Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #151315 > unrolled thread

OT: Getting into Mac software development

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  OT: Getting into Mac software development Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-14 00:06 +0000
    Re: OT: Getting into Mac software development Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-13 21:48 -0400
    Re: OT: Getting into Mac software development Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-14 09:43 +0000
    Re: OT: Getting into Mac software development Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:37 +0000
    Re: Getting into Mac software development "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-14 15:17 -0500
      Re: Getting into Mac software development Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-15 11:56 +0000
        Re: Getting into Mac software development Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-15 17:48 +0000
          Re: Getting into Mac software development Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-15 21:25 +0200
            Re: Getting into Mac software development Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-15 17:15 -0400
              Re: Getting into Mac software development Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 22:00 +0000
                Re: Getting into Mac software development Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:58 +0000
                  !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-17 00:40 -0500
                    Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 05:59 +0000
                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-17 01:10 -0500
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-17 07:10 +0000
                          Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 11:51 +0000
                    Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 08:57 -0400
                    Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-17 13:34 +0200
                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-17 13:45 +0000
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-17 16:38 +0200
                          Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-17 11:34 -0400
                          Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-17 16:10 +0000
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-17 20:29 +0200
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-17 20:35 +0000
                          Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 21:39 -0400
                            Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-18 11:36 +0000
                              Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-09-18 12:45 +0000
                              Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-09-18 15:20 +0100
                                Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-18 18:31 -0500
                                  Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-19 00:06 +0000
                                    Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-09-19 04:50 +0000
                                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-19 10:01 +0000
                                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-09-21 19:28 -0400
                                  Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-10-21 15:47 -0400
                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 16:15 +0000
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-17 16:28 +0000
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-17 20:33 +0200
                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-18 18:33 -0500
          Re: Getting into Mac software development hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-17 09:47 -0700
            Re: Getting into Mac software development Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 19:51 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#151315 — OT: Getting into Mac software development

Sorry for the off-charter post, but the comp.sys.mac.programmer.*
groups have been overrun by trolls and I can't figure out where else
to look.

My wife finally splurged for a Macbook Pro and I'm wondering what it
would take to write or port software for it.  I'm experienced in writing
C code on Windows and Linux and would like to test the water.  I found
my way to a bash prompt and did the obligatory "hello, world" thing, but
would like to get into something a bit more gooey... err, GUI.  Are there
any good references for someone wanting to make the transition, as opposed
to throwing away everything I know (including my library code) and starting
from scratch?

Also, are there any good ways to write cross-platform software?  I've
heard of wxWidgets, although that looks to be C++ specific.  Is there
hope for a crusty old C programmer or is it time to look at other
languages?

Thanks for your time.  We now return you to your regularly scheduled
political flame wars.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#151320

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> Sorry for the off-charter post, but the comp.sys.mac.programmer.*
> groups have been overrun by trolls and I can't figure out where else
> to look.
>
> My wife finally splurged for a Macbook Pro and I'm wondering what it
> would take to write or port software for it.  I'm experienced in writing
> C code on Windows and Linux and would like to test the water.  I found
> my way to a bash prompt and did the obligatory "hello, world" thing, but
> would like to get into something a bit more gooey... err, GUI.  Are there
> any good references for someone wanting to make the transition, as opposed
> to throwing away everything I know (including my library code) and starting
> from scratch?
>
> Also, are there any good ways to write cross-platform software?  I've
> heard of wxWidgets, although that looks to be C++ specific.  Is there
> hope for a crusty old C programmer or is it time to look at other
> languages?

Pyqt is my favorite for GUIs.
I've only used it on Linux, but I believe it will work just about
anywhere.

You'll, of course, have to learn Python, but I think it was worth it for
me.  I've looked at the equivalent code in C++/Qt, and I really don't
want to go there.

> Thanks for your time.  We now return you to your regularly scheduled
> political flame wars.

Oh geez, I hope not.

Isn't this last one about lying or something?

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151325

On 2015-09-14, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry for the off-charter post, but the comp.sys.mac.programmer.*
> groups have been overrun by trolls and I can't figure out where else
> to look.
>
> My wife finally splurged for a Macbook Pro and I'm wondering what it
> would take to write or port software for it. 

Have a look at MacPorts;

https://www.macports.org/

And Xcode;

https://developer.apple.com/xcode/




-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151327

On 2015-09-14, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry for the off-charter post, but the comp.sys.mac.programmer.*
> groups have been overrun by trolls and I can't figure out where else
> to look.
>
> My wife finally splurged for a Macbook Pro and I'm wondering what it
> would take to write or port software for it.  I'm experienced in writing
> C code on Windows and Linux and would like to test the water.  I found
> my way to a bash prompt and did the obligatory "hello, world" thing, but
> would like to get into something a bit more gooey... err, GUI.  Are there
> any good references for someone wanting to make the transition, as opposed
> to throwing away everything I know (including my library code) and starting
> from scratch?
>
> Also, are there any good ways to write cross-platform software?  I've
> heard of wxWidgets, although that looks to be C++ specific.  Is there
> hope for a crusty old C programmer or is it time to look at other
> languages?
>
> Thanks for your time.  We now return you to your regularly scheduled
> political flame wars.
>

Tk is kinda crossplatform too. Best answer is for her to get a Mac, and leaveit
at that. I am aware that there are good programming utilities for the Mac.


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151353 — Re: Getting into Mac software development

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mt532c0pkv@news4.newsguy.com...
> Sorry for the off-charter post, but the comp.sys.mac.programmer.*
> groups have been overrun by trolls and I can't figure out where else
> to look.
>

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I have *not* developed any 
applications for the Macintosh.  I have written some C code at the Unix 
prompt, having a background in C and Unix.


> My wife finally splurged for a Macbook Pro and I'm wondering what it
> would take to write or port software for it.  I'm experienced in writing
> C code on Windows and Linux and would like to test the water.  I found
> my way to a bash prompt and did the obligatory "hello, world" thing, but
> would like to get into something a bit more gooey... err, GUI.  Are there
> any good references for someone wanting to make the transition, as opposed
> to throwing away everything I know (including my library code) and 
> starting
> from scratch?
>

The GUI for Apple Mac OS/X is called Aqua:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_%28user_interface%29


Cocoa is Mac OS/X applications user interface:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoa_%28API%29


There is an O'Reilly book to help you here:

_Building Cocoa Applications_


Swift is the new language that Apple is pushing for developers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_%28programming_language%29

O'Reilly book:  _Swift Development with Cocoa_


https://developer.apple.com/ has a lot to offer for Mac software developers. 
You might consider becoming a certified Apple developer... this gives you 
access to help if you get stuck on some specific programming item.

See the explanation of developing a simple application at:

http://tinyurl.com/nppgq9e


Googling around can get you much, much, much more information...


You'll find an embrassment of riches for developers here.  Remember:  lots 
of time was spent putting together all this stuff.  You're *not* going to 
learn all this in an afternoon.


> Also, are there any good ways to write cross-platform software?  I've
> heard of wxWidgets, although that looks to be C++ specific.  Is there
> hope for a crusty old C programmer or is it time to look at other
> languages?

Python seems to be pretty good and has a lot of built-in fuctionalilty.  I 
mentioned the Swift language above.

There are several packages that purport to be cross-platform GUIs... I have 
*no* experience with any of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28software%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tk_%28software%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickTime#QuickTime_X

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151371 — Re: Getting into Mac software development

On 2015-09-14, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:mt532c0pkv@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Sorry for the off-charter post, but the comp.sys.mac.programmer.*
>> groups have been overrun by trolls and I can't figure out where else
>> to look.


Charlie Gibbs is a serious programmer, I think he is on about crossplatform stuff.

-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151388 — Re: Getting into Mac software development

On 2015-09-15, Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-14, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:mt532c0pkv@news4.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> Sorry for the off-charter post, but the comp.sys.mac.programmer.*
>>> groups have been overrun by trolls and I can't figure out where else
>>> to look.
>
> Charlie Gibbs is a serious programmer, I think he is on about crossplatform
> stuff.

Bingo.  I suspect that one reason for all these shiny new languages and
development kits is that vendors see portability as a threat and try to
come up with ways to lock developers (hence users) into their own platform.
Also it would be nice not to throw away all of my existing libraries,
knowledge, etc.

Besides, I'm just not an IDE person.  I prefer to use a text editor of
my own choosing (which becomes axiomatic when developing for multiple
platforms).  Makefiles look so much simpler than the process of setting
up a "project" with dozens of little bits and pieces scattered all over
the place.  (A couple of times, when chasing particularly stubborn bugs,
I tried to load my existing code into a "project" in the hope of using
its tools - but it turned out to be such a hassle that I found it faster
to fall back on the time-honoured practice of writing trace information
to a log file in critical spots in the code.)

I'm not saying that I'm totally averse to change.  But I've seen too many
examples of change for its own sake - and the negative consequences of it -
to not be skeptical when someone sings the praises of some new methodology.
(I love Tom Gilb's term "mythodology".)

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151400 — Re: Getting into Mac software development

In article <mt9llm0e5n@news6.newsguy.com>,
Charlie Gibbs  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>On 2015-09-15, Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-14, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:mt532c0pkv@news4.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>> Sorry for the off-charter post, but the comp.sys.mac.programmer.*
>>>> groups have been overrun by trolls and I can't figure out where else
>>>> to look.
>>
>> Charlie Gibbs is a serious programmer, I think he is on about crossplatform
>> stuff.
>
>Bingo.  I suspect that one reason for all these shiny new languages and
>development kits is that vendors see portability as a threat and try to
>come up with ways to lock developers (hence users) into their own platform.
>Also it would be nice not to throw away all of my existing libraries,
>knowledge, etc.
>
>Besides, I'm just not an IDE person.  I prefer to use a text editor of
>my own choosing (which becomes axiomatic when developing for multiple
>platforms).  Makefiles look so much simpler than the process of setting
>up a "project" with dozens of little bits and pieces scattered all over
>the place.  (A couple of times, when chasing particularly stubborn bugs,
>I tried to load my existing code into a "project" in the hope of using
>its tools - but it turned out to be such a hassle that I found it faster
>to fall back on the time-honoured practice of writing trace information
>to a log file in critical spots in the code.)
>
>I'm not saying that I'm totally averse to change.  But I've seen too many
>examples of change for its own sake - and the negative consequences of it -
>to not be skeptical when someone sings the praises of some new methodology.
>(I love Tom Gilb's term "mythodology".)

Think of the *n*x development system as an IDE. You have a lot of
stuff the "embedded IDEs" don't provide. 

* Portability. You will find it on every major system, windows included.
* Customisation. You can use a lot of different editors, debuggers etc.
* Code independence. There are at least three completely different implementations.
  (GNU/Linux, BSD, the DEC/OSF one)
* Documentation. Every bit of it is documented forwards, backwards and to the moon.
  You also have "appendix c" when you are stuck.
* Proven. It has been run in millions of development organisations since the
  early 1970s.
* Containment of changes. You have clear views of which files are affected
  by every change.
* Rollback and rollforward, and huge distributed groups supported well.
  There are half a dozen very good source control systems available.
* gui and command line is well supported.
* "thin" access is available, and works well, through an ssh link into the system in question.
* Attractive licensing. 
* Infinately extensible for new compilers, editors, libraries, apis, languages and
  debuggers. 

Downsides :

* The debuggers are somewhat irky in their syntax.
* Everything is based on the command line deep down, so you'll better learn
  this interface, at least somewhat.
* Bit and pieces may need installing on local systems.

When someone comes along with another IDE, I put up such a list and have
a review. It is usually *n*x 18 the other system 7-10 somewhere.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151415 — Re: Getting into Mac software development

Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:

> Downsides :
>
> * Everything is based on the command line deep down, so you'll better learn
>   this interface, at least somewhat.

Isn't this an "upside"?

As long as the GUI is sufficient, and you only need to use a command
line when you want to, I don't see a downside.

You can click and drool but when you want to get down and dirty you can.


-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151465 — Re: Getting into Mac software development

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
> 
>> Downsides :
>> 
>> * Everything is based on the command line deep down, so you'll better learn
>>   this interface, at least somewhat.
> 
> Isn't this an "upside"?
> 
> As long as the GUI is sufficient, and you only need to use a command
> line when you want to, I don't see a downside.
> 
> You can click and drool but when you want to get down and dirty you can.
> 

I'm content with the command line for a lot of things, but I think the
downside for GUI-lovers is that occasionally you *have* to use the command
line. 

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151475 — Re: Getting into Mac software development

On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> Downsides :
>>> 
>>> * Everything is based on the command line deep down, so you'll better learn
>>>   this interface, at least somewhat.
>> 
>> Isn't this an "upside"?
>> 
>> As long as the GUI is sufficient, and you only need to use a command
>> line when you want to, I don't see a downside.
>> 
>> You can click and drool but when you want to get down and dirty you can.
>
> I'm content with the command line for a lot of things, but I think the
> downside for GUI-lovers is that occasionally you *have* to use the command
> line. 

The downside for keyboard lovers is that occasionally you *have* to use
the mouse.  1/2 :-)

Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
why vi commands were designed the way they are.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151477 — !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>         [snip...]                       [snip...] 
> [snip...]
>
> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>

"vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing 
conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because DRAM 
was far in the future!!!

The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past will 
*not* be properly understood.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151480 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On 2015-09-17, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>
>> I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
>> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>
> "vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing 
> conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because
> DRAM was far in the future!!!

I was thinking more about how vi was designed so that you never
have to move your hands away from the home position on the keyboard.
For a skilled typist, that makes a big difference.

Oh wait, you said something about the prevailing conditions.
I guess skilled typists are becoming about as rare as those
mercury delay lines, so who cares...

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151483 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mtdksp11esv@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 2015-09-17, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
>>> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>
>> "vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing
>> conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because
>> DRAM was far in the future!!!
>
> I was thinking more about how vi was designed so that you never
> have to move your hands away from the home position on the keyboard.
> For a skilled typist, that makes a big difference.
>
> Oh wait, you said something about the prevailing conditions.
> I guess skilled typists are becoming about as rare as those
> mercury delay lines, so who cares...
>

"vi" was designed so it *could* be used over a 300 baud telephone 
connection.  Some terminals had *no* "arrow keys", so h-j-k-l took the place 
of the arrow keys.  Bill Joy also put together the "termcap" system so a 
myriad of different terminals (with different escape sequences) could be 
used with programs like "vi". "termcap" enteries are readable ASCII, unlike 
the later "compiled" "terminfo" library entries.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151484 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:10:02 -0500, Charles Richmond 
<numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
> "vi" was designed so it *could* be used over a 300 baud telephone 
> connection.  Some terminals had *no* "arrow keys", so h-j-k-l took the place 
> of the arrow keys. 

My TI Silent 700 terminal has no arrow keys - and no square brackets

It's fun(!) using RT-11* at 300 baud with a printing terminal :-)

* Actually RUST, a y2k compatible RT-11 clone.

-- 
Stan Barr     plan.b@bluesomatic.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151490 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:10:02 -0500, Charles Richmond 
> <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> 
>> "vi" was designed so it *could* be used over a 300 baud telephone 
>> connection.  Some terminals had *no* "arrow keys", so h-j-k-l took the place 
>> of the arrow keys. 
> 
> My TI Silent 700 terminal has no arrow keys - and no square brackets
> 
> It's fun(!) using RT-11* at 300 baud with a printing terminal :-)

I was *HAPPY* to get a 300 baud TI, after using 110 baud Teletypes.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151495 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:

> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>         [snip...]                       [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
>> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
>> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
>> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
>> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>
>
> "vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing
> conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because
> DRAM was far in the future!!!
>
> The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past
> will *not* be properly understood.

I'm an Emacs fan, but VI was designed so that the most often used keys
were right under your finger tips.

I don't see how that concept is in the past.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151497 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

In article <mtdjlv$vhg$1@dont-email.me>,
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>         [snip...]                       [snip...] 
>> [snip...]
>>
>> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
>> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
>> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
>> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
>> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>
>
>"vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing 
>conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because DRAM 
>was far in the future!!!
>
>The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past will 
>*not* be properly understood.

I still like to have vi available, even though I have been an emacs
affictionado since January 1979. Likewise, I like to have some simple
emacs clone; presently jove; available for the simpler edit jobs.

I like the regexps in vi. They rock. But I hate the mode-me-in
keyboard command layout. So, I edit this in emacs.

See my post about having the *n*x development enviromnent as an ide.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151505 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On 2015-09-17, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <mtdjlv$vhg$1@dont-email.me>,
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
>>news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>         [snip...]                       [snip...] 
>>> [snip...]
>>>
>>> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
>>> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
>>> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
>>> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
>>> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>>
>>
>>"vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing 
>>conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because DRAM 
>>was far in the future!!!
>>
>>The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past will 
>>*not* be properly understood.
>
> I still like to have vi available, 

Me too. How else are you going to edit files when you've ssh'd into a server
from your 'phone?

-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 41st day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151507 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

In article <d5vufcFdc1bU1@mid.individual.net>,
Huge  <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>On 2015-09-17, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <mtdjlv$vhg$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
>>>news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>>>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         [snip...]                       [snip...] 
>>>> [snip...]
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
>>>> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
>>>> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
>>>> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
>>>> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing 
>>>conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because DRAM 
>>>was far in the future!!!
>>>
>>>The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past will 
>>>*not* be properly understood.
>>
>> I still like to have vi available, 
>
>Me too. How else are you going to edit files when you've ssh'd into a server
>from your 'phone?

emacs.

Makes all computing simpler.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web