Programming Tip of the Day

[wtd]

Breaking from the Apple dscussion...

Ponder this statement for a bit: "Sure FP offers a way to solve the problem, but requires more education than more complex systems."

FP = Functional Programming

Does this kind of justification for "mainstream" OO languages even begin to make sense?

[Martin]

wtd wrote:

Did you try using something like Pathfinder, instead of Finder? Did you research alternatives to the Finder since you find it unpleasant?

I installed Linux Now if only I could get my remote to work with it...

I do boot OSX sometimes, mostly to play UT2004. Kind of like my Windows usage of times long past...

I'll check out pathfinder when I get home.

[rizzix]

Linux is my hobby OS. No way can it replace OSX. Quality of apps avaible of OSX out beat those for Linux anyday. Gee.

[rizzix]

wtd wrote:

Breaking from the Apple dscussion...

Ponder this statement for a bit: "Sure FP offers a way to solve the problem, but requires more education than more complex systems."

FP = Functional Programming

Does this kind of justification for "mainstream" OO languages even begin to make sense?

No but I can give you another reason to avoid FP: It's much more difficult to debug code. If not your own code, then somebody else's. On the other hand most of these mainstream OO languages make debugging code super easy.

Yet its a hard choice. Consider..

FP: Most common bugs found in mainstream OO languages do not apply here. Some complex algorithms are better written in FP than in imperative languages. But debugging code could be difficult. Efficiency is also an issue at times.

Mainstream: Bugs are very easily introduced. But debugging is extremely simple (with an exception to some ugly languages, e.g. C++).

[wtd]

I just find it very odd to say that more complex systems require less education. Methinks this thinking gave us the BSOD.

[rizzix]

I think C and C++ should be banned! Safer alternatives should be used instead, as in Cyclone and D

[Martin]

I don't see the quality of apps thing for OSX. iTunes is decent, but doesn't have ANY codec support. QuickTime player is slow and doesn't support full screen mode out of the box. Pages is junk to use (cheap though, I guess). OSX is great, sure, but as for software - nothing has blown me away so far.

[rizzix]

Quicktime is the only player so far to succesfully play h264 coded video without any problems. None of the opensource alternatives can match it yet (both in terms of speed and stability). Techinically yea, you need quicktime pro to utilize some feature, but it's not entirly true. Apple's quicktime framework has support for all these features out-of-the-box and you don't have to pay a dime. Just search for a quicktime "clone" and you might get one that unlocks these feature for free.

iTunes does not have a large choice in audio formats, but what it has are the best: AAC, (the commonly used MP3). Either way you can have an app bloated with features, but it's poorly designed, and hence low in "quality". Most linux/opensouce apps fall under this category. They focus too much on functionality, they leave out design and stability.

I don't know about Pages. I should give it a try and evaluate it my self. But I do use M$ Office 2004, and it's pretty darn good. Maybe not the best designed app, but good enough to be considered a mac app.

[Martin]

rizzix wrote:

Quicktime is the only player so far to succesfully play h264 coded video without any problems. None of the opensource alternatives can match it yet (both in terms of speed and stability). Techinically yea, you need quicktime pro to utilize some feature, but it's not entirly true. Apple's quicktime framework has support for all these features out-of-the-box and you don't have to pay a dime. Just search for a quicktime "clone" and you might get one that unlocks these feature for free.

Like VLC or MPlayer, which aren't Mac specific apps.

rizzix wrote:

iTunes does not have a large choice in audio formats, but what it has are the best: AAC, (the commonly used MP3). Either way you can have an app bloated with features, but it's poorly designed, and hence low in "quality". Most linux/opensouce apps fall under this category. They focus too much on functionality, they leave out design and stability.

xmms is bloated? mpg123 is bloated? I've never used a media player that uses more memory than iTunes. Or on Windows, Foobar2000 I think takes the crown.

rizzix wrote:

I don't know about Pages. I should give it a try and evaluate it my self. But I do use M$ Office 2004, and it's pretty darn good. Maybe not the best designed app, but good enough to be considered a mac app.

If the definition of Mac app is 'good software,' well then yeah...


Here's what I don't get. OSX is great, but everyone preaches that it has all of this great software for it - where? iLife is nice, but there are free alternatives that are better. Sure it comes with a lot nicer a selection of software than a Windows box, but that's beside the point.

[wtd]

Have you looked at VersionTracker?

[rizzix]

VLC and MPlayer both have failed to play h264 encoded video properly. Well i've tried and it failed.

Besides, VLC is SLOW as hell. MPlayer isin't too bad, but it's gui interface is pathetic.



OK I wasn't just talking about music player when i mentions the apps were bloated. I was talling about most opensource apps in general.


Bah about Office2004 comment, most apps following the Apple human interface design specs usually are designed pretty well. M$ has tried their best.

[wtd]

Your teachers, who have years more experience than you as a student, are ironically not there to answer your questions.

They are there to ask the questions, and it is your job to answer them. The purpose of their knowledge and experience is to make sure you ask the correct questions, and to be able to tell you if you're right or wrong.

Additionally, when you answer their questions, do not answer uncertainly. Answer with confidence. Be prepared to be wrong, of course, but have the confidence to back your answer up if challenged.

If you do not have this confidence, it likely means you have not done enough research, or you have not thoroughly experimented to determine whether your answer will stand up to testing.

[wtd]

Solve the easy problems first. Use the experience you gain and the lessons learned to make the hard problems easier.

[wtd]

The measure of code expressiveness is not purely brevity.

All other things being equal, it's a good thing, but the true measure of expressiveness is how directly the code represents your intent.

[Martin]

Learn how to use bit shifting, and use it! You will save a ton of memory and increase performance too!