Especially because of Jio. Interestingly Google has invested a good amount of money. But, I found this as closed source and only kernel modification is available.
Let’s say you want to learn Vala language and you know someone on twitter or local meet-up group that is good at Vala and you want to meet him.
… really? Couldn’t you learn more from the whole Internet then from awkward coffee with one person?
I was actually going to write an article on this with “Commit Driven Development” or something similar title. The idea is to commit each successive code update in program/project so that while looking over the commit one can understand the evolution of it.
This help in two ways: 1. It shows how a simple program becomes large application/project and 2. Teach project development with an explanation so that one can follow to write a similar program to learn the development.
Another fun idea would be to make a base project with some basic features, and then give a group of students a few tasks to complete within the existing code base. After completing the work, the group could discuss how they have solved it and how that is reflected in the commit messages. There would probably be a lot of different takes on the assignment.
Learning outcomes would include:
Exactly. I’ve tried to document a similar thing ( but not able to complete ). Here is the example, that I was writing but with little different context and then I thought about “commit driven dev..”
I know this link does not look good in terms of CSS.
Richard M Stallman - For his dedication on free software for 25 years and continue. I haven’t seen such a level of dedication and no compromise.
I switched from Ubuntu to Fedora earlier this year as I was having serious out of RAM issues, and horrible performance with Wayland, which I surprisingly never had since Fedora (same setup using Gnome).
My experience so far is very good, the packages seem to be more recent than on Ubuntu, and pretty much everything I need is there. I have Nix installed as well for stuff like Chez Scheme, which oddly enough was not available in F28.
One thing that I’m really happy with is the absence of the Snap system which was polluting my home directory on Ubuntu. Flatpaks work much better and are respectful of directory layouts.
I’ve used Ubuntu since around 2005 and was quite disappointed when they went on developing a separate “convergence” desktop and the infamous Mir. I think it was over ambitious and ultimately killed the best aspect of Ubuntu: a commitment to a user-friendly, innovative Linux desktop experience. I’m quite happy to see that Fedora and Gnome work well as a replacement.
which I surprisingly never had since Fedora (same setup using Gnome).
It is not really surprising. Fedora tracks upstream Mutter and gnome-shell very closely, including commits between official releases. Some of the people working on Mutter and gnome-shell are employed by Red Hat. The other distribution that tracks upstream very actively is Arch (which would also update to specific commits rather than release points). There was a time around GNOME 2.26 or so where there were still a lot of bugs in Mutter’s Wayland support, where things like powering off/on a screen would bring it down. On Fedora and Arch you could almost see stability improve day by day (I reported some bugs, they were typically fixed in days, and then in these distributions a few days later). On other distributions, you were stuck with the same annoying bugs for months.
which I surprisingly never had since Fedora (same setup using Gnome).
This was one of my gripes with Fedora, somehow a lot of packages that I needed were missing. Which is a shame, because their GNOME + Wayland experience is the best. But using Nix to cover the missing spots is a good approach.
Sharing same experience:
I was long time Ubuntu like system user. But, in last year and so I was facing RAM issues and try different flavours of Ubuntu including XUbuntu and LUbuntu. But, then one of my friend suggest Fedora. Being
dnf looks odd at that time. But now I’m happy user of Fedora Xfce spin. No memory outage, no glitch, most of the commands are same with little difference and getting most of the software and library in latest versions.
I was actually going to leave Rails because of the other articles like this one. But, then I found Is Rails still relevant in 2018 ?. Go, Phoenix, Node, and others are good options. But, still I have no second thoughts on Ruby and RoR. That being said, I am learning Go as time permit.
I haven’t started yet, but I am planning to create a simple Notepad like application using GTK+ 3.x in C. I have planned out the list of functionalities that I need with initial version of editor. Once, I get grip with application development, I will planning to do some changes with Mousepad, an editor that comes with Xfce.
Any suggestions on GTK+ and C?
C on *nixes has awesome man pages for both the standard and the POSIX library, learning how to read the man pages if you’re not used to it will save you a lot of time and effort. Also
info usually has more example code than
How did I never know about
info before‽ There’s so much useful stuff in there. The difference in the amount of info between
man dd and
info dd is astounding.
Oh, neat and it even falls back to manpages for third-party stuff I’ve installed.
Thanks for mentioning that.
On the other end of the spectrum, check out TLDR pages.
Info is awesome because texinfo is relatively easy enough to write manuals in for websites, pdfs, and .info pages.
The GNU culture around writing manuals is something more software projects should copy.
Fermat’s Library also have entry for this paper with annotation.
Is there any place where I can find the story ( or blog ) of author where he has shared his view on why s/he created a Linux distro. I really interested to read about these stories on why we have lots of distro ?
Nothing fancy here. But, planning to create a blog where I am going to write a small tutorial like intro to domain specific language. Planning to publish on every Sunday or any other day, haven’t decide yet. I have created a github repo for now and listed out around 20 DSLs so I don’t stop after some posts. I am currently writing on Haml.
Guido has stay away from the discussion. I think that is good. Because, if Guido give advice and something goes wrong with that advice then people may blame Guido!
Few weeks ago I created a script for my personal static site generator. Now, I am planning to write the complete documentation on how I have created it.
. https://github.com/chauhankiran/bajana . https://dev.to/chauhankiran/developing-ssg-using-node-56c2
They are removing bars from the screen one at a time. They removed title bar ( I think that’s okay ), then they remove menu bar of application ( that has been talked in this article ). After that they will remove the system menu bar when application lauch and also they make the application status bar ( which normally display at the bottom of the application screen optional ). But fow what? To give more space to main window or to remove the other obstacle from users of the system to make them focusable ( if “professionaly” said! ) But, we already have F11!
Does this means Rust dumping a lot assembly code than C by providing some feature over the developer side?
Please consider my above thought as humble question, I haven’t even write a single program in Rust but I found lots of good word about it from the community and may be in future I will give a try.
But, I found that FF is fast now but taking huge memory ( > 750 MB while running with couple of tabs ) and process ( 54% of total process ) on my Pentium system. It just my thought that Rust provide good abstraction by giving an easiness way to write system code but dumping lots of code that make it huge and processor lover! Don’t consider me negative, I may wrong, but just asking you for further explore.
There’s still so little Rust in Firefox compared to the whole codebase that that shouldn’t be the sole issue with something like this.
In general, it should be roughly the same as C or C++, not significant more. Sometimes it’s less!
All these points mentioned in the post are also applied to C except latest language standard revision. Also, C have C11.
Why I am pointing out C? Because I am still not fan of C++ syntax.
I think it is a stretch to say C is in active development. It is at best in maintenance mode.
C++ is in active development.
It looks like C is on track to possibly get a new published standard around 2021/2022. It also seems to me that C has always been a significantly simpler language than C++. Where C++ is getting everything and the kitchen sink, making an already complex language even more complex, C has less to change and therefore changes less frequently.
One barrier here is that Microsoft has seemingly decided to stop working on C compatibility with MSVC; it doesn’t even fully support C99 yet, let alone C11. A new standard doesn’t matter much if one of the largest platforms in the world won’t support it.
A new standard doesn’t matter much if one of the largest platforms in the world won’t support it.
These days I would not be much surprised if Microsoft would replace MSVC with clang or even GCC.
Why? My impression is that the MSVC compiler is quite good. I only use the linker daily, not the compiler itself, but especially recently, I’ve only heard good things. Very different than ten or even five years ago.
A project manager making their numbers look better on the compiler side by using less programmers and moving at higher velocity. The reason: clang or GCC are doing most of that work now with MSVC a front end for them.
I’m sorry, I’m finding this reply really hard to parse.
Are you saying, people will move compilers because they want to use the new standard, which brings benefits?
And what’s this about MSVC being a front-end for Clang?
You asked why Microsoft would ditch their proprietary compiler that they pay to maintain in favor of a possibly-better one others maintain and improve. I offered cost cutting or possibly-better aspects as reasons that a Microsoft manager might cite for a move. Business reasons for doing something should always be considered if wondering what business people might do.
Far as front end part, that was just speculation about how they might keep some MSVC properties if they swapped it out for a different compiler. I’ve been off MSVC for a long time but I’d imagine there’s features in there their code might rely on which GCC or Clang might not have. If so, they can front end that stuff into whatever other compiler can handle. If not and purely portable code, then they don’t need a front end at all.
I am writing a simple book on SQLite - funSQL.
This is a good step. But, I personally not agree with nowadays languages that most of them do not have backward compatibility.
I respectfully disagree. I think as advancements are made in languages it’s only natural that you’re going to reach a point where additions or changes will force incompatibilities. It’s a natural, albeit sometimes painful, part of progress.
What are these languages without backward compatibility? From what I can tell, Go and Rust both seem to maintain backward compatibility pretty well.
Frankly, python’s backwards compatibility isn’t bad in my opinion. Outside of the python 2 and 3 differences, there isn’t really much to complain about.
I’m mostly annoyed that one interpreter can’t handle both 2 and 3 code. The changes are small enough this seems totally reasonable.
In terms of syntax I might agree with you, but under the hood it changed enough that’s it’s acceptable.
Go and Rust are both very young, and neither has even had a major version increase yet. Combined they have a much smaller installed base than Python and therefore fewer people driving new changes. They’re also tightly controlled by corporations who are likely to take a conservative stance on compatibility.
Most older languages have had backward compatibility issues. C++, for example, has added keywords, deprecated and removed auto_ptr, made changes to how lambdas behave, etc. Ada made major changes between Ada83, 95, and 2005, which are mostly compatible, but incompatible in some corner cases.
Nobody likes breaking compatibility, but refusing to do so implies the language is perfect or that the users must live with mistakes forever.
See Vala (programming language) on Wikipedia. It’s a language for GNOME that’s C#-like and compiles to C. I would like to recommend to the author to ask a native speaker to proof-read the book. It’s quite readable, but the lack of articles is a bit distracting (I know this is hard).
Also worth noting is that it compiles to C with GObject at the center of it’s object system. It has it’s benefits like quite easy interfacing with dynamic languages, but for me GObject is too crazy. Maybe I’m prejudiced, but it’s like painfully manual C++ although more dynamic. At this point for me it would be better idea to just write in C++.
However Vala hides all this, so mostly one sees good parts.
Yes, but I don’t want to throw technical details at first without even writting a simple hello, world program.
Yes. Hence I submitted link over here. Someone who has good experience with Vala can take a look.
A couple of suggestions 1, it isn’t obvious that https://chauhankiran.github.io/w.html is the index for your blog so I couldn’t see where Chapter 0..3 were. It would be good if you have a link to the index (and it might be better to have a tag so that I can only look at your GTK book chapters
Thanks for your feedback. I’ll surely updated these changes.