On today's episode of "Stupid Use Of Glass"...
-
@boomzilla said:
've read that a lot of people can't focus when there's music playing with lyrics in a language that they speak.
This happens to me if the lyrics are in a language I don't speak. I think my brain is constantly trying and failing to parse what's being said, which distracts me far more than lyrics I understand.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
And so my point is that, depending on what's behind your window at any given time, it looks different.
This is the second time you've said this, and you still haven't explained what you're talking about. I'm starting to think you don't have any genuine reasons to object to glass, other than "CHANGE IS SCARY DURP!", and at this point you're literally lying about what you're seeing on your screen. Your pants, on fire, are hanging from the nearest telephone wire.
Either that, or you genuinely don't understand the concept of translucency. The window doesn't "look different", it's just translucent to the graphics below it..
So, when I look at the window, no matter what's below it, it will always look the same? Or is it translucent?
@blakeyrat said:
Got it? The window doesn't look different. It looks the same. The stuff below the window shows through. Goo goo. Gaa gaa. Peek-a-boo! Peek-a-boo! Herp derp derp derp.
See, you get so close to understanding, and then you go all crazy or something. So your theory is that while what I see when I look at the window looks different, that doesn't mean that the window looks different. And my visual processing should take your pedantic dickweedery into account or something? And here I thought you cared about what users see, not how the autistic windows developer thinks about it.
-
@Rootbeer said:
and it's extremely cheap to implement on modern GPUs.
I always stifle a laugh when someone turns off glass because they're rendering/baking/etc. as if offloading window compositing to the GPU is going to slow down the CPU more than blitting.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Hey tell you what. I gotta get work done today. If you can fix my Maven build error, or even give me a tip on where to look, I'll give-in and declare Java the BEST THING EVER. How'd that?
How does that work? Maven is an Apache tool. If it's broken, I could see blaming Apache, or even blaming yourself since it sounds like a problem with your configuration. But blaming Java because someone else's Java product is broken? That's fucking bonkers.Besides, I never wanted you to declare Java the BEST THING EVER; I never even suggested that I thought it was. All I said was that I have never had problems with Java itself - my problems have always derived from Java programmers.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@boog said:
Still, I did think you would specify a problem that was unique to Java, that is, unique enough to discern Java as "suck" when compared to other technologies. But Java sucks because there have been wide-open security holes? Then I guess everything else sucks too.
Hey tell you what. I gotta get work done today. If you can fix my Maven build error, or even give me a tip on where to look, I'll give-in and declare Java the BEST THING EVER. How'd that?
Here's a tip on where to look: your plugins' configuration, just like the documentation said. Bam. If blakey's next post isn't "I give-in and declare Java the BEST THING EVER" it'll be a very lame excuse.
On a side note, I'll never understand font nerds.
-
@TGV said:
@boog said:
@blakeyrat said:
Made me laugh. There is some truth in that, but I can't tell for sure what causes it. Is it the fact that most developers, and therefore most Java developers, are less than stellar in their coding?EVERYTHING ABOUT JAVA SUCKS
In my 10+ years of experience with it I've never had any real problems with Java, just Java developers.Most likely. Just another application of Sturgeon's Law.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Microsoft's not fucking stupid, so they wouldn't be using it if it weren't measurably superior in the opinion of the retards who work for major MS clients, who form the majority of MS usability test panels, and who in their jobs only ever use probably two or three apps, probably MS ones.
FTFY.
-
@boog said:
@blakeyrat said:
EVERYTHING ABOUT JAVA SUCKS
In my 10+ years of experience with it I've never had any real problems with Java, just Java developers.This real wtf. Did it occur to you that maybe problem with you and not with java developer?
Story time for you:
One day I go to doctor and say it hurt. Doctor ask where it hurt. I take my pointer finger and touch my chest, my forehead and my face and say "here, here and here".
Doctor say "Nagesh, your pointer finger is broken".
That broken pointer finger is boog. Chest, forehead and face are the java developer he meet.
So again, I repet, no problem with java developer.Thank you for reading story.
-
@Nagesh said:
@boog said:
@blakeyrat said:
EVERYTHING ABOUT JAVA SUCKS
In my 10+ years of experience with it I've never had any real problems with Java, just Java developers.
This real wtf. Did it occur to you that maybe problem with you and not with java developer?So...you're saying we should blame ourselves for bugs that other people create? This may explain a lot about all those software outsourcing horror stories.
-
@boomzilla said:
I've read that a lot of people can't focus when there's music playing with
Any citations for this? I'm more than happy listening to some (repetative - it's usually repetative so doesn't need any attention) pop-crap than the laughter of the other people in the office at some perceived sleight of acceptable behaviour while gossiping - the latter distracts me; the former doesn't. That said I have choice in the music since I'm using in-ear headphones rather than (I presume) being blasted to all the office.
lyrics in a language that they speak. That doesn't bother me at all.
-
@boomzilla said:
So, when I look at the window, no matter what's below it, it will always look the same?
Yes.
@boomzilla said:
Or is it translucent?
Why did you use the word "or" there? How is "it looks the same no matter what's below it" and "it's translucent" mutually-exclusive? You're hurting my brain more than setting up Maven did.
@boomzilla said:
So your theory is that while what I see when I look at the window looks different, that doesn't mean that the window looks different.
By "looks different" are you saying, "it doesn't draw the EXACT SAME PIXELS if the background changes?"... because that is such an extreme level of pedandic dickweedery, I genuinely would have never seen it coming.
Let me ask a simple question to which even a cretin like you can answer "yes" or "no". If I give you a photo of a sheet of vellum on top of a white table, then give you a photo of a sheet of vellum on top of a black table, does the sheet of vellum look different?
@boomzilla said:
And here I thought you cared about what users see, not how the autistic windows developer thinks about it.
Yeah, but when I say "users" I mean, "normal human beings with persistence of vision".
-
@PJH said:
@boomzilla said:
I've read that a lot of people can't focus when there's music playing with lyrics in a language that they speak. That doesn't bother me at all.
Any citations for this? I'm more than happy listening to some (repetative - it's usually repetative so doesn't need any attention) pop-crap than the laughter of the other people in the office at some perceived sleight of acceptable behaviour while gossiping - the latter distracts me; the former doesn't. That said I have choice in the music since I'm using in-ear headphones rather than (I presume) being blasted to all the office.Citations? For random things I've read on the internet? No. Do you not believe that I read them, or that random people were lying? But look in this thread for people who talk about similar issues.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Let me ask a simple question to which even a cretin like you can answer "yes" or "no". If I give you a photo of a sheet of vellum on top of a white table, then give you a photo of a sheet of vellum on top of a black table, does the sheet of vellum look different?
Is this really such a hard concept for you two to grasp? Blakey considers the content in a window to be the window, boomzilla obviously considers the border of the window to be part of the window. Now you can argue over which of you has the correct definition of what is constituted by the term 'window' but at least you should be done talking passed eachother with the looks-the-same/looks-different crap.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
So, when I look at the window, no matter what's below it, it will always look the same?
Yes.
@boomzilla said:
Or is it translucent?
Why did you use the word "or" there? How is "it looks the same no matter what's below it" and "it's translucent" mutually-exclusive? You're hurting my brain more than setting up Maven did.
Uh....I look at the window. The window includes everything within the outside border of the window. Some of the pixels within the border change depending on what is below the window due to the translucency of part of the window and the compositing done by the window manager (or whatever). QED.
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
So your theory is that while what I see when I look at the window looks different, that doesn't mean that the window looks different.
By "looks different" are you saying, "it doesn't draw the EXACT SAME PIXELS if the background changes?"... because that is such an extreme level of pedandic dickweedery, I genuinely would have never seen it coming.
So are you saying that I shouldn't consider the pixels inside (e.g.) the title bar to be a part of the window?
@blakeyrat said:
>Let me ask a simple question to which even a cretin like you can answer "yes" or "no". If I give you a photo of a sheet of vellum on top of a white table, then give you a photo of a sheet of vellum on top of a black table, does the sheet of vellum look different?
Yes, obviously, because I can see the difference between black and white.
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
And here I thought you cared about what users see, not how the autistic windows developer thinks about it.
Yeah, but when I say "users" I mean, "normal human beings with persistence of vision".Are you saying that you expect users to pretend that the pixels that are a part of the window aren't changing? Why do you expect users "persistence of vision" to be pedantic dickweeds about the source of the pixels that end up in the composite image that makes up a window on their computer monitor? I have already granted that it must not annoy others as much as me, but that doesn't change the fact that what I (and anyone else using aero glass!) see inside a particular window changes based on what's behind it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Let me ask a simple question to which even a cretin like you can answer "yes" or "no". If I give you a photo of a sheet of vellum on top of a white table, then give you a photo of a sheet of vellum on top of a black table, does the sheet of vellum look different?
Yes. That's how rose-colored glasses work. And red-blue 3D glasses. Among other fun products.
Edit: I guess I should rephrase that to say "make things work" instead of "work". The work is done not for the glasses, but for what is perceived through them. Just thought I ought to specify. Even though you already know this.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Nagesh said:
@boog said:
@blakeyrat said:
EVERYTHING ABOUT JAVA SUCKS
In my 10+ years of experience with it I've never had any real problems with Java, just Java developers.
This real wtf. Did it occur to you that maybe problem with you and not with java developer?So...you're saying we should blame ourselves for bugs that other people create? This may explain a lot about all those software outsourcing horror stories.
Did you read story? I am saying if you're paid to fix bug, you should be happy someone put that bug there. If everybody write perfect software, next generation of software developer have nothing to do.
Instead of thinking like victim, think like opportunitist.
-
@boog said:
@blakeyrat said:
EVERYTHING ABOUT JAVA SUCKS
In my 10+ years of experience with it I've never had any real problems with Java, just Java developers.I never had any problems w/eclipse, but that was like 4-5 years ago, i guess it has degraded since. Eclipse worked much better than that piece of shit free borland java IDE that i had to ues in a previous java course.
Although, the last time i used java, i had a rant about their documentation and other java path/classpath oddities.
-
@Nagesh said:
Did you read story? I am saying if you're paid to fix bug, you should be happy someone put that bug there. If everybody write perfect software, next generation of software developer have nothing to do.
Instead of thinking like victim, think like opportunitist.
Nagesh, is that really you? That sounded like a bad quote from a brainwashed House. I can't believe we used to be such good pals.
-
a little late to the party, but an extremely lightweight option is JCreator http://www.jcreator.com/.
Doesn't do much but open and edit java work spaces, projects and, files.
I think it has some code completion and more modern features but i've fortunately been either .NET or Cocoa for the past few years so i couldn't tell you.
sucks to suck
-
hey! we are over the 100th post. I'm gifting myself with a shot of gin
-
@Nagesh said:
What in the name of fuck are you blabbering about? My comment was under 20 words, and you [i]still[/i] completely misunderstood it?This real wtf. Did it occur to you that maybe problem with you and not with java developer?
Story time for you:
One day I go to doctor and say it hurt. Doctor ask where it hurt. I take my pointer finger and touch my chest, my forehead and my face and say "here, here and here".
Doctor say "Nagesh, your pointer finger is broken".
That broken pointer finger is boog. Chest, forehead and face are the java developer he meet.
Shit, I know trolls are stupid, but you're really dragging down the average.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
So your theory is that while what I see when I look at the window looks different, that doesn't mean that the window looks different.
By "looks different" are you saying, "it doesn't draw the EXACT SAME PIXELS if the background changes?"... because that is such an extreme level of pedandic dickweedery, I genuinely would have never seen it coming.
So you're making a distinction between what the user sees of the window (i.e. post-compositing) and what the window "looks like" pre-compositing. And pretend boomzilla didn't mean the former and doesn't understand the latter. Who's being pedantic here1, exactly??
Look, you keep bringing up that vellum analogy: Did you ever write on slides for an overhead-projector?
When people try to read them "offline" they put white sheets of paper between them because it's impossible to read otherwise, especially multiple layers. And the screen should obviously be blank white, too.
So your conclusion that those slides don't physically change appearance depending on the background is really of no relevance at all.1: Did blakey actually make up the term pedantic dickweed ages ago, or was that somebody else around here??
-
@topspin said:
Did blakey actually make up the term pedantic dickweed ages ago, or was that somebody else around here??
According to the forum search, [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/24215/251706.aspx#251706]this post by boomzilla[/url] is the first appearance. But... that can't possibly be right. Not least since there's a "pedantic dickweed" tag [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/t/24215.aspx#251051]earlier in the same thread[/url]. The "pedantic dickweed" tag was apparently first used [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/21935/245995.aspx#245995]here[/url], but of course it may have been cleared from earlier posts. There's also a "Pedantic DickWeed" banner in [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/24091/249183.aspx#249183]this post[/url].Google directed me to [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/t/20051.aspx#233293]this earlier post by b-redeker[/url] in which "Pedantic Dickweed" is used as a fake username. This is the earliest example I could find, and yet it seems more likely to be referring to an existing trend than starting one. Anyone else have better luck?
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Google directed me to this earlier post by b-redeker in which "Pedantic Dickweed" is used as a fake username. This is the earliest example I could find, and yet it seems more likely to be referring to an existing trend than starting one. Anyone else have better luck?
2010? Earliest I found was this (not on here) from 10/09/2006.
-
@PJH said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Google directed me to this earlier post by b-redeker in which "Pedantic Dickweed" is used as a fake username. This is the earliest example I could find, and yet it seems more likely to be referring to an existing trend than starting one. Anyone else have better luck?
2010? Earliest I found was this (not on here) from 10/09/2006.
Here's some pedantic dickweedery from 2003
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
According to the forum search, this post by boomzilla is the first appearance. But... that can't possibly be right. Not least since there's a "pedantic dickweed" tag earlier in the same thread. The "pedantic dickweed" tag was apparently first used here, but of course it may have been cleared from earlier posts. There's also a "Pedantic DickWeed" banner in this post.
Definitely well older than that. The first time I heard the phrase was when blakeyrat applied it to me on this forum, prompting me to use a similar pedantic dickweed banner (with a lower-case "w") in my sig for a while. I have no memory of when exactly that was, but I feel like it must have been at least a couple of years ago.
-
I suppose I should have clarified that I was searching for the earliest appearance of the term on TDWTF, not on the Internet generally.
