www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - dmd goes epic

reply =?UTF-8?B?Ikx1w61z?= Marques" <luismarques gmail.com> writes:
http://starlogs.net/#D-Programming-Language/dmd
Apr 14 2013
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-04-14 20:15, "Luís Marques" <luismarques gmail.com>" wrote:

 http://starlogs.net/#D-Programming-Language/dmd


Haha, cool :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Apr 14 2013
prev sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:15:06 +0200
"Lu=EDs Marques" <luismarques gmail.com> wrote:


 http://starlogs.net/#D-Programming-Language/dmd


I don't get it, even with JS on, it's just an image of some stars...???
Apr 14 2013
parent reply "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 April 2013 at 21:26:05 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:15:06 +0200
 "Luís Marques" <luismarques gmail.com> wrote:


 http://starlogs.net/#D-Programming-Language/dmd


 I don't get it, even with JS on, it's just an image of some 
 stars...???


It's a Star Wars style view at the git commit log. It uses HTML5 
elements, such as audio. IIRC I remember you mentioning you were 
using Firefox 3.6, which (I think) doesn't support those tags.
Apr 14 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:33:33 +0200
"Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> wrote:


 On Sunday, 14 April 2013 at 21:26:05 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:15:06 +0200
 "Lu=EDs Marques" <luismarques gmail.com> wrote:


 http://starlogs.net/#D-Programming-Language/dmd


 I don't get it, even with JS on, it's just an image of some=20
 stars...???


=20
 It's a Star Wars style view at the git commit log. It uses HTML5=20
 elements, such as audio. IIRC I remember you mentioning you were=20
 using Firefox 3.6, which (I think) doesn't support those tags.


I used Opera.

(Normally I use FF2, but I do switch over and muddle through with Opera
if I really need to, for example whenever I use GitHub.)

It's not working in IE9 either, just FWIW.

It works in Iron.
Apr 14 2013
next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 06:09:41PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:33:33 +0200
 "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> wrote:
 

 On Sunday, 14 April 2013 at 21:26:05 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:15:06 +0200
 "Luís Marques" <luismarques gmail.com> wrote:


 http://starlogs.net/#D-Programming-Language/dmd


 I don't get it, even with JS on, it's just an image of some
 stars...???


 
 It's a Star Wars style view at the git commit log. It uses HTML5
 elements, such as audio. IIRC I remember you mentioning you were
 using Firefox 3.6, which (I think) doesn't support those tags.


 
 I used Opera.


[...]

It works on my Opera (12.15).


T

-- 
Freedom of speech: the whole world has no right *not* to hear my spouting off!
Apr 14 2013
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Sunday, 14 April 2013 at 23:54:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 It works on my Opera (12.15).


I doubt that.

The text should have a 3D effect (scroll into the distance, 
instead of just up), and there should be background music.

(Looking forward to Opera/Blink... :)
Apr 15 2013
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 04:32:19PM +0200, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Sunday, 14 April 2013 at 23:54:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

It works on my Opera (12.15).


 
 I doubt that.
 
 The text should have a 3D effect (scroll into the distance, instead of
 just up), and there should be background music.


Well then, I'm not so sure it works. I do get text scrolling up, but not
into the distance. But OTOH, I force the minimum font size to be 12pt
(due to some annoying websites insisting on using microscopic fonts), so
this may be an artifact of that.

I also disabled sound by default 'cos I usually hate it when the act of
visiting a website starts playing some annoying background music. I only
turn it on if I *want* to hear it.


T

-- 
"The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees
and try again."
Apr 15 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:54:19 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 Well then, I'm not so sure it works. I do get text scrolling up, but
 not into the distance. But OTOH, I force the minimum font size to be
 12pt (due to some annoying websites insisting on using microscopic
 fonts), so this may be an artifact of that.
 
 I also disabled sound by default 'cos I usually hate it when the act
 of visiting a website starts playing some annoying background music.
 I only turn it on if I *want* to hear it.
 


Yea, I always disable browser audio too, for the same reason. It's also
a problem when it tries to play while I already have music playing.

That font setting is a good idea, I should do that too.
Apr 15 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply David <d dav1d.de> writes:
Am 15.04.2013 00:09, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:

 On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:33:33 +0200
 "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> wrote:
 

 On Sunday, 14 April 2013 at 21:26:05 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:15:06 +0200
 "Luís Marques" <luismarques gmail.com> wrote:


 http://starlogs.net/#D-Programming-Language/dmd


 I don't get it, even with JS on, it's just an image of some 
 stars...???


 It's a Star Wars style view at the git commit log. It uses HTML5 
 elements, such as audio. IIRC I remember you mentioning you were 
 using Firefox 3.6, which (I think) doesn't support those tags.


 
 I used Opera.
 
 (Normally I use FF2, but I do switch over and muddle through with Opera
 if I really need to, for example whenever I use GitHub.)
 
 It's not working in IE9 either, just FWIW.
 
 It works in Iron.
 


Wth? Fx 2? Opera :/

Fx is really outdated and opera, meh, it's opera. And IE doesn't like
html5 anyways. e.g. "fuck webgl", also supports the least html5/css3
feautures.
Apr 15 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:58:18 +0200
David <d dav1d.de> wrote:

 
 Wth? Fx 2? Opera :/
 
 Fx is really outdated


If you're wondering, this is my explanation for the FF2:

<https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/the-perfect-browser-is-easy!-yet-it-still-doesn-t-exist...>


browser on the planet. Modern standard compliance and such would be
nice, but I'll take rendering glitches over a shitty Chrome-inspired UI
any day.


 and opera, meh, it's opera.


I completely agree, but at least it isn't IE or *shudder* Chrome. I had
been using Arora instead of Opera for awhile, it showed a lot of
promise, but it's kinda half-finished and a little crashy, and dev on
it seemed to have mostly stopped last I checked.
Apr 15 2013
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:42:45PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:58:18 +0200
 David <d dav1d.de> wrote:


[...]

 and opera, meh, it's opera.


 
 I completely agree, but at least it isn't IE or *shudder* Chrome. I
 had been using Arora instead of Opera for awhile, it showed a lot of
 promise, but it's kinda half-finished and a little crashy, and dev on
 it seemed to have mostly stopped last I checked.


Sigh... I long for the good ole days of Opera 2, which *used* to be the
cleanest, fastest, least crash-prone, least resource-hogging browser
back in the day. I still use Opera as my main browser 'cos it still has
the best UI for me (I've tweaked it to my heart's content -- it lets you
do that -- and the built-in per-domain-suffix JS/cookie/popup settings
are a lifesaver for me), but gone are the days of being cleanest,
fastest, least crash-prone, and least resource-hogging. :-(  Its memory
usage is particularly annoying these days, and I frequently find it
disk-bound even when I'm not doing anything.

I wish the devs would focus more on solidifying the core browser and
tune it up like the good ole days, instead of wasting time on peripheral
things that I don't even care about, like mobile syncing, email,
chatroom, cloud, etc. (why it is that browsers these days are obsessed
with feeping creaturism until they become a poorly-reimplemented
standalone *OS*, I will never understand).


T

-- 
If you compete with slaves, you become a slave. -- Norbert Wiener
Apr 15 2013
next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:03:23 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 Sigh... I long for the good ole days of Opera 2, which *used* to be
 the cleanest, fastest, least crash-prone, least resource-hogging
 browser back in the day. I still use Opera as my main browser 'cos it
 still has the best UI for me (I've tweaked it to my heart's content
 -- it lets you do that -- and the built-in per-domain-suffix
 JS/cookie/popup settings are a lifesaver for me),


I get that per-domain-disabling feature with FF's NoScript plugin,
which I find to be by far the easiest, most convenient, and most
sensible way to do it. It's always just right there in the corner
letting me do temporary or permanent enabling of stuff for whatever
domain or domains are involved in a page. I'd never want to give up
NoScript.


 but gone are the
 days of being cleanest, fastest, least crash-prone, and least
 resource-hogging. :-(  Its memory usage is particularly annoying
 these days, and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not
 doing anything.
 
 I wish the devs would focus more on solidifying the core browser and
 tune it up like the good ole days, instead of wasting time on
 peripheral things that I don't even care about, like mobile syncing,
 email, chatroom, cloud, etc. (why it is that browsers these days are
 obsessed with feeping creaturism until they become a
 poorly-reimplemented standalone *OS*, I will never understand).
 


All those creeping features and they still won't add the *one* I
really want: An option for a good, classic, native UI. :(

Because apparently we're not allowed to find the browser UI changes to
be anything less than objectively stellar improvements. (Think I'm
exaggerating? Just try raising any objections to any browser UI changes
to them or even suggesting that they be optional, and just see how
people react.)
Apr 15 2013
parent reply 1100110 <0b1100110 gmail.com> writes:
 Because apparently we're not allowed to find the browser UI changes to
 be anything less than objectively stellar improvements. (Think I'm
 exaggerating? Just try raising any objections to any browser UI changes
 to them or even suggesting that they be optional, and just see how
 people react.)


Because that's just how people are.  Take a look at the Thread that 
spawned from the std.process vote.

One person tried to start a conversation about allocations in Phobos, 
and maybe it would be good to avoid them whenever possible.

And bless his heart he eventually succeeded.  Eventually.  After cursing 
a few times because people were obviously not reading (or thinking!) 
about his responses.

Another example?  Gnome 3.  Nothing more needs to be said about that.
Apr 15 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:50:26 -0500
1100110 <0b1100110 gmail.com> wrote:


 Because apparently we're not allowed to find the browser UI changes
 to be anything less than objectively stellar improvements. (Think
 I'm exaggerating? Just try raising any objections to any browser UI
 changes to them or even suggesting that they be optional, and just
 see how people react.)


 
 Because that's just how people are.


True. Still annoying though :/


 Take a look at the Thread that 
 spawned from the std.process vote.
 
 One person tried to start a conversation about allocations in Phobos, 
 and maybe it would be good to avoid them whenever possible.
 
 And bless his heart he eventually succeeded.  Eventually.  After
 cursing a few times because people were obviously not reading (or
 thinking!) about his responses.


Yea, I did find it a little odd how much the "Dudes, std.process was
just one initial *example*!" kept getting ignored. (I don't mean that
as an attack on anyone at all, of course.)


 
 Another example?  Gnome 3.  Nothing more needs to be said about that.


Heh heh. Kinda strange though how Gnome basically decided to do what
*already* handn't worked out great for KDE: "Let's throw half
of everything away and replace it with what basically nobody is
asking for". Win8 did the same, too. Seems to be infectious ;)
Apr 15 2013
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 19:29:27 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:50:26 -0500
 1100110 <0b1100110 gmail.com> wrote:

 One person tried to start a conversation about allocations in 
 Phobos, and maybe it would be good to avoid them whenever 
 possible.
 
 And bless his heart he eventually succeeded.  Eventually.  
 After
 cursing a few times because people were obviously not reading 
 (or
 thinking!) about his responses.


 Yea, I did find it a little odd how much the "Dudes, 
 std.process was
 just one initial *example*!" kept getting ignored. (I don't 
 mean that
 as an attack on anyone at all, of course.)


I may have had too little (or too much) coffee that day :)
Apr 15 2013
parent reply 1100110 <0b1100110 gmail.com> writes:
On 04/15/2013 02:46 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
[snip]

 Yea, I did find it a little odd how much the "Dudes, std.process was
 just one initial *example*!" kept getting ignored. (I don't mean that
 as an attack on anyone at all, of course.)


 I may have had too little (or too much) coffee that day :)


http://www.somethingofthatilk.com/index.php?id=247
Apr 15 2013
parent "David Eagen" <davideagen mailinator.com> writes:
Bah - somehow this turned into a browser thread.... let's get 
back to the fact that this is the best git commit log viewer ever!
Apr 16 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing 
 anything.


I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option 
accounts for a lot of the disk usage.
Apr 15 2013
next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:11:09 +0200
"Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> wrote:


 On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing 
 anything.


 
 I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option 
 accounts for a lot of the disk usage.


Isn't that just normal browser cache? Or there something different
about it?
Apr 15 2013
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 19:19:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:11:09 +0200
 "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> wrote:


 On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing 
 anything.


 
 I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option 
 accounts for a lot of the disk usage.


 Isn't that just normal browser cache? Or there something 
 different
 about it?


It's the feature that controls indexing the cache, which allows 
you to search through it in the address bar. The cache settings 
are a bit lower on the same page.

It's an interesting feature, one I haven't seen in other 
browsers, too bad it's too resource-intensive. I remember that by 
the time Opera added this, Firefox was only flaunting its new 
"awesomebar", which Opera's been doing for a while.
Apr 15 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:26:04 +0200
"Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> wrote:

 On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 19:19:11 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:11:09 +0200
 "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> wrote:


 On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing 
 anything.


 
 I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option 
 accounts for a lot of the disk usage.


 Isn't that just normal browser cache? Or there something 
 different
 about it?


 
 It's the feature that controls indexing the cache, which allows 
 you to search through it in the address bar. The cache settings 
 are a bit lower on the same page.


Ah, I see.


 
 It's an interesting feature, one I haven't seen in other 
 browsers, too bad it's too resource-intensive. I remember that by 
 the time Opera added this, Firefox was only flaunting its new 
 "awesomebar", which Opera's been doing for a while.


Actually, the "awfulbar" was one of the big things that turned me off
of FF3. It's so...crayola. I know there's add-ins now to turn it off,
but I got tired of having to bog it down with more and add-ins just
to revert Mozilla's awesome new ideas.
Apr 15 2013
prev sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:11:09PM +0200, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing
anything.


 
 I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option
 accounts for a lot of the disk usage.


Huh? Which version of Opera is that? I can't find any option like that
in my version (12.15.1748 Linux/amd64).


T

-- 
If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time. -- G. K. Chesterton
Apr 15 2013
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 20:10:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:11:09PM +0200, Vladimir Panteleev 
 wrote:

 On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing
anything.


 
 I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option
 accounts for a lot of the disk usage.


 Huh? Which version of Opera is that? I can't find any option 
 like that
 in my version (12.15.1748 Linux/amd64).


The option is at Preferences -> Advanced -> History, under the 
"Addresses" dropdown.
Apr 15 2013
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:13:47PM +0200, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 20:10:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 09:11:09PM +0200, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:

On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 18:05:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing
anything.


I've found that the "Remember content on visited pages" option
accounts for a lot of the disk usage.


Huh? Which version of Opera is that? I can't find any option like
that in my version (12.15.1748 Linux/amd64).


 
 The option is at Preferences -> Advanced -> History, under the
 "Addresses" dropdown.


Oh, that... Heh, I've always thought it meant whether to enable caching.
But I guess that isn't what it is. What *does* it do?!


T

-- 
First Rule of History: History doesn't repeat itself -- historians merely
repeat each other.
Apr 15 2013
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 20:35:51 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 The option is at Preferences -> Advanced -> History, under the
 "Addresses" dropdown.


 Oh, that... Heh, I've always thought it meant whether to enable 
 caching.
 But I guess that isn't what it is. What *does* it do?!


 From the help file:


 Remember content on visited pages

 When this box is checked, full-text search of your history is 
 enabled.
Apr 15 2013
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 4/14/2013 3:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 It's not working in IE9 either, just FWIW.


I'm using IE10, and it works.
Apr 15 2013
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 15 April 2013 at 19:38:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 4/14/2013 3:09 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 It's not working in IE9 either, just FWIW.


 I'm using IE10, and it works.


Wrong font, though. There shouldn't be serifs.
Apr 15 2013