|
Thermopyle posted:I just want to learn something different from what I know. However, I just know I won't put in the effort if it's something so oddball that the available libraries are really lacking or if I can only deploy to some weird platform. Basically, I want something that will teach me something new and yet be mainstream-enough that I can do useful things (websites, games, scripting, whatever) with it without a ton of re-inventing the wheel. I know everybody's already suggesting different stuff, so you're probably not going to read this, but: I'm going to suggest C. You can start with high-level stuff that looks a quite a lot like Java/Python/C# (my experience is with GTK+, but plenty of libraries follow that model), and slowly start dipping your toes into the low-level stuff. Later, try your hand out at Lisp and Haskell and Rust, because they're really worth exploring. But with the proper libraries and in the proper environment, C looks a lot like what you already know.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Not sure if this is the right tread or not, but I'll try: In MATLAB I got four equations a = x+z b = x+((y*z)/(y+z)) c = y+z d = y+((x*z)/(x+z)) How can I sort these so that I get x, y, z on the left side, expressed by a, b, c and d? Selklubber fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Oct 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:I know everybody's already suggesting different stuff, so you're probably not going to read this, but: Not going to read this! Suspicious Dish posted:I'm going to suggest C. You can start with high-level stuff that looks a quite a lot like Java/Python/C# (my experience is with GTK+, but plenty of libraries follow that model), and slowly start dipping your toes into the low-level stuff. Damnit, I read it anyway. That's a good suggestion. I had in mind really different programming paradigms when I said I was looking for something different, but now that you mention it, something lower-level like C sounds interesting as well. Anyway, thanks for all the recommendations thread!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Selklubber posted:Not sure if this is the right tread or not, but I'll try: You need to use the syms package to do things like that, but matlab is really not the best tool for symbolic math.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
People forget that the "mat" stands for matrix, not math.  Thanks for recommending Heroku. I'll try and figure out how to develop web apps...
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Nippashish posted:You need to use the syms package to do things like that, but matlab is really not the best tool for symbolic math. I learned that now. I should have remebered to just google it, found a calculator now. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Selklubber posted:I learned that now. I should have remebered to just google it, found a calculator now. WolframAlpha.com can solve the equations you posted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Seashell Salesman posted:WolframAlpha.com can solve the equations you posted. I tried WolframAlpha, but didn't figure out how to do it in sets. Tried step by step but it crashed in endless parantheses and square roots. Here's the result if anyone wants it:  
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
I entered them in a comma separated list and it seemed to interpret it right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
RE: Solving equations I haven't tested it but this exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Anybody here ever undergone PA-DSS certification? Just curious because that may be something in my future...
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Qt advertises itself on being cross platform, but I've never cross compiled stuff from it before. How straightforward is it to get a Windows Qt project running on OSX? I'm trying to develop an app that runs on both, and cross compatibility is far harder to bolt on after the fact. I was originally looking at JavaFX but I'm starting to shy away from it because of the prerequisites mac users will have to install to get it running.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
.
maskenfreiheit fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Apr 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
GregNorc posted:Can I update the MX record if I don't control the new provider? The new provider is G-mail. If your email address is you@GregNorc.org then yeah, you're in control. If you're contemplating a switch to GregNorc@gmail.com then I suggest looking into your own domain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
GregNorc posted:Can I update the MX record if I don't control the new provider? The new provider is G-mail. DreamHost has a procedure to do something similar in their wiki. You may be able to use that. Specifically, it's to use Gmail's interface and backend with your domain's email address.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
NtotheTC posted:These days this isn't the barrier to entry it used to be. Getting a simple hosted VPS set up for you to do what you want with it shouldn't cost you much more than $10 a month, and is a very good skillset to learn. That's what I've been doing recently as I had very little experience with setting up servers and I wanted somewhere to host live versions of the projects I worked on to showcase to people, rather than just having the source code on github. Totally agree with this. To add to it, I'd discourage the use of Heroku / Elastic Beanstalk or even worse, something like Parse/Firebase. I'd instead force myself to learn how to use a clean Linux box to host web applications, how to only ever interact with it through Configuration Management. How to have different deployment environments etc. It'll take you way longer than if you were to just magically slap an app on Heroku through some script they provide you, but you'll gain a very visceral understanding of how the whole stack works, which will give you a very strong foundation to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
The last time I mucked about with Homebrew, all hell broke lose, so I figure I should rather ask you guys what to do:Sh code:EDIT: Tables ufarn fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
ufarn posted:The last time I mucked about with Homebrew, all hell broke lose, so I figure I should rather ask you guys what to do: This is mostly guesswork, but: Your current freetype installation is version 2.4.11, however poppler wants/needs to use version 2.5.0.1, which is why it fails. Brew refuses to overwrite the freetype installation just so when you tell it to link it. (I assume "linking" in this context means "creating symlinks from a versioned installation to generic names".) Try brew unlink freetype see if it wants to do that. If that succeeds you should be able to re-link it afterwards, which should then link the 2.5 version instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
nielsm posted:This is mostly guesswork, but: code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:Totally agree with this. To add to it, I'd discourage the use of Heroku / Elastic Beanstalk or even worse, something like Parse/Firebase. I'd instead force myself to learn how to use a clean Linux box to host web applications, how to only ever interact with it through Configuration Management. How to have different deployment environments etc. It'll take you way longer than if you were to just magically slap an app on Heroku through some script they provide you, but you'll gain a very visceral understanding of how the whole stack works, which will give you a very strong foundation to begin with. I'd be interested in hearing why you feel this is different from telling someone to learn assembly instead of a higher level language because it will give you a very strong foundation to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I'd be interested in hearing why you feel this is different from telling someone to learn assembly instead of a higher level language because it will give you a very strong foundation to begin with. Learning how the linux box works is actually useful where the actual steps the processor takes are almost completely abstracted away with modern computers? Setting up a linux box to act as a web server is also a lot easier, we're basically talking about spending a few hours on a tutorial here, not spending weeks or months learning assembly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Yes, let's spend time learning the arcane Apache configure syntax rather than writing my code.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Okay so if we're at "low level understanding vs high-level productivity," what's next on the wheel?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:Learning how the linux box works is actually useful where the actual steps the processor takes are almost completely abstracted away with modern computers? Setting up a linux box to act as a web server is also a lot easier, we're basically talking about spending a few hours on a tutorial here, not spending weeks or months learning assembly. Heroku and the like completely abstract away setting up a box. Knowing how to set up a box is only useful if you need to set up boxes. Look, I don't think there's anything wrong with learning it if that's what you want to do, it's just that in this day and age it's not necessarily required.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
carry on then posted:Okay so if we're at "low level understanding vs high-level productivity," what's next on the wheel? That article about 'what every programmer needs to know about memory' that goes into muxes and refresh rates?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Yes, let's spend time learning the arcane Apache configure syntax rather than writing my code.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Can anyone explain finding runtime for code concisely? I missed a few classes and my textbook really likes to say a lot more than it needs to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Drythe posted:Can anyone explain finding runtime for code concisely? I missed a few classes and my textbook really likes to say a lot more than it needs to. You mean, finding complexity bounds for algorithms? Christ, you'll have to be a bit more specific because there're entire academic disciplines about it. Is it just about counting loops? coffeetable fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
GregNorc posted:Haha, sounds cool. What was the name of this parser? I'll check it out. Pretty sure it was just this: http://docs.python.org/2/library/email.parser.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:You mean, finding complexity bounds for algorithms? Christ, you'll have to be a bit more specific because there're entire academic disciplines about it. Is it just about counting loops? It looks like we started counting while and for loops and now we are doing upper and lower bounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Drythe posted:It looks like we started counting while and for loops and now we are doing upper and lower bounds. Sure sucks, doesn't it? Complexity analysis is hard stuff, don't miss those classes next time you can take the course. (Or study extra hard, do some exercises and find someone who's willing to check your work and explain your mistakes.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Drythe posted:It looks like we started counting while and for loops and now we are doing upper and lower bounds. This is a huge topic and forum posts aren't going to cover it. They're still gently easing you into the concept of complexity, you haven't hit the heavy lifting yet. Christ, go to class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Does anyone else find that every once in a while they get stuck on a simple problem that you know is a simple problem? I spent an hour trying to get a stupid 6 line for loop working that looked for a column of data with the lowest number of elements in it with a couple of constraints on what kinds of elements got counted. Super simple Baby's First Programming 101 problem and I could have cried because I couldn't see where I hosed it up. (Turns out that a ">" is not the same thing as a "<")
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Does anyone else find that every once in a while they get stuck on a simple problem that you know is a simple problem? It's usually the simplest/shortest problems that give the most anguish (at least, in a shorter time span). My friend yesterday got stuck on the second question in an easy maths textbook while revising, for over an hour, and said he felt like poo poo because he'd seemingly gotten so bad at maths over the years, but it turns out the answer in the back of the book was wrong 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
I can think of a few instances where I had a really tough time writing a particular piece of code the first time and this resulted in a sort of lingering fear of that problem. I spent a while silently dreading implementing word-wrap routines for this reason. Then a few years ago I sat down, opened an editor and hammered out an implementation in 20 minutes that worked correctly the first time. Can't let yourself get psyched out while coding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Does anyone else find that every once in a while they get stuck on a simple problem that you know is a simple problem? This is me every five minutes when using auto layout in Cocoa. I forget one stupid constraint and boom, an hour evaporates. AMBIGUOUS LAYOUT go gently caress yourself
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:This is me every five minutes when using auto layout in Cocoa. I forget one stupid constraint and boom, an hour evaporates. This is why I don't use autolayout. I use a C++ class which is basically a device-aware struct of measurements, so the client code simply requests an instance. I can put up a gist on github late tonight / tomorrow morning if you're interested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:This is why I don't use autolayout. I use a C++ class which is basically a device-aware struct of measurements, so the client code simply requests an instance. I can put up a gist on github late tonight / tomorrow morning if you're interested. I don't make it a habit to dive into C++ but I'd love to see it, if it's not much work to put up a sample.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Drythe posted:Can anyone explain finding runtime for code concisely? I missed a few classes and my textbook really likes to say a lot more than it needs to. It's easy. 1. Learn descriptions of the running time or memory usage (or other metrics) of all the necessary language constructs and library functions. 2. Given this information, compute descriptions of the running time or memory usage (or other metrics) for other pieces of code. Descriptions are often made with big O notation and related forms of notation, which are nice because they combine easily and omit details that won't surprise you in large test cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Drythe posted:Can anyone explain finding runtime for code concisely? I missed a few classes and my textbook really likes to say a lot more than it needs to.  A whole lot of programmers feel this way early on and skip stuff, and then later on find out that nothing makes sense and they just copy & paste and fudge their way to a degree, and then can't write basic programs and are unhirable. Some of that stuff may actually be worth reading. It may seem basic, but the basics are EVERYTHING.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 18:43
|
|
