So where in that can I encode an arbitrary program? Like one could do in JavaScript?
So where in that can I encode an arbitrary program? Like one could do in JavaScript?
Who is “it” which interprets things? Is it part of HTML/CSS?
Boy have we got the API for you!
Replace all spaces with the unicode non-breaking space that looks the same.
Although I know at least some language servers will detect this and mark it as an error, lol.
Wrong. Well, at least incomplete.
You need user interaction (e.g., clicking on a button) and HTML & CSS for Turing Completeness, apparently.
C# is basically Java and from what I can tell, this looks approximately valid.
Variables can always* be named freely to your liking.
*You used to have to stick to the Latin alphabet, but that’s increasingly not the case anymore. Emoji-named variables FTW!
Thanks! I’ve only known the on-device installable Adguard apps until now (which obviously won’t work for something like roommate’s Apple TV, for example), so this is new stuff to me. Interesting!
Does Adguard work on “smart devices” like a TV?
- Port numbers only go up to 5280, the number of feet in a mile
What about internationalization – do the European port numbers go up to the cm or only meter count within a kilometer?
Don’t worry, I didn’t know either and had to check to check too :P
I thought pandoc didn’t support from PDF, only to?!
No, Richard, it’s ‘Linux’, not ‘GNU/Linux’. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS – more on this later). He named it ‘Linux’ with a little help from his friends. Why doesn’t he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff – including the software I wrote using GCC – and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don’t want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title ‘GNU/Linux’ (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn’t the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you’ve heard this one before. Get used to it. You’ll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn’t more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn’t perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I’d like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn’t be fighting among ourselves over naming other people’s software. But what the heck, I’m in a bad mood now. I think I’m feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn’t you and everyone refer to GCC as ‘the Linux compiler’? Or at least, ‘Linux GCC’? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux’ huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don’t be a nag.
Thanks for listening.
As someone who knows neither of the three: Why Zig over Rust as a Cpp replacement?
Thanks!
I’ll add that onto my pile list of things to look into again once Helix gets its plugin functionality…
Am not a Neovim user. How do you make the lines show up next to the directory contents listing?
… With the tradeoff being containers much more lightweight and having much less overhead than VMs…
Well yeah, with CSS and user interaction it’s understandable… as I’ve linked above.
The question was if this is possible for purely-HTML markup descriptions without CSS nor clicks, and it was a rhetorical one.