of application sandboxing.
>> Each application is installed with everything it needs on top of the
>> basic OS.
>>
>> If you have ten Python apps, you'll have ten Pyth
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
>>> Because on such operating systems, each and every application is an
>>> entirely self-contained package that doesn't need any "packages" or
>>> "installers" to use it.
>>
>> You mean everyone
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> I'm guessing he's referring to the modern fad of application sandboxing.
> Each application is installed with everything it needs on top of the
> basic OS.
>
> If you have ten Python apps, you'll have ten Python installations. Also
> the app
Chris Angelico :
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
>> Because on such operating systems, each and every application is an
>> entirely self-contained package that doesn't need any "packages" or
>> "installers" to use it.
>
> You mean everyone has to reinvent the proverbial w
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Wolfgang Keller wrote:
> Thankfully, all actually user-friendly operating systems (MacOS,
> TOS, RiscOS, probably AmigaOS, MacOS X) spare(d) their users the
> bottomless cesspit of "package management" and/or "installers".
>
> Because on such operating systems, each
> Windows and OS X users, sadly, miss out on the power of an integrated
> package manager.
Thankfully, all actually user-friendly operating systems (MacOS,
TOS, RiscOS, probably AmigaOS, MacOS X) spare(d) their users the
bottomless cesspit of "package management" and/or "installers".
Because on
On Sunday, July 20, 2014 9:53:02 AM UTC+8, C.D. Reimer wrote:
> On 7/19/2014 6:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > I haven't used Python on Windows much, but when I did use it, I found
>
> > the standard Python interactive interpreter running under cmd.exe to
>
> > be bare- bones but usable fo
Chris Angelico wrote:
Other people had, for instance, a C:\BELFRY (best place to have BATs,
you know), or other such names. What's your favorite
directory/repository name for a concretion of ... random stuff?
My project directories typically contain a directory
called "Attic" for putting stuff
On 20 July 2014 11:53, C.D. Reimer wrote:
>
> On 7/19/2014 6:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> I haven't used Python on Windows much, but when I did use it, I found the
>> standard Python interactive interpreter running under cmd.exe to be bare-
>> bones but usable for testing short snippets. If
On 7/19/2014 7:03 PM, TP wrote:
I would say that since PyCharm (https://www.jetbrains.com/pycharm/)
now has a free Community Edition it is an even more notable IDE as the
above two programs cost $.
PyCharm look really nice as an IDE. Thanks for the heads up.
Chris Reimer
--
https://mail.pyth
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano <
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> For Python users, the IDEs from
> Wingware and Activestate are notable:
>
> https://wingware.com/
> http://komodoide.com/
>
I would say that since PyCharm (https://www.jetbrains.com/pycharm/
On 7/19/2014 6:23 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I haven't used Python on Windows much, but when I did use it, I found
the standard Python interactive interpreter running under cmd.exe to
be bare- bones but usable for testing short snippets. If I recall
correctly, it is missing any sort of command
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> If I recall correctly, it [Python under cmd.exe] is
> missing any sort of command history or line editing other than backspace,
Not quite, but it has some extreme oddities. I'd have to call them
features because I can't imagine them to be
On 7/19/2014 5:41 PM, Tim Delaney wrote:
The main thing is that versioning should be automatic now - it's
almost free, and the benefits are huge because even trivial scripts
end up evolving.
I keep my modest Python scripts in a Dropbox directory and run a weekly
Python script to zip up the Dr
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:31:10 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/19/2014 3:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> So why does Python ship with IDLE?
>
> On Windows the Idle shell is needed for sensible interactive use.
One might say that *some* IDE is needed, but Idle itself isn't
compulsory :-)
It
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Tim Delaney
wrote:
> On 20 July 2014 09:19, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> That said, though, there are some projects so modest they don't
>> require dedicated repositories. I have a repo called "shed" - it's a
>> collection of random tools that I've put together, n
On 20 July 2014 09:19, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Tim Delaney
> wrote:
> > IMO there is no project so modest that it doesn't require version
> control.
> > Especially since version control is as simple as:
> >
> > cd project
> > hg init
> > hg add
> > hg commit
>
>
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Tim Delaney
wrote:
> IMO there is no project so modest that it doesn't require version control.
> Especially since version control is as simple as:
>
> cd project
> hg init
> hg add
> hg commit
That said, though, there are some projects so modest they don't
requir
On 20 July 2014 04:08, C.D. Reimer wrote:
> On 7/19/2014 12:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Earlier, I mentioned a considerable number of IDEs which are available
>> for Python, including:
>>
>
> I prefer to use Notepad++ (Windows) and TextWrangler (Mac). Text editors
> with code highlighting
On 7/19/2014 3:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
So why does Python ship with IDLE?
On Windows the Idle shell is needed for sensible interactive use. For
simply editing a Python file, running it, and fixing it, the Idle editor
seems *about* as good as anything.
It's not because Python require
On 7/19/2014 12:28 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Earlier, I mentioned a considerable number of IDEs which are available
for Python, including:
I prefer to use Notepad++ (Windows) and TextWrangler (Mac). Text editors
with code highlighting can get the job done as well, especially if the
project i
Earlier, I mentioned a considerable number of IDEs which are available
for Python, including:
PyDev, Eric, Komodo, PyCharm, WingIDE, SPE, Ninja-IDE, Geany, IEP,
Spyder, Boa Constructor, PyScripter, NetBeans, Emacs, KDevelop, and
BlackAdder.
https://wiki.python.org/moin/IntegratedDevelopmentEnvir
69 matches
Mail list logo
