4 ms·
I created a new language called zis, which has a function named "doXeyes()". I can do xeyes in literally one line of code. It destroys postscript with it's ama
by gilbetron 8y ago
I created a new language called zis, which has a function named "doXeyes()". I can do xeyes in literally one line of code. It destroys postscript with it's amazing simplicity. Sorry for the snarkiness, but that's my point.
- infinite8s 8y agoNice way to completely miss Don's point. His point is that postscript provides all the necessary primitives to draw in 2D, consistently at every level of the stack. X-Windows is a continuation of the 'worse is better' NJ school of software design.
- DonHopkins 8y agoSnarkyness? What snarkyness? I don't understand what you mean. So I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what your point is more clearly, by directly addressing the questions I asked. Please be kind enough to link to the source code of the language "zis" that you wrote, just like I linked to the source code that I and others wrote to illustrate my point. I'd like to see the actual code you wrote, so I don't miss your point, and can see that you're arguing in good faith. Thank you, kind sir or ma'am! So what else is your language "zis" good for? Is it fully general purpose, easily editable at runtime, graphically skinnable with a build-in drawing editor, and dynamically scriptable and extensible by normal users, like HyperCard and HyperLook and Smalltalk? Do you think Alan Kay would describe "zis" as the "right way to go" like he described NeWS, and what other end-user problems does it solve, in the sense that he thinks HyperCard is brilliant and that Smalltalk pioneered? Is "zis" as "finished and smoothed and documented beautifully" as Alan Kay describes HyperCard? Have you developed and shipped any commercial products or free software with your language, like SVR4 or SimCity, that I can see and run for myself, so I can be confident you're not just making stuff up or wildly exaggerating, and that it works as you advertise? And have you written any books or documentation or articles or research papers about it that I can read to learn more about it? Or at least a screen snapshot, please? What are the URLs? Have you finished reading the X-Windows xeyes source code that I referred you to? Did you simply copy that code somebody else wrote into "zis" verbatim, or did you actually write your own original code? How is it licensed, and where has it been distributed: is it open source or not, and where's the repo? Now that you have presumably used the X-Windows SHAPES extension API first hand yourself, please share your experience and tell me what you think of it: do you think that it is well designed and easy to use or not? What changes or improvements would you suggest? Did you run into any of its limitations, or notice any unnecessary complexity, or ICCCM window manager incompatibilities? How well does your language "zis" support the SHAPES extension and ICCCM protocol, or improve upon them, and what else is it good for than xeyes? Finally, does "zis" support dragging and dropping eyes into each other, nesting their windows into an arbitrarily deep hierarchy, like my NeWS eyes did 27 years ago, and what ICCCM window managers support that feature, or did you have to write your own window manager or X extension to support that feature? Thanks for taking all this time and effort to design and write and share all that code, and to support and clarify your fascinating arguments. I'm looking forward to seeing your code and your answers to my questions.
- gilbetron 8y agoSo, yes I've made xeyes in both X11/C and another language - it was part of a computer graphics course taken years ago, oddly enough, and it might have been PS, but I don't really remember. I did write one or two small programs in PS, I know that. My point with the (imaginary) "zis" language is that comparing a domain-specific language like PS to C code is a strange comparison - not without merit, but PS is a higher level abstraction, which is great, but saying it is an amazing language because it is slightly easier than raw C is misleading. If I build up (or use) a nice library (and I'm not going to get pulled into defending X, I'm not as harsh as you on it, but it is ... painful ... to use - also, side note, I remember skimming through the Unix Haters Handbook when it came out, so I probably read your words back then, funny!) written in C, it is fair to compare that to PS. I'd rather do it in OpenGL/C for instance, plus my version will be more performant. There's a reason that combination (or DirectX) is used in the vast majority of graphics software out there.