That was my point, indeed. Such an angry person should probably be embarrassed to admit they do aikido in the same forum where they're YELLING AT OTHER USERS.
You completely botched the concept. Doing something to learn is not duplicating effort because if it was done before, it was a different person learning. Somebody else's effort can't be transferred in some sort of Vulcan Mind Meld. Each person does their own learning, and learning projects are not going to be useful end projects anyways.
And no, most projects on github are NOT in need of "patches." There is a glut of people who want to be contributors. There is not a shortage. There is perhaps a shortage of quality contributions, but having people still in the initial learning stages submit pull requests is not useful to anybody, it is just pollution. You don't even do what you recommend, it is obvious from your language; nobody accepts patches, or reviews them, on github projects. You submit pull requests.
Learn first. Repeat what others have done in the past. Implement a bunch of known wheels in the various known ways. Keep doing. Keep doing. This is how you learn. Then when you finally have a pull request to send, it is for a feature that was actually needed, and not "me too" vanity code.
Yeah, I have a client using SQL Server and it is a royal pain. Luckily, most of the time I can accomplish my task by using an ORM+REPL from a modern langauge, like Ruby. Then I can just open as many REPLs as I need, or create multiple connections in one.
People using vim or emacs would have automated tools that build documentation listing the function prototypes, and would spend the 2 seconds to open up said document when working on a project, and will just keep it open. Generally people using these tools make use of virtual desktops and have all of these tools open and available all the time.
Just because you don't know about a workflow doesn't automatically mean it is in the dark ages
Why do options you don't use "grind [your] gears" just by existing? Don't you feel like a total sociopath admitting that? Why would a new software project need your approval just to exist, or meet your expectation of a highly specialized use case? Almost everybody using an "editor" is using vim or emacs, and none of the "editors" force users of a file created in it to use the same editor.
Also, you said the "only" thing that "grinds [your] gears" is one thing, and then you listed a second thing, as a "second thing." If even your English isn't self-consistent, no wonder you need an editor, and no wonder everything would be totally borked if you attempted sed! lolol
Sorry Petey, but the coward was very clear. He doesn't like IDEs for GUI editors normally, but the only place (android) where he thinks it would be useful, the options suck.
It wasn't actually a hard one to understand.
And he has a point, because XML is designed to be human readable in the loosest sense, but it is not designed to be actually written by humans. And CLI tools are very awkward on android, because most android devices don't have a physical keyboard. If you're knowledgeable enough to be commenting on this story, you should know all that already.
How can you expect old angel to understand your point, when he can't even distinguish who is who in your posts?
He's just another angry aikido practitioner. The world is full of them. Oh, wait...
Talking about bias, it isn't a cite at all, and you're defending that it is a cite. It isn't claimed to be a cite, it is just an external link. The list of wikipedia pages that supposedly cite ACM articles is a clear lie, based only on the information from itself. It doesn't take any external argument for me to disprove it, because it makes a claim, and then clicking the links, the claim is false on the other side of those links.
It is also funny that you accuse "bias and/or unwillingness to read TFA," you mean the paywalled article, right? I'm willing to read it, provide a legal link. The wiki page being discussed I did read, and it DOES NOT claim that ACM article as a citation.
I checked ONE and it was a lie. Are the rest all the truth? Did you check? Check first and make sure I accidentally clicked the only lie, before you defend the list on that basis, because if in fact many more of those don't cite ACM articles, then you're complaining under false pretense, and even attaching pejoratives and false medical diagnoses to it in an attempt to discredit the person pointing out the lie.
I suspect, based on other comments here, that this is a typical sort of exchange a person should be prepared to be subjected to whenever discussing the ACM with its few fans.
So I clicked it, and clicked a semi-random example, cron. And it turns out, it has an ACM link in the external links, but it does NOT cite an ACM article, properly or otherwise. And is the link related to cron? I'm going with no, because it doesn't sound related, doesn't claim to be related, and isn't publicly available.
Here it is:
ACM Digital library – Franta, Maly, "An efficient data structure for the simulation event set" (requires ACM pubs subscription)
It seems that rather than all those wiki pages citing ACM publications, somebody from ACM has spammed all those articles with unrelated links.
The ACM is pretty good about open access. Every author can use their 'author-izer' service to create links that check the referrer but give free access to the papers, so if you can't get free access to an ACM-published paper from the author's web site, then complain to them, not to the ACM.
You're describing being awful at "open access," not "pretty good" or even close.
...if you were an elite software developer, you'd already have joined...
I thought 1337 devs had to subscribe to anti-establishment magazines? Kids these days!
SOoooo...shouldn't the first link in the regular search be a link to the results from Google Scholar?
If the information itself was valuable from the perspective of teaching the techniques, then yes. But if their utility is entirely based on their use inside academia, then no.
If I want to learn a programming technique I'd rather learn it from code on github than try to parse out the tiny bit of signal in an academic paper. But then, I'm allergic to fluff.
I don't think there have been any new fundamentals in programming since the 90s when The Powers That Be decided that RBAC is a new pattern and not just an ACL.
You might want to learn the difference between its and it's before commenting about crumbling ivory towers. Oh, and "staunchy" isn't a word.
You might want to learn some basic facts about the English language before attempting to get pedantic.
English isn't a controlled language. Words are not words because they appear in a list. Words are words if they are used. There are lots unused words that are perfectly valid words even without ever having been seen before. For example you can take any base word, and attach various prefixes and suffixes. As long as they don't contradict each other, no problem. And -y has been a suffix since Shakespeare!
So please, shut up and learn English, OK?
PS: Ivory towers won't be held together by misplaced apostrophes. I'll leave it up to you to find an engineer or Doctor of Education to explain why.
As a member of ACM, and former member of Mensa, I assure you the people at ACM are far more professional and nice.
Talk about damning with faint praise. LOL If the main difference is in how nice or professional they are, then yes, you're confirming that they are very similar.
Every resume needs a good publication hat.
But never admit to groping snippets, even if you learned something in due course.
Nerds don't wear contacts, they wear real glasses.
All published research is done by professionals, not just the paywalled kind. I'm not convinced CS has useful research, though. Useful engineering, certainly. The problem with paywalled engineering is that if you learn how it works, now you're never allowed to do things that way because of copyright and patents. If you only use freely available sources, then you're much better able to reuse that information without getting sued.
The most telling part of your comment is that the snippets you'd have to get from the internet if not for the amazing ACM are in VB!
I hope you're not attempting to email all the researchers in English. If so, no wonder they claim to have such difficult and time-consuming jobs.