Forgot your password?

Comment: Uphill both ways in the snow. (Score 1) 100

by b.honeydew (#37269048) Attached to: Book Review: CoffeeScript: Accelerated JavaScript Development
Maybe I'll change my mind in the future but I've been dealing with JavaScript for years and I'm not really interested with learning another yet another scripting language, especially one which deliberate collides with JavaScript. Maybe if the syntax was totally different to JS then I'd be interested. I guess now I know how ASM/C programmers feel about C++.

Comment: Any language that can do COM Automation (Score 1) 427

by b.honeydew (#36053658) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Moving From *nix To Windows Automation?
Most Microsoft products from the OS itself to server software to office apps expose COM Automation interfaces. COM has been the standard for extension and automation on Windows for a long time. NET is creeping up there but COM interfaces are always guaranteed to be available from Windows Explorer to IE to Excel to Exchange. Much of the time the .NET interfaces are just wrappers around COM interfaces., You can use any language that can bind to COM objects - Python for instance with the win32 modules, or PHP. Activestate also provides COM binding libs with their Perl and other scripting language distros. As for language choice, well funny enough I always found Visual Basic 6 to be the fastest and easiest way to work with COM.

Comment: Groklaw article is misleading (Score 1) 430

by b.honeydew (#23156200) Attached to: Office 2007 Fails OOXML Test With 122,000 Errors
From the original blog post,guid,3e2202cd-59a3-4356-8f30-b8eb79735e1a.aspx:

The TRANSITIONAL conformance model is quite a bit closer to the original Ecma 376. Countries at the BRM (rather more than Ecma, as it happened) were very keen to keep compatibilty with Ecma 376 and to preserve XML structures at which legacy Office features could be targetted. The expectation is therefore that an MS Office 2007 document should be pretty close to valid according to the TRANSITIONAL schema. Sure enough (again) the result is as expected: relatively few messages (84) are emitted and they are all of the same type complaining e.g. of the element: since the allowed attribute values for val are now "true", "false", etc. -- this was one of the many tidying-up exercices performed at the BRM.
Groklaw seems to have sexed up the results of the test to prove their case IMO.

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson