4 ms·
They don't exist. I've seen good things relating to this Red language, but have fun learning a new language when you really just want to make a program you've
by verisimilitudes 8y ago
They don't exist. I've seen good things relating to this Red language, but have fun learning a new language when you really just want to make a program you've already written graphical.
Try learning the unreasonable class hierarchies of Gnome or Qt, if you want to write a graphical application in most languages; there are several tomes covering X11 and Motif and, if you bother to learn those now, just remember that Wayland's been right around the corner for over a decade now.
Every other option is either unsuitable, unmaintained, or something else. The terminal is also poorly used in UNIX: you can't get key modifiers for everything, since it's all sent as plain characters; there are several competing conventions for reporting mouse codes, all broken in different ways; instead of using the FUNCTION KEY control sequence, which scales to however many you need, Xterm and cohort send baroque sequences with no pattern, instead; and, lastly, extended color codes are broken, because Xterm implemented its own standard before someone read the real one and then it implemented the real standard incorrectly, with the other terminals following its lead as if lemmings, because they probably never saw the standard at all, and now it's too ingrained to implement properly, so just send the wrong codes, right?
It's all utterly broken and it's disgusting. I want you to take notice of how much visual garbage is in Unicode. Now, part of that is to encompass other character sets, but consider that, since the GUI and everything else is so utterly broken, why not make the character set the GUI toolkit? That seems to be what's been done, and who needs a real GUI system when you can send cute Unicode glyphs back and forth?
- ScottFree 8y agoHow would you fix it?
- ErotemeObelus 8y agoBig problem with OOP: "let's create a new type!" Functional programming is extremely unnatural. I am using "unnatural" in the same sense of how the Bible considers sodomy to be an extremely unnatural sex act. Yes, functional programming is the sodomy of programming. No state? Except for inherently-declarative paradigms like databases or spreadsheets, this is 100% inappropriate for any programming. But yet there is a reason why so many intelligent people like functional languages like ML, F# or the theorem-prover Haskell. They have expressive type systems that don't degenerate into a big ball of mud, because they're based on the lambda cube. If someone took javascript and added product types, sum types, dependent types, polymorphic types... they would drop OOP.