81–90 of 121 posts
I don't know any go. I was able to read everything, like I wrote the code. Is go usually that easy? If yes, I think I should learn it.
Yes. One of go's strengths is that there are very few tricks and the language is heavily biased towards easy reading over compact code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen GKrellM? http://gkrellm.srcbox.net/
Their example demonstrates how cluttered the GUI is. I suppose you could change skins to something less gaudy but I bet that winds up looking like a terminal application.
The documentation seems insufficient. I can’t figure out how to switch between panes, e.g., to modify the todo list. Once it’s selected, I expect to be able to use it, but without knowing how, it is unusable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also a Go noob. I tried writing a basic web server in Go yesterday to handle Twilio SMS callbacks. Trying to inspect the requests I was receiving was such a pain, I gave up and wrote the server with Sinatra. Am I missing something that's making this more difficult than it should be?
I love Go specifically for this purpose. I wrote a simple server doing exactly that with Twilio: https://github.com/dang3r/jenophone/
I don't know any go. I was able to read everything, like I wrote the code. Is go usually that easy? If yes, I think I should learn it.
you don't need to learn it. :-D you already know it, you just need to write it. There are a few things to understand defer, goroutines,channels, interfaces, structs etc. We also have to give credit to the author. Good programmers have programs that are easy to read and understand. However like all languages that are easy to read, it can be deceptive. Once you dive into any big/complex project. Context and design deci…
I don't know any go. I was able to read everything, like I wrote the code. Is go usually that easy? If yes, I think I should learn it.
There are quite a few traps for the unwary, like that a unitialized pointer to a concrete type will not test as null/nil if it was passed as any of its interface types, that channels ( for concurrenct ) isn't easy except in a few special cases, an that a closed listening socket isn't necessarily closed immediately, and all sorts of shenanigans. You could expect all those from a relatively new language, but not one that is ostensibly very simple.
If you, however, refrain from using any concurrency, interfaces, slices, and maps ( maps and slices are really reference types made to look superficially like they are passed by value ), and accept that the first element in an iteration over a string should give a different result than indexing the first element in that string.
Well, then it's as easy as it looks, for anything where you don't need to actually handle errors, or where you can always handle them where they occur. Also please do remember that log.Fatal() is actually going to kill your process, because calling os.Exit() is obviously the task of the loggin framework!
But yes, Go could have been that easy to read, but there are quite a few really odd decisions that make a lot of the apparent simplicity be rather superficial unless you happen to use a specific subset of the language.
Anyone remembers NetBSD's wtf? http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi/man?wtf+6+NetBSD-curren... $ wtf wtf WTF: {what,when,where,who,why} the fuck $ wtf bsd BSD: berkeley software distribution $ wtf linux wtf: I don't know what linux means!
I maintain my own set of modern internet acronyms for it. Speaking of which, I need to merge a pull request for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point was that at some point adding more desktop-like functionality to Terminal you essentially create a GUI. I could argue that OSX / Ubuntu are modular and configurable and easily allow you to control data density too. Ultimately it's obviously whatever tool makes you most productive. My comment was more of a flippant observation of the nature of human endeavour.
In my experience, OSX is not modular and configurable out-of-the-box. You need to install plugins. Ubuntu is the red-headed stepchild of Linux which wants to be Windows. I use it at work. I hate it. I'd rather use Fedora.
Eh. It wants to be Mac:
- broken alt-tab? Check
- menu bar on top? Check
- dock? Check
- window controls moved to the left? Check
> I use it at work. I hate it.
So do I. But now after they moved to Gnome I can fix the worst usabilty issues.
It still crashes hard once a day despite me trying everything I can think of wrt swap, reserved memory etc. Might just be my RAM sticks though.
> I'd rather use Fedora.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That quote actually made me decide I wanted to know computers, at an early stage. She was so cool - AND saved the day with UNIX magic! :-)
Except she used that wacky 3D file browser instead of ls, find, grep, etc...
FSN [1] on a SGI running IRIX.
Didn't they use that one in Hackers as well?
[1] http://www.siliconbunny.com/fsn-the-irix-3d-file-system-tool...