Re: Anybody here endure C/Cpp? (.h to .inc conversion)

From: NoDot (no_dot_at_msn.remove_this.com)
Date: 01/08/05

  • Next message: Betov: "Release of RosAsmV.2.008b" 
    Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:12:25 -0500

    Beth wrote:
    > XFree86 even ignores the possibility granted by the X protocol
    > specification that it doesn't involve itself in _HOW_ you want to send the
    > data...it just uses "sockets" regardless (and a "sys_socket" syscall is in
    > the Linux kernel itself)...you can use any kind of "IPC" for this,
    > though...and one thing that the XFree86 people haven't realised is that X
    > is not specifying what to use _delibrately_...for instance, if both
    > "client" and "server" are on the same machine, then you can switch to using
    > the more direct "IPC" (shared memory, message queues, etc. :) without the
    > "sockets" overhead...it keeps out of this because this allows the _best_
    > "transport" to be used, as applicable to the two machines involved...

    Oh, boy. I'm really not liking this.

    > You see, lots of the blame is thrown onto X when it should be thrown onto
    > _poor implementations_ by "bloatware" programmers...

    Lux86, XWin+, and LuxAsm: examples of good things to come.

    > Worse, *NIX often also draws the "extremeists": "Users? That disgusting
    > vile lot? If they don't know how to use all the voodoo 'vi' commands since
    > birth (while editing their X configuration files using a soldering iron ;),
    > then they are clearly ignorant animals who should be culled for the stain
    > that their idiocy places upon the world! Hand me my shotgun...I'll sort out
    > these great unwashed 'users'...how dare they be 'average'! How dare they
    > not spend 6 billion dollars on hardware! How dare they not devote two
    > decades of their life to being an anti-social techno-geek like I am!! KILL!
    > KILL USERS!!"...*bang*...*BANG*...hmmm, NOT a good idea to talk about
    > "human-machine interfacing" or "good user interface design" with you, then,
    > eh? ;)...

    Where have we all heard this before?

    > Indeed, as NoDot mentioned before, I had thought about an idea of some kind
    > of "X++"

    I think it was a Linux implimentation written only for x86 computers.

    > ...well, you know, C went to C++...X could go to X++...same
    > underlying design, possible "X compatibility" but addressing the
    > "complaints" that X has...which, by the way, as I've been pointing out,
    > aren't really complaints about X...they all are "peripheral" - poor
    > implementations, confusions over having 27 "toolkits" to choose from, some
    > "extension" doesn't work, crap "window managers", etc. - BUT it's X that
    > gets the blame, as the "overall name" for what is, after all, lots of
    > different things thrown together...but the simple concept would be redo X
    > and, this time, there _is_ sound support...there _is_ a "standard" window
    > manager...there _is_ a "standard" toolkit...and it's implemented bloody
    > _properly_ for once...you know what I mean, yeah?

    Sounds interesting, but let's get LuxAsm up and running first, and *then* we can mke Lux86 and XWin+.

    > If programming X is like trying to find the square root of pi in roman
    > numerals, then Windows must be like some binary complex number differential
    > calculus in a twenty-seven dimensionial problem to solve the meaning of
    > existence in comparison...

    I doubt complex numbers, differentials, and twenty-seven dimentions are that difficult. (They might
    be put together, but my experience with higher dimentions[1] and complex numbers, though small,
    wasn't too bad.)

    [1] OK, so I've never been past 3, but the others can't be that bad.

    > There's no reason at all, as I say, why GUIs are this big, this
    > complicated, this slow, this "bloated" and this crap...it's just poor
    > design / implementation / programming from the best "bloatware" programmers
    > in the business...

    {www.bloatedjunk.com} should be a redirection to {www.microsoft.com}. (If someone manages to reserve
    that, then they might be able to make MS hand over their website, saying the visitors may not be
    able to tell the difference.)

    > Beth :) 

    -- 
The above was written by NoDot.
Visit the Website of NoDot:
<www.geocities.com/nodot1989/>
  • Next message: Betov: "Release of RosAsmV.2.008b"