|
The VS example might work with menu options, but I don't see how it would work for code. Every programmer has his/her own way of pronouncing variables (e.g. es que ell vs. sequel for SQL), all of which would have to be taken into account.
You would also require localization even for things like pronouncing the alphabet. I remember a case where I had to spell out a word for a Frenchman, and he kept hearing my 'E' as 'I', because that's how it's pronounced in French. 
As an experiment, I suggest that you sit with another programmer, and try to write and edit a program by dictation. I predict that you will find it an exercise in frustration.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, What you describe is functionality far beyond what i imagined anyone reading my little fiction would infer
i'm thinking more like an audio version of TypeScript ... something at a micro level compared to a general purpose speech recognition engine; imagine how tedious it would be to give such an engine unambiguous text for names, etc.
My intent in the original post ... in addition to having fun ... was to see if anyone had tried something similar; what better group to bounce ideas off of than this ?
The issue of saving time/typing drives me to write little "transformers" where input like this:
("Name", "string"),
("Id", "Guid"),
("DateHired", "DateTime"),
("Title", "string"),
("EMail", "string")generates 255 lines of Property code like this (one excerpt):
public Func<DateTime, string, string, bool> NameValidator;
private string _name;
[field:NonSerialized]
public string Name
{
set
{
if (_name == value) return;
if (NameValidator != null)
{
if (NameValidator(DateTime.UtcNow, _name, value))
{
_name = value;
}
else
{
}
}
else
{
}
_name = value;
}
get => _name;
}
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
I'm working on supporting a really oddball display in my GFX stuff - an e-ink display that can do white, black, or red.
I'd like it to be able to display JPGs like the following more or less correctly - or correct-ish at least.
https://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/gun-c-1981-82-black-and-red-on-white_u-l-f3q7j70.jpg?h=900&p=0&w=900[^]
(JSOP didn't pick the image, i swear, it was just the first one with the overall color palette i was after that I found  )
Well I figured out how to do it. I'm adding palette/CLUT/indexed-color support to GFX, and for these I will have a 3 color fixed palette that starts with white instead of black, to mirror how the e-ink stuff works.
Then, I use a nearest matching color algo during color the conversion process to get the values I want. If the thing supports things like gray shades I'll just add those to the palette.
Just like my other palette stuff.
That way the JPEG above won't render inverted and monochrome.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I admire your tenacity and knowledge
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
far out !
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
If you ever have the urge to say, "Hold my beer..." stop.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
It's more like "Hold my potion"!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using the joke symbol, but this is so painfully accurate it can't really be considered a joke 
| What we say | What we mean |
|---|
|
| Horrible hack | Horrible hack that I didn't write | | Temporary workaround | Horrible hack that I wrote | | It's broken | There are bugs in your code | | It has a few issues | There are bugs in my code | | Obscure | Someone else's code doesn't have comments | | Self documenting | My code doesn't have comments | | That's why it's an awesome language | It's my favorite language and it's really easy to do something in it | | You're thinking in the wrong mindset | It's my favorite language and it's really hard to do something in it | | I can read this Perl script | I wrote this Perl script | | I can't read this Perl script | I didn't write this Perl script | | Bad structure | Someone else's code is badly organized | | Complex structure | My code is badly organized | | Bug | The absence of a feature I like | | Out of scope | The absence of a feature I don't like | | Clean solution | It works and I understand it | | We need to rewrite it | It works but I don't understand it | | emacs is better than vi | It's too peaceful here, let's start a flame war | | vi is better than emacs | It's too peaceful here, let's start a flame war | | IMHO | You are wrong | | Legacy code | It works. but no one knows how | | ^X^Cquit^\[ESC][ESC]^C | I don't know how to quit vi |
|
|
|
|
|
Too true... 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, if only you were joking ... 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: ^X^Cquit^[ESC][ESC]^C I don't know how to quit vi
ROTFLMAO. 
|
|
|
|
|
Recently I installed Linux and had to use vi to edit some files. I hadn't used the godforsaken thing in about 30 years but managed to do what was needed without hopelessly corrupting those files. I now believe in muscle memory, since it is the only explanation for how I could insert, replace, cut, and paste text and quit with or without committing the changes. 
modified 6-Jun-21 11:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
I suffered that pain a while back. I switched to Visual Studio Code which works in native Linux and Linux on WSL.
|
|
|
|
|
In a Lounge post a couple of weeks ago, I asked about using Windows 10 to develop C++ for Linux. VS Code seemed to be a clear winner, so I'll likely switch to it someday. What's blocking me is builds, for which I use VS2017.
For WSL, MS recommends CMake. That looks to be about as fun as vi, so you'd think MS would provide a tool for converting VS project files to CMake. Think again. 
But I did find a tool[^] that supposedly does it. What it generated seemed to do most of what was needed, but it failed on a shared properties file that controls various compiler and linker settings. So I'm stuck with VS2017 until this tool gets fixed or MS gets their act together. Porting to Linux isn't urgent, so I'd rather wait than struggle with CMake.
|
|
|
|
|
I always use make in Linux (and WSL), even though it means creating Makefiles by hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: creating Makefiles by hand.
You are a God amongst men.
|
|
|
|
|
Really? Make is nasty but simple. I use it because I can't figure out CMake. They're easy to write if you can get over their use of whitespace, which i hate
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Whitespace?! And you diss Python because it gives indentation significance? Why do people put up with this shite?
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately because enough other people put up with it that it became the de facto standard.  
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
That's almost like Yogi Berra's quote, "No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Make is nasty
No more so than many other products. I used it extensively in my working life, and found it had uses beyond simple software builds.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm mostly referring to the syntax, and it's about as bad as perl given that it has a smaller surface area. It makes bash look positively readable by comparison.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Any syntax is 'bad' until you learn it. C, C++, Java, Smalltalk, even COBOL ...
|
|
|
|
|
I mean specifically bad as in poorly designed.
Not all syntax is created equal despite your implication to the contrary.
Significant whitespace is nonsense, for example, both from a parsing standpoint, and from a usability standpoint. Technically speaking it's Broken As Designed.
Same with things that cannot easily be remembered by way mnemonic or anything like that. Make is littered with that.
Just like code can be readable and unreadable, so can syntax. A grammar can be well designed, or it can be designed poorly.
C# is an example of a well designed grammar. Make is an example of a poorly designed grammar.
It is what it is.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: C# is an example of a well designed grammar. Make is an example of a poorly designed grammar.
As with most things in life, it depends on your point of view.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
