Forum comments in chronological order
Disclaimer: I am not responsible for what people (other than myself) write in the forums. Please report any abuse, such as insults, slander, spam and illegal material, and I will take appropriate actions. Don't feed the trolls.
Jag tar inget ansvar för det som skrivs i forumet, förutom mina egna inlägg. Vänligen rapportera alla inlägg som bryter mot reglerna, så ska jag se vad jag kan göra. Som regelbrott räknas till exempel förolämpningar, förtal, spam och olagligt material. Mata inte trålarna.
- Jun 2007
- Aug 2007
- Oct 2007
- Nov 2007
- Dec 2007
- Jan 2008
- Feb 2008
- Mar 2008
- Apr 2008
- May 2008
- Jun 2008
- Jul 2008
- Aug 2008
- Sep 2008
- Oct 2008
- Nov 2008
- Dec 2008
- Jan 2009
- Feb 2009
- Mar 2009
- Apr 2009
- May 2009
- Jun 2009
- Jul 2009
- Aug 2009
- Sep 2009
- Oct 2009
- Nov 2009
- Dec 2009
- Jan 2010
- Feb 2010
- Mar 2010
- Apr 2010
- May 2010
- Jun 2010
- Jul 2010
- Aug 2010
- Sep 2010
- Oct 2010
- Nov 2010
- Dec 2010
- Jan 2011
- Feb 2011
- Mar 2011
- Apr 2011
- May 2011
- Jun 2011
- Jul 2011
- Aug 2011
- Sep 2011
- Oct 2011
- Nov 2011
- Dec 2011
- Jan 2012
- Feb 2012
- Mar 2012
- Apr 2012
- May 2012
- Jun 2012
- Jul 2012
- Aug 2012
- Sep 2012
- Oct 2012
- Nov 2012
- Dec 2012
- Jan 2013
- Feb 2013
- Mar 2013
- Apr 2013
- May 2013
- Jun 2013
- Jul 2013
- Aug 2013
- Sep 2013
- Oct 2013
- Nov 2013
- Dec 2013
- Jan 2014
- Feb 2014
- Mar 2014
- Apr 2014
- May 2014
- Jun 2014
- Jul 2014
- Aug 2014
- Sep 2014
- Oct 2014
- Nov 2014
- Dec 2014
- Jan 2015
- Feb 2015
- Mar 2015
- Apr 2015
- May 2015
- Jun 2015
- Jul 2015
- Aug 2015
- Sep 2015
- Oct 2015
- Nov 2015
- Dec 2015
- Jan 2016
- Feb 2016
- Mar 2016
- Apr 2016
- May 2016
- Jun 2016
- Jul 2016
- Aug 2016
- Sep 2016
- Oct 2016
- Nov 2016
- Dec 2016
- Jan 2017
- Feb 2017
- Mar 2017
- Apr 2017
- May 2017
- Jun 2017
- Jul 2017
- Aug 2017
- Sep 2017
- Oct 2017
- Nov 2017
- Dec 2017
- Jan 2018
- Feb 2018
- Mar 2018
- Apr 2018
- May 2018
- Jun 2018
- Jul 2018
- Aug 2018
- Sep 2018
- Oct 2018
- Nov 2018
- Dec 2018
- Jan 2019
- Feb 2019
- Mar 2019
- Apr 2019
- May 2019
- Jun 2019
- Jul 2019
- Aug 2019
- Sep 2019
- Oct 2019
- Nov 2019
- Dec 2019
- Jan 2020
- Feb 2020
- Mar 2020
- Apr 2020
- May 2020
- Jun 2020
- Jul 2020
- Aug 2020
- Sep 2020
- Oct 2020
- Nov 2020
- Dec 2020
- Jan 2021
- Feb 2021
- Mar 2021
- Apr 2021
- May 2021
- Jun 2021
- Jul 2021
- Aug 2021
- Sep 2021
- Oct 2021
- Nov 2021
- Dec 2021
- Jan 2022
- Feb 2022
- Mar 2022
- Apr 2022
- May 2022
- Jun 2022
- Jul 2022
- Aug 2022
- Sep 2022
- Oct 2022
- Nov 2022
- Dec 2022
- Jan 2023
- Feb 2023
- Mar 2023
- Apr 2023
- May 2023
- Jun 2023
- Jul 2023
- Aug 2023
- Sep 2023
- Oct 2023
- Nov 2023
- Dec 2023
- Jan 2024
- Feb 2024
- Mar 2024
- Apr 2024
- May 2024
- Jun 2024
- Jul 2024
- Aug 2024
- Sep 2024
- Oct 2024
- Nov 2024
- Dec 2024
Dec 2018
Anonymous
Thu 6-Dec-2018 03:08
Thu 6-Dec-2018 03:08
The owner of a website I look after was recently contacted by them. There were several odd things about the approach offering $200/year for a simple text link and some accompanying text on a particular page. Firstly why would a supposedly UK based company be quoting rates to another UK entity in US dollars (ok I guess they deal with people all over the world so it may make sense to have). More significantly, why would anyone offer that much without even knowing how many visitors the page recieves, obviously they are only really interested in the search engines picking up the link.
Despite my reservations the site owner did pursue it further and recieved the details of the proposed ad and supposed client. The link was to a US based company, which makes no sense for a targeted ad on a UK website, especially one which is specifically targeted at a fairly small local area. In addition the proposed extra paragraph of text to go with the text link had at best a tenuous relevance, and came with a disclaimer that it had been translated from chinese (which showed) and might want ammending slightly. Initial investigation of the site gave no great cause for concern, except it's obvious lack of relevance to users of our site, confirming that it was only really intersted in boosting search engine rankings. Closer inspection however showed that Adblock plus had blocked two items for atdmt, clearly it is this malware that they are actually trying to spread.
I have no idea if the supposed client is aware that their site is being promoted and used in this way.They may be fully aware and complicit, or more likely they have been hacked or may unwittingly just think they have signed up for a site promotion scheme.
Needless to say I have informed my client that I will not even consider allowing this ad to be placed on his website.
Very smart move, ^ and excellent points.Despite my reservations the site owner did pursue it further and recieved the details of the proposed ad and supposed client. The link was to a US based company, which makes no sense for a targeted ad on a UK website, especially one which is specifically targeted at a fairly small local area. In addition the proposed extra paragraph of text to go with the text link had at best a tenuous relevance, and came with a disclaimer that it had been translated from chinese (which showed) and might want ammending slightly. Initial investigation of the site gave no great cause for concern, except it's obvious lack of relevance to users of our site, confirming that it was only really intersted in boosting search engine rankings. Closer inspection however showed that Adblock plus had blocked two items for atdmt, clearly it is this malware that they are actually trying to spread.
I have no idea if the supposed client is aware that their site is being promoted and used in this way.They may be fully aware and complicit, or more likely they have been hacked or may unwittingly just think they have signed up for a site promotion scheme.
Needless to say I have informed my client that I will not even consider allowing this ad to be placed on his website.
See here:
https://www.fastcompany.com/40516897/a-new-wave-of-bad-ads-is-hijacking-even-top-tier-websites
Linus,the only reason I allowed Javascript to run from [your awesome] site is so I could post a reply here.
(I also checked the page source-code and it looks like the JS is only used for your comment box, search function and page navigation. To me, that's acceptable use of JS. I block all JS by default, and run Request Policy in all my browsers. These two addins stop dead in their tracks almost all known threats and popups, plus it saves me bandwidth - I'm capped.
I despise pages loaded w/ JS.) ;-)
Anytime a company says you can't modify - or even view - the source-code, HTML, or CSS; RUN !
Don't let their code ever touch your page.
Thank you Linus for using some deductive reasoning and saving yourself - and your visitors - a world of headaches.
I just happened across your site today, and would like to say it's pretty cool.
Thank you for putting it up.
I don't bookmark pages, that can be tracked, but I did pull a copy of one page in .maff, so I can find you again. (Hope you don't mind.)
Pretty cool site. :-)
Anonymous
Tue 11-Dec-2018 09:31
Tue 11-Dec-2018 09:31
Dialog looks interesting, any chance that the source for Tethered will be released?
A case against syntax highlighting
Anonymous
Tue 11-Dec-2018 11:34
Tue 11-Dec-2018 11:34
I know I'm late to the party, but I liked the article. It's a valuable perspective and critique, and I likewise understand the passion sparked by the argument instead.
Speaking as a non-neurotypical programmer, however, I feel the issue is more nuanced: I'm not sure the proposition is as binary as the article seems to paint it. This is my takeaway of the article, as fairly as I can put it:
* Syntax highlighting wrongly shifts the focus from structure to the building blocks themselves. This causes developers to fixate on form rather than function.
* Syntax highlighting offers a shortcut around proper understanding, until that shortcut no longer works and then the student is effectively stymied.
* Syntax highlighting encourages poor habits, such as the aforementioned skimming.
* Syntax highlighting doesn't help in situations where it would be genuinely beneficial, or at least, does not offer a sturdy enough safety net that you can afford to lean on it.
These points are fair, but I feel they are predicated on the notion that this is all that syntax highlighting can offer, particularly for programmers whose brain architecture and thus cognition may differ from that of the norm. I do not consider myself stupid (although that may be the Dunning-Kruger effect talking), but I do quite often feel stupid when faced with the common tools of the profession. To me, the benefits of syntax highlighting go well beyond simply allowing me to tell the difference between an object and a type. I shall forbear from quoting Dijkstra's observations on phrenology, and instead simply observe that given the choice between expending significant cognitive effort on following code execution and instead using that energy to be more productive, I much prefer the second option.
So what does syntax highlighting give me?
* I have ADHD. In addition, my mind is visually oriented: it uses shapes and colors to attach meaning. The way my brain partitions a program is thus a natural fit for a discreet application of color. That way, I don't have to keep the entire program in my skull (I'm a C++ programmer in a legacy codebase: we have hundreds of 7000+ LOC files that all interact in nonobvious ways, and focusing on all those details is simply unviable). It makes the code structure itself distinct to me, which is a very good help when getting my bearings, and prevents my brain from spinning out of control and overfocusing on the wrong things.
* Similarly, I've occasionally experimented with editors that let me move temporarily irrelevant code out of focus. That is a massive boon for me, because I can still easily see where things are, I'm just not forced to pay attention to them, allowing my brain to assign them a smaller portion of my attention.
* The article appears to cast understanding and skimming as mutually opposing phenomena. I would question that. To the contrary, I believe both are necessary in order to advance: it's part of what makes high-level abstractions (leakiness and all) such a powerful concept. When I look for bugs, a total in-depth understanding of all the code that passes under my eye would be detrimental... and likely take years. Instead, I skim, and while syntax highlighting may encourage skimming, I submit that is so for another reason: because it makes skimming viable and a useful tool for quickly evaluating the gist of a given piece of code. For someone such as I, who read code iteratively, it is a godsend.
* Visual Studio represents code that is defined out in a lighter shade than code that will actually run. I have no idea what I would have done if I hadn't had that feature, but I suspect refactoring would simply not have happened.
* The fact that syntax highlighting doesn't solve several preventable bugs is unfortunate. It does not, however, invalidate the concept itself. All it proves is that syntax highlighting falls short of perfection.
So I think there's value in syntax highlighting. It certainly helps me. However, there's a good case to be made against syntax highlighting as it is. On reflection, I've come to realize that the issue rather resembles the criticism levied against Hungarian notation, and that seems to indicate that the problem isn't so much that syntax can be highlighted but that it's often highlighted in the wrong manner and for the wrong reasons. We generally don't garish colors for all the types and objects and keywords.
But we *can* use it to lace the source with actual meaning, and this is particularly fine if the compiler and editor can use it to dispense with what would otherwise be useless and mentally taxing makework.
Speaking as a non-neurotypical programmer, however, I feel the issue is more nuanced: I'm not sure the proposition is as binary as the article seems to paint it. This is my takeaway of the article, as fairly as I can put it:
* Syntax highlighting wrongly shifts the focus from structure to the building blocks themselves. This causes developers to fixate on form rather than function.
* Syntax highlighting offers a shortcut around proper understanding, until that shortcut no longer works and then the student is effectively stymied.
* Syntax highlighting encourages poor habits, such as the aforementioned skimming.
* Syntax highlighting doesn't help in situations where it would be genuinely beneficial, or at least, does not offer a sturdy enough safety net that you can afford to lean on it.
These points are fair, but I feel they are predicated on the notion that this is all that syntax highlighting can offer, particularly for programmers whose brain architecture and thus cognition may differ from that of the norm. I do not consider myself stupid (although that may be the Dunning-Kruger effect talking), but I do quite often feel stupid when faced with the common tools of the profession. To me, the benefits of syntax highlighting go well beyond simply allowing me to tell the difference between an object and a type. I shall forbear from quoting Dijkstra's observations on phrenology, and instead simply observe that given the choice between expending significant cognitive effort on following code execution and instead using that energy to be more productive, I much prefer the second option.
So what does syntax highlighting give me?
* I have ADHD. In addition, my mind is visually oriented: it uses shapes and colors to attach meaning. The way my brain partitions a program is thus a natural fit for a discreet application of color. That way, I don't have to keep the entire program in my skull (I'm a C++ programmer in a legacy codebase: we have hundreds of 7000+ LOC files that all interact in nonobvious ways, and focusing on all those details is simply unviable). It makes the code structure itself distinct to me, which is a very good help when getting my bearings, and prevents my brain from spinning out of control and overfocusing on the wrong things.
* Similarly, I've occasionally experimented with editors that let me move temporarily irrelevant code out of focus. That is a massive boon for me, because I can still easily see where things are, I'm just not forced to pay attention to them, allowing my brain to assign them a smaller portion of my attention.
* The article appears to cast understanding and skimming as mutually opposing phenomena. I would question that. To the contrary, I believe both are necessary in order to advance: it's part of what makes high-level abstractions (leakiness and all) such a powerful concept. When I look for bugs, a total in-depth understanding of all the code that passes under my eye would be detrimental... and likely take years. Instead, I skim, and while syntax highlighting may encourage skimming, I submit that is so for another reason: because it makes skimming viable and a useful tool for quickly evaluating the gist of a given piece of code. For someone such as I, who read code iteratively, it is a godsend.
* Visual Studio represents code that is defined out in a lighter shade than code that will actually run. I have no idea what I would have done if I hadn't had that feature, but I suspect refactoring would simply not have happened.
* The fact that syntax highlighting doesn't solve several preventable bugs is unfortunate. It does not, however, invalidate the concept itself. All it proves is that syntax highlighting falls short of perfection.
So I think there's value in syntax highlighting. It certainly helps me. However, there's a good case to be made against syntax highlighting as it is. On reflection, I've come to realize that the issue rather resembles the criticism levied against Hungarian notation, and that seems to indicate that the problem isn't so much that syntax can be highlighted but that it's often highlighted in the wrong manner and for the wrong reasons. We generally don't garish colors for all the types and objects and keywords.
But we *can* use it to lace the source with actual meaning, and this is particularly fine if the compiler and editor can use it to dispense with what would otherwise be useless and mentally taxing makework.
Eleas
Björn Paulsen
Tue 11-Dec-2018 11:39
Björn Paulsen
Tue 11-Dec-2018 11:39
(The above screed was mine. Unfortunately the login window lapsed.)
Anonymous
Tue 11-Dec-2018 17:44
Tue 11-Dec-2018 17:44
if I have an object in a closed transparent container how do I override the default 'you can't reach obj' take fail message?
(instead of [take *]) doesn't seem to work in this case (scope?)
(instead of [take *]) doesn't seem to work in this case (scope?)
lft
Linus Åkesson
Wed 12-Dec-2018 09:35
Linus Åkesson
Wed 12-Dec-2018 09:35
if I have an object in a closed transparent container how do I override the default 'you can't reach obj' take fail message?
(instead of [take *]) doesn't seem to work in this case (scope?)
(instead of [take *]) doesn't seem to work in this case (scope?)
The "can't reach" message is printed by (refuse $), which is invoked before instead-of. So you can override refuse with a negated rule:
~(refuse [take *]) %% Don't refuse to take this object.
Eleas
Björn Paulsen
Wed 12-Dec-2018 10:15
Björn Paulsen
Wed 12-Dec-2018 10:15
ralph wrote:
That's exactly the problem i have, but how to solve it?
Good question. I find the Internet is to blame for shortening my attention span and making it harder to concentrate on one thing. Gone are the days of reading a book in one sitting. Still, nothing a bit of self-discipline wouldn't fix, I suppose?
When I was younger, I had this idea that you needed enthusiasm to carry a project. I've now come to believe that's wrong. Enthusiasm is fine, but it can't be your foundation, because it's fickle.
So my take on it is this: if you have an idea for some project, don't be afraid to structure it, to ponder it, to build test cases. You may feel as if that kills the magic, but I think that if your enthusiasm for the specific idea is that fragile, then it wouldn't have survived long enough to carry the project to completion anyway.
Anonymous
Thu 13-Dec-2018 11:55
Thu 13-Dec-2018 11:55
Is it possible to suppress implicit actions temporarily.
For example
1.dropping something in a held container first tries to take the object before dropping.
2. putting something into something where the first something is in a held container tries to take before putting in
If I know that the take will always succeed can I suppress the first trying to take reporting.
For example
1.dropping something in a held container first tries to take the object before dropping.
2. putting something into something where the first something is in a held container tries to take before putting in
If I know that the take will always succeed can I suppress the first trying to take reporting.
lft
Linus Åkesson
Thu 13-Dec-2018 22:54
Linus Åkesson
Thu 13-Dec-2018 22:54
If I know that the take will always succeed can I suppress the first trying to take reporting.
Yes, there are several ways. You can override the before-predicate for that particular case, with a negative rule. For each particular action:
~(before [drop $X])
($X is #in $Y)
($Y is #heldby $Z)
(current player $Z)
But many actions invoke a common predicate, '(ensure $ is held)', and you can add a new rule to that one instead:
(ensure $X is held)
($X is #in $Y)
($Y is #heldby $Z)
(current player $Z)
When the given conditions are true, your rule will succeed, and this prevents the later rule definition in the library from executing.
Eleas
Björn Paulsen
Fri 14-Dec-2018 11:30
Björn Paulsen
Fri 14-Dec-2018 11:30
The Cloak of Darkness example seems bugged under 0.15. Attempting to go somewhere yields a crash:
fatal error: attempting to store to nonexistent local variable 3:
routine has 0 (pc = 0x2aba)
routine has 0 (pc = 0x2aba)
Eleas
Björn Paulsen
Fri 14-Dec-2018 11:34
Björn Paulsen
Fri 14-Dec-2018 11:34
Eleas wrote:
The Cloak of Darkness example seems bugged under 0.15. Attempting to go somewhere yields a crash:fatal error: attempting to store to nonexistent local variable 3:
routine has 0 (pc = 0x2aba)
routine has 0 (pc = 0x2aba)
This is odd. I get the same error when running the first example in chapter 5. I'm running the win32 version of dialogc on Windows 10, in case that matters.
Eleas
Björn Paulsen
Fri 14-Dec-2018 11:44
Björn Paulsen
Fri 14-Dec-2018 11:44
I've now checked each release of the compiler, and found that moving between rooms only works under release 0b/01. Later than that leads to the fatal error described above.
Anonymous
Fri 14-Dec-2018 12:18
Fri 14-Dec-2018 12:18
Eleas wrote:
I've now checked each release of the compiler, and found that moving between rooms only works under release 0b/01. Later than that leads to the fatal error described above.Not sure if it's related but I only get the error when using Gargoyle. Frotz doesn't give the error. (latest versions Windows 10)
Eleas
Björn Paulsen
Fri 14-Dec-2018 12:54
Björn Paulsen
Fri 14-Dec-2018 12:54
Not sure if it's related but I only get the error when using Gargoyle. Frotz doesn't give the error. (latest versions Windows 10)
Thank you. Can verify. Does anyone know the best way to pass a bug report to one of the maintainers?
lft
Linus Åkesson
Fri 14-Dec-2018 13:47
Linus Åkesson
Fri 14-Dec-2018 13:47
This looks like a Dialog bug. Thanks for reporting; I'm on it!
lft
Linus Åkesson
Fri 14-Dec-2018 14:36
Linus Åkesson
Fri 14-Dec-2018 14:36
Fixed in 0c/04.
Anonymous
Tue 18-Dec-2018 12:05
Tue 18-Dec-2018 12:05
Can I reference an object variable from within the scoring options?
(increase score by (#object variable))
(increase score by (#object variable))
lft
Linus Åkesson
Tue 18-Dec-2018 13:14
Linus Åkesson
Tue 18-Dec-2018 13:14
Can I reference an object variable from within the scoring options?
(increase score by (#object variable))
(increase score by (#object variable))
As a general rule, queries can't be nested; they don't even have return values.
(Confusingly, rule heads may contain nested expressions, but that is a special case of syntactic sugar.)
But output can be communicated using ordinary parameters. To take the output from one query, and use it as input in another, you would write the queries one after the other. Then you'd use a variable to carry the value.
Assuming you have a predicate ($ has score $) that assigns a score to every object:
(#object has score $X) %% Here, $X becomes bound (i.e. to the output).
(increase score by $X) %% Use the value of $X as input.
Anonymous
Wed 19-Dec-2018 01:41
Wed 19-Dec-2018 01:41
This still rocks!
I thought i was the only one listening to his stuff in 2018
Anonymous
Sat 22-Dec-2018 12:08
Sat 22-Dec-2018 12:08
Oh my gosh you made these? I saw some tutorials and awesome videos of people playing 'em online and ordered the Arcade, seeing them instantly made me think back to your bitbuf and the really cool demo of it you put out. Awesome to have some tech you designed, great job man :)
Anonymous
Sat 29-Dec-2018 20:10
Sat 29-Dec-2018 20:10
Thanks for an informative article. I really learned something!
-Tom
-Tom