true, but all those HTML elements tend to get laid out in increasingly complex divs, with a whole heap of CSS added.

I was really referring to the javascript "controls" that are html elements with a huge heap of javascript behind them providing functionality.

I'd like to see webgl + native code running in the browser as a standard, probably based on a superset of C so anything else can be implemented in it.

but if your browser+js+html5 is so good at providing fast, standards-based 3D... why can't it run Crysis?

3d is more accelerated than 2d - its faster simply becuase the graphics cards practically only do 3d stuff now. 2d, there for desktop windows as almost an afterthought.

Some systems (eg Direct2d) are built on top of 3d graphics stacks, you just have a flat projection and no depth co-ordinates to give the impression of a 2d graphics surface.

So you see WebGL is significantly faster than HTML drawing, which is why it might be a good thing overall... the problem comes with replacing a well known standard with god-knows-what graphics drawing. Hopefully it'll settle down, and maybe one day we'll get a C-style logic that draws WebGL graphics in a browser as a standard.

And then someone will replace it with something else.

TBH I'd rather have a small language that is a lot of small, well defined building blocks and make what I need out of it (maybe I played with lego too much as a kid), than a language that has the kitchen sink in it somewhere - or worse, has 3 kitchen sinks in it because they kept on adding them in different versions. (yes .NET, you)

So I'd say perl or C are better languages than C# because they are small. Once you know the basics, you can do anything in them. With C# I'm forever finding new things I didn't know it could do or things it does if only I had the newer version.

With a small language, you can build self-contained libraries that fulfil your need for expansion of new features as they are invented, and replace them if needed.

I think this is the best, a language should be like an kernel, not a full OS with minesweeper, notepad and media player just because they could be added to it.

So I think I agree with you :-)

rubbish. Each element of a language is something you write down. It can be a symbol or it can be a word (or in Java it can be aReallyLongSetOfDescriptiveWords.In.Namespaces)

The point is that once you've learned the sigils, its no longer a mess, its perfectly understandable and concise. There's no scatter-brainedness there or urban sprawl of design.

Think of it this way - if you took any language and converted it to a set of machine-readable numbers, they'd all look the same. The difference is that you want something humans can understand. Perl manages this - _but_ you have to take the time to learn what those symbols mean. In more wordy languages, you get the understanding from the English names they use instead. The trouble with that is that many people read the English words and assume they fully know what they mean, when they don't necessarily do.

We've all seen people who'll use a list when an array would be more appropriate. Even though the code works, they haven't learned the difference between the collection classes and so pick the wrong one. In perl you can't accidentally make that mistake because there is no 'array' or 'list' there's just 2 squiggles.
Learn the squiggles, you learn which one to use, your code becomes correct.

and he's quite right, because the alternative is COBOL or Visual Basic where every syntax element is spelled out in big words.

There's a reason Windows developers like C# and not VB.NET (even though its the same thing) and that's the syntax. With C# you get to use a few symbols for various bits that are otherwise spelled out in VB. Perl just takes it to the limit - which means you have to understand what those symbols mean, and if you don't it looks like garbage. Which, I guess, C# looks like to my mum.

So in other words: learn your shit guys, you can't criticise perl for looking like crap unless you have taken the time to learn the language. And then you'll think it looks correct.

dodgy, not doggy.

you've been doing something so long its starting to affect your eyesight :-)

probably... you'd be shocked if you know what my thoughts were when I was alone.

Or maybe not, yours probably revolve around dodgy sex too :-)

and today Google has reinstated some links

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tech...

uh-huh.

The ruling only refers to information that is no longer "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant" - so if its still relevant it should not be unlinked.

Maybe you should write to Google to inform them of this and to get the link re-instated.

in this particular case, the guy the article was about didn't make the 'forgetme' request, it was some Joe Schmoe who was objecting to a comment he posted in the comment section under it.

I don't know if the guy's comment is irrelevant now, I doubt it as it was just some feeble comment he wrote - not an article directly about that user. It could be he wrote something he is now embarrassed about, but more likely it is just some dick who wanted to try the system out.

we could dress it up as some social coding bollocks and they'd never realise until it was too late.

Not necessarily required - perl doesn't need the dictator to put all the library code in the language, instead you have CPan.

I agree a common library for C would be awesome. Think of all the linked lists that are created every project :( I think this is one reason why C++ is more heavily used than C - even if you just write C code, you get to use the STL.

Maybe there's the opportunity for a website here... any VCs about want to spend their money on something really useful to humanity?!!?!

or let me put it this way, they offer you $1000, and you say "no way dudes, I want $10,000 or the puppy gets exposed to the world". Next thing you're up on blackmail charges. They have their own lawyers already paid for, so using them against you is just business as usual for them.

Take the $1000 and don't be a dick about it.

I've heard Shakespeare in the original brummy though - mostly at school :)

All languages can be unambiguous, however terse and unambiguous is not generally possible. So all the coders who want to write a couple of characters will be disappointed if they have to explain what they want in terms that make it very clear.

I thought assembly might be compared to a math style language, maybe it is. Maybe that's what we need more of- clear, simple, exactly defined instructions. Its when we start to build on that and make routines and "ease of use features that things start to get fuzzy.

Or how about small libraries. I compare Linux to Windows and we all know Linux is much easier to administer (from a serious, PoV, not cheap and easy to click things), the reason is that its built from a lot fo small components that do 1 simple thing. Then its easier to build a bigger solution from these bricks. The interdependancy isn't built into them, like Windows which can be nasty sometimes.

Maybe a language like lego is the ideal programming then!