Helvetical Fronting
-
@Onyx said:
In 1998
It was alright up to that point, then the factor blew the meter
I forget which country @Onyx lives in, but considering the then-recent history of that region, it's really not so surprising that their technology was 10-15 years old.
-
i remember those!
i had an ¿XT? with black and amber display. it was around 93-95 thoughIt was alright up to that point, then the factor blew the meter
FWP !!!
-
Yeah, I'm not even all that set on the font part. The colors and background work really well, but the font may get on my nerves. I intend to try it out for a while.
-
(grayscale image handling seems fixed...)
-
My first exposure to computers involved one of those, and based on his hair and clothing, roughly the time that picture was taken. I was, however, rather younger than that guy at the time.
-
As an addendum to my "old crap in 1998" story: the teacher we had barely knew shot about programming. When I managed to cobble together a simple quiz program on my own at home (after I finally got my own computer) by scouring
QBASIC
documentation and figuring out how to do loops, conditionals andPLAY
function on my own, he was genuinely impressedAhhh, the memories...
-
Apple II was first for me, but then teleterminals shortly after that. I was looking for a pic of one with wide fanfold greenbar, that's the kind I remember.
-
The oldest computer I remember had no GUI, but had some strange games. A PacMan clone where you collect things shaped like the letter A, for instance, and some kind of racing game where all the non-track areas were yellow. It was very odd. I've never seen any other computer where most things were C Y and M.
-
I've never seen any other computer where most things were C Y and M.
The Speccy, perchance?
-
Joe Don Baker!?!?!?
-
Honestly the theme isn't so much a problem but the fact that you're coding with non-fixed width fonts makes me think you're insane.
-
Honestly the theme isn't so much a problem but the fact that you're coding with non-fixed width fonts makes me think you're insane.
DO NOT GO AGAINST THE GROUPTHINK!
-
Joe Don Baker!?!?!?
Scott Marlowe, but not the actor Scott Marlowe... http://www.pangeainstitute.us/jos/index.php?limitstart=25
-
Fixed width advantages:
- If you use spaces, they are as long as the letters!
- They are (proven) harder to read, which makes you think longer!
- Your arguments will line up if you always make all your function names the same length!
Personally, I don't see the need for those. 5-space tabs are enough to make almost any proportional font look nice.
IAlsoDont program = Like(this, becauseIt, looksDumb); if(Your(method, names, are).Different.Lengths)
-
-
Correct. Themes can be evaluated objectively, of course they can.
As evidenced by my title, this is the sort of response I expected. Or in fact possibly "BURN THE HERETIC, PURGE THE UNCLEAN!" or something about the goggles.
Your theme is... interesting, but if it works for you, then who am I to tell you not to use it?
Similarly, my theme works for me, but if some loser tried to tell me it was "terrible" I'd just ignore them. Or maybe tell them to quit using Sublime Text and get a proper editor.
Oh whine whine, big bad cartman is a big meany.
Well tough luck.
I have examined your themes and objectively found them wanting. Just accept that you have a shitty taste and move on. I'm sure nightmares and the crushing sense of inferiority will cease eventually.
-
I'm not complaining! You are one of only two people who gave the response I expected!
@dstopia As for the 5-space tabs, they have two advantages: any dumb space-indented code someone like you writes stands out as wrong, and they look about the same as 4-space tabs in most monospace fonts. Plus, they let you use any tab length you want, without messing with anyone else's experience.
-
I'm not about to argue with you, but I find proportional fonts monstrously hard to read code in.
I don't read code left to right like I read a book. In fact I doubt you could classify what I do as "reading" at all. My brain is used to parse bigger structures and keywords to look for what I need. Even with 5-space tabs, proportional fonts make it incredibly difficult for me to quickly navigate code.
-
-
That's partially conditioning, partly preference. Your comment is one of the standard defenses of monospace. I don't hate monospace, and can code in it just fine. But usability studies have proved time and time again that monospace is harder to read.
Now, that isn't to say any proportional font will work; most are downright awful for programming. eurofurence is one of the only good ones I've ever found, and it needs to be sufficiently bold, because it's normally a really thin font.
I don't know if anyone has ever proved that reading code is different than reading text, but it likely varies per person.
One of the things I like about tabs and proportional fonts are that they encourage you to make your code readable. A possible downside is that you sometimes end up with longer lines than you might otherwise, because the characters tend to take up less space, but that's less of a problem with a proportional font. The fact that it discourages 'alignment' - manual alignment, rather than, say, the elastic tabstops way - is perhaps one of the things I like best.
-
-
The computer I'm writing this on now has 0 hard drives.
Where does it store its Windows?
-
-
In the computer mainframe, where all the files is at.
-
-
The file is IN the computer!
(Best 2001: A Space Odyssey homage in a comedy.)
-
Where else is it going to be? It's hardly going to subsist as some nebulous and temporary arrangement of switches, is it?
-
Am I alone in using a white background?
No. I tried a darker background, but find the white background preferable. I'd provide a screenshot, but then I might have to kill you.
-
Call me crazy, but I think I can live without a screenshot :P
-
I keep reading the title as "Heretical Fondling". Why.
-
-
Not as Heretical Fronting?
-
I'd provide a screenshot, but then I might have to kill you.
If you send me the screenshot are you going to run over a hedgehog?
-
-
5-space tabs
Heretic!
Tabs are 8 characters, and thus indentations are also 8 characters. There are heretic movements that try to make indentations 4 (or even 2!) characters deep, and that is akin to trying to define the value of PI to be 3.
—[Linus](http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.19.1/Documentation/CodingStyle#L18)
-
I bet those 8 character tabs mesh well with that 80 column rule...
-
@Onyx: Actually, that's the idea. It's to make you feel bad when you nest things deeply. That rule apparently remains in the Linux kernel.
-
The answer to that is that if you need more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix your program.
—[The same document, 12 lines further](http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.19.1/Documentation/CodingStyle#L30)
-
Proof.
-
-
I would love to introduce Mr. Torvalds to wonders that is using JavaScript on the web.
I wonder how many functions he'd have to write for a basic web application just to never break that 3 indentations rule.
To clarify, I don't like insane nesting either. But sometimes the alternative is no less insane.
-
Well, he doesn't do web, so it's a moo point, isn't it?
-
it's a moo point, isn't it?
For what he does? Yes.
As a Universal Truth, as some people like to take someone's statements as times? No.
-
I wonder how many functions he'd have to write for a basic web application just to never break that 3 indentations rule.
As many as it goddamned takes! Stop putting every fucking thing in an anonymous block you assholes.
Ah, that feels better now.
-
doStuff(arg1, arg2, doOtherStuff) { ... doOtherStuff(someData); return; } doOtherStuff(data, needToDoMoreStuff) { ... doEvenMoreStuff(someData); return; } doEvenMoreStuff(data, areWeDoneAlready) { ... areWeDoneAlready(someData); return; } areWeDoneAlready(data, areWeDoneAlready) { ... // Yes, we are return; } ... doStuff(x, y, doOtherStuff);
Have fun finding all the functions that last line called. And all of them were used exactly once.
Yes, async JS stuff is a living hell either way, but at least anonymous blocks are easier to follow, as paradoxical as that sounds.
-
Have fun finding all the functions that last line called.
Exactly! It's easy, because it's all named.
-
Which does nothing to help you follow the program flow, especially if you have branching calls in some of those functions.
But hey, knock yourself out, I'll stick to making named functions only for truly reusable stuff, thanks.
-
It's a pet peeve of mine, but then I generally do very little javascript. Probably my CDO kicking in, but having names for stuff like that just feels better and makes it easier to take a look at the code when I come back to it or if I get a stack trace. It's also more obvious (to me) that it's not something that happens now, but something that gets called later.
But neither is as much fun as trolling by intentional misunderstanding.
-
You can always avoid nesting with ternaries and gotos ...
-
```
doStuff(arg1, arg2, doOtherStuff) {
...
doOtherStuff(someData);
return;
}doOtherStuff(data, needToDoMoreStuff) {
...
doEvenMoreStuff(someData);
return;
}doEvenMoreStuff(data, areWeDoneAlready) {
...
areWeDoneAlready(someData);
return;
}areWeDoneAlready(data, areWeDoneAlready) {
...
// Yes, we are
return;
}...
doStuff(x, y, doOtherStuff);
Have fun finding all the ***functions***...</blockquote> Find the functions? Easy. Which function set which property in the someData object? Our entire codebase is this antipattern... :facepalm: --- EDIT: oh, look, at the quote styling/formatting! Sure makes me wish I could be humanized by a round avatar...