![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/6bb54798-5251-42a0-ad94-bef84746f8b4.png)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/8140dda6-9512-4297-ac17-d303638c90a6.png)
Git, probably
Git, probably
Please clarify, OP, did you mean
?
Indeed. Makes it more work to filter the handful of good or even great articles from the 99.99% that use this platform for its apparent ease of money grubbing.
It’ll probably take Valhalla for me, personally.
I sure hope so, but I’m not overly optimistic tbh. The market is basically considered medical, therapeutic devices. It is as you imagine, probably worse. It isn’t easy to find prices directly, but the only way this range of vendors continues to exist in this niche market is to sell devices with the complexity of a keyboard for four to five digits. There is no competition worth talking about happening.
So unless very specific regulation takes place, I don’t see standardized access to braille displays happening.
Right, that is another item I wished more editors would have picked up. Besides - say - nested language modes.
Original poster is right by all accounts, of course. Now, let’s come up with exotic significant indentations.
function xyz(a, b):
| var x = 2
| if true:
| | do_something()
| else:
| | do_something_else()
| anyway()
Pro: Your editor no longer needs to implement indentation hints.
Con: Looks obstructive if not highlighted like an indentation hint.
Your turn.
That reminds me of those times when back on reddit some dev showed up to present their new GUI library. Bragging about how they were better than Qt devs etc. (even though they didn’t implement the hard parts, like working text fields or tables)
After some time a bunch of people had enough and started bullying those guys into submission about accessibility. After some time, every of those toolkits had support or at least plans for supporting screenreaders. Eventually, AccessKit became a thing.
Good times.
Of course, I might be overestimating how easy it is to get better braille oriented editors
A braille display traditionally is a personal, almost handfitted (estimated by price) device controlled by its screen reader software. Not the editor. This has some unfortunate implications:
So yes, you might be overestimating how easy that is, compared to telling some diva asswipe chucklefuck to use that formatter or work at McDolans.
User Skull giver mentioned https://wiki.openjdk.org/display/wakefield/Work+breakdown, so it seems to be WIP.
From what I can see it is a slightly more detailed take on dependencies, loose coupling etc. Seems like it is formal and a bit weird, though. And a few part seem… extrapolated. So, no wonder it never caught on.
It’s not exactly clear to me who is supposed to be more comfortable.
Anyhow:
And the logical conclusion of this is there is a non-zero chance you get to enjoy the opportunity, no, the priviledge to maintain that 100k loc codebase written in someones personal PHP dialect. Lucky you.
Just wait until you learn that debuggers for XSLT exists. Wait, that’s no reason to smile.
That sentence seems correct. As for your question, you’d rather have to ask yourself: When would you pay for a programming language?
Back in the old days before internet and commodity hardware, before easy distribution, before non-trivial software, before basic compiler knowledge was common people were easily impressed, so naturally you could sell your compiler for primitive grug BASIC.
Today, that situation is different. A language by itself is meaningless, a risk, even, in some ways. A while back some developer of REM Objects was bitching about in the old aggregator on how nobody wanted to spend money on their special proprietary BASIC. Like it was just another product. They don’t know how to use a computer how programming languages work. This extends to even finding users willing to use your stuff for free. I don’t want to knock on REM Objects in particular, you know you could add way more examples like Seed7, every lisper ever etc., but let’s get into why people pay for programming languages.
people don’t want to admin
Exactly right.
You can not perfect old languages, since there are a lot of features that you can not add on or change afterwards, OP. Not in a worthwile way. This is not a philosophical question, it wasn’t for a lack of trying. And since there aren’t enough skilled people in this niche, fashion driven field, expect history to repeat itself and some langs at best get 60 to 80% right.
Between the lack of null safety (which really shouldn’t have been a thing since the 90s), the incapacity in community management and lack of focus of the core devs mentioned by Gnome Kat and glad_cat, I tried Dlang in roughly 2015. It was an OKish experience for trivial tasks, but I noticed the amount of churn in dub packages.
TL;DR: I would not. And for the same reasons, I wouldn’t recommend Scala either.
Nice choice of logo colors, btw.
I’m glad it doesnt.