|
Nice!  
There's also VS Code Maps[^] and Visustin[^] out there.
P.S. - The competition might be good for you if you can outdo them in some way. Another scenario is that they might buy you out.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice looking design !
"What Turing gave us for the first time (and without Turing you just couldn't do any of this) is he gave us a way of thinking about and taking seriously and thinking in a disciplined way about phenomena that have, as I like to say, trillions of moving parts.
Until the late 20th century, nobody knew how to take seriously a machine with a trillion moving parts. It's just mind-boggling." Daniel C. Dennett
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over the years, I have seen many attempts at graphic-widgets-linked-by-lines visual programming environments, often accompanied by a kind of social-movement enthusiastically proclaiming them the next avatar in the long-line of "saviors of code" from Countess Ada and Babbage, Turing and von Neumann, Grace Hopper and Gordon Moore, to Alan Kay, Adele Goldberg, and Terry Winograd, etc.
The problem with all of them, imho, is that once you get a certain level of complexity: if you show enough detail to reveal a meaningful level of information you get a dense plumbing diagram that is ... well ... spaghetti; or, if you abstract the detail away into visual-placeholders that encapsulate/lead to other diagrams, you get far too shallow a picture of structure/flow.
I do think that people have very different cognitive styles, and that some people are much more naturally "attuned" to complex visual representations than others, just as some programmers are almost "constitutionally" top-down conceptualizers/implementors, and others are bottom-up.
I'm open-minded, and I will take a gander at ... and follow the evolution of ... No-Flo, but I'm also a bit skeptical, by temperament: possibly just an outcome of too many moons' mileage on the jelly in the skull.
"What Turing gave us for the first time (and without Turing you just couldn't do any of this) is he gave us a way of thinking about and taking seriously and thinking in a disciplined way about phenomena that have, as I like to say, trillions of moving parts.
Until the late 20th century, nobody knew how to take seriously a machine with a trillion moving parts. It's just mind-boggling." Daniel C. Dennett
|
|
|
|
|
Seyfert's Sextet[^]
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Cool, mind you I'm missing an L from the bottom right of the Pic (something my end, or do you get that as well?)... did you see the Darleks earth shot earlier...
|
|
|
|
|
I see that as well, I think NASA have removed the part that had their super secret moonbase space ship.
|
|
|
|
|
All looks good to me.
DDs pic was excellent.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
One the page for me it is still missing, in the original and the blow up, sneaky NASA them there Aliens I tell Ye!! 
|
|
|
|
|
That means it's an old image. The original (and second generation?) Wide Field and Planetary Camera worked around limitations in CCD resolution by using a beam splitter to direct light onto 4 separate cameras; one of which had a 2x magnifier placed in the light path. As a result one corner of every image is smaller like that because 3/16ths of the area were never imaged in the first place. The single higher resolution CCD was large enough to fit planets in full; operating the other 3 sensors at a wider field of view instead allowed for imaging larger objects at once (or taking fewer images for a mosaic) as long as the positioning was chosen correctly. In many cases they'd put the most interesting part on the high res CCD and use the other 3 to get a wider view of part of the surrounding area.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
From the link: the prominent condensation on the upper left is likely not a separate galaxy at all, but a tidal tail of stars flung out by the galaxies' gravitational interactions.
A phrase like this still boggles my mind. 
Nice pic.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd give anything to be out there. Anything.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
As long as I might get back home sometime, I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
Not that bothered about coming back.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
As long as I could still visit CP, I would go.
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.
- Mitchell Kapor
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome as always!
|
|
|
|
|
Unless Mike Rowe narrates it and says it's true I just don't believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
In the needling, persistent, won't go away sort of remembering...
Just got my new Dell premium widescreen monitor and now I noticed in the bottom right corner of my Eclipse development environment an icon and text to "Sign in to Google..."
You can reduce it to an icon, but unlike my ex wife, I cannot make it go away.
They're as pushy with this stuff now as is Adobe is on every update. I don't need a Sign into Google button at all, let alone in my development environment.
Rant over, I feel (slightly) better.
"Things don't happen for a reason; things just happen, and then we reason them." - Joe Chizmas
|
|
|
|
|
Don't use Eclipse ... last time I used it it wasn't a great IDE anyway. I recommend IntelliJ IDEA for a top drawer Java IDE.
|
|
|
|
|
In what way(s) is IntelliJ better than Eclipse?
|
|
|
|
|
Well I don't mean to start a holy war but in my experience:
- it's faster to get off the disk and hogs less memory
- it's easier to integrate it with build scripts
- it's easier to run and debug test cases
- its static analysis ('code inspections') are better
- my coworkers tell me its refactoring features are better (I don't really use those)
It has good source control integration as well but I imagine Eclipse has that too.
And in the case of being annoyed by prompts to sign in to the machine, it doesn't do that either!
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I might give it a try
|
|
|
|
|
InteliJ has a similar feel to Visual Studio while Eclipse works completely differently. For someone who does a lot of .net and only a little Java that's a big theoretical advantage.
Unfortunately Eclipse is the only approved java IDE on some hardened systems I have to use (and "I don't like it" isn't sufficient grounds to justify the work to approve an alternative); and when I started doing Android programming the pain of trying to use the android stuff in anything but eclipse was worse than having to use Eclipse itself. (The latter might not be true any more; but when Google launched Android Studio based on InteliJ a year or so ago it was still an alpha quality product.) As a result I'm currently using Eclipse for all the java I do because I don't do enough of it to justify keeping how both tools work in my head. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I tried IntelliJ about a year or so ago and it was /okay/ but I went back to Netbeans which bugs me but at least it bugs me in a way I know.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
