Dr. Dobb's dumps on RedCloth
Bil Kleb
http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/192203368?pgno=7
Welcome to the 1980s. Want to make text bold? You'll
have to put the characters * and * around it. For big
text, first type in h1. All that's missing is a DOS
prompt and a floppy disk. No thanks -- been there,
done that.
Later,
--
Bil Kleb
http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov
James Britt
> As part of their "best Ajax" article:
>
> http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/192203368?pgno=7
>
> Welcome to the 1980s. Want to make text bold? You'll
> have to put the characters * and * around it. For big
> text, first type in h1. All that's missing is a DOS
> prompt and a floppy disk. No thanks -- been there,
> done that.
The browser address bar is the DOS prompt. Welcome the the 21st C.
Besides, WYSIWYG is so '90s.
I much prefer Writely to Writeboard, but this reviewer so misses the
point it's laughable.
(I think the last good issue of Dr. Dobbs was the 30th anniversary one.)
--
James Britt
"Judge a man by his questions, rather than his answers."
- Voltaire
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
> Bil Kleb wrote:
>> As part of their "best Ajax" article:
>>
>> http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/192203368?pgno=7
>>
>> Welcome to the 1980s. Want to make text bold? You'll
>> have to put the characters * and * around it. For big
>> text, first type in h1. All that's missing is a DOS
>> prompt and a floppy disk. No thanks -- been there,
>> done that.
>
> The browser address bar is the DOS prompt. Welcome the the 21st C.
> Besides, WYSIWYG is so '90s.
>
> I much prefer Writely to Writeboard, but this reviewer so misses the
> point it's laughable.
>
> (I think the last good issue of Dr. Dobbs was the 30th anniversary one.)
>
>
give me HTML, but don't make me learn a *third* language to mark up text!
Philip Hallstrom
Didn't you mean to say "don't make me learn a <b>third</b> language to
mark up text" ?
:-)
Sorry... I just couldn't help myself :-)
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
Which reminds me ... I need to install a DOS emulator to run some Pascal
code.
Joe Ruby
> James Britt wrote:
>>
>> The browser address bar is the DOS prompt. Welcome the the 21st C.
>> Besides, WYSIWYG is so '90s.
>>
>> I much prefer Writely to Writeboard, but this reviewer so misses the
>> point it's laughable.
>>
>> (I think the last good issue of Dr. Dobbs was the 30th anniversary one.)
>>
>>
> Well now ... I agree with Dr. Dobbs in this case. Give me WYSIWYG or
> give me HTML, but don't make me learn a *third* language to mark up
> text!
Bleh, give me something BETTER than HTML, which is RedCloth.
Joe
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
David Vallner
>>> give me HTML, but don't make me learn a *third* language to mark up text!
>> Didn't you mean to say "don't make me learn a <b>third</b> language to
>> mark up text" ?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Sorry... I just couldn't help myself :-)
>>
>>
> Uh ... yeah. Dang VT100 muscle memory. :)
>
PWNED! *cough*
Besides. On which language to program a computer are you now? Or did you
stop counting around twenty? Nothing wrong with an alternate approach if
it's better. And Textile sure is less (sometimes much less) of a
wristkiller than raw HTML. I wonder which smart mind came up with the
angle bracket idea, and all the slashes aren't nice on the pinkies either.
I sometimes prefer Markdown or Mediawiki syntax, since Textile headings
are ghastly. But Textile's quick CSS modifiers for margins and paragraph
indentation are very neat, and on the whole it's a bit richer.
But Dr. Dobbs' point -is- valid, exposing someone to that by default,
heck, without a WYSIWYG alternative is just vile - even if it's
technically a very good alternative to HTML, it's an annoying We Know
What's Good For You Better Than You Do attitude to your users /
customers. (Even if I resent the DOS prompt / floppy disk oh-so-witty
wisecrack - you're a journalist, just review the damn software without
having to invent smartass ways to emphasise its suckiness when you run
out of factual observations and leave the dry sarcasm to people that are
actually funny.)
David Vallner
James Britt
>
> But Dr. Dobbs' point -is- valid, exposing someone to that by default,
> heck, without a WYSIWYG alternative is just vile - even if it's
> technically a very good alternative to HTML, it's an annoying We Know
> What's Good For You Better Than You Do attitude to your users /
> customers.
It seems more like a "We're offering an option for people who prefer
Textile to WYSIWYG or hand-coded HTML, since no one is forced to use any
of these tools, and choice is good" attitude.
The reviewer missed this same point.
--
James Britt
"Blanket statements are over-rated"
David Vallner
Hmm. My phrasing of that was wrong. And probably what I was saying in
the first place too... Comparing a rather specialised text-sharing tool
to Word-inna-browser ones is indeed nonsense.
David Vallner
Bil Kleb
>
> I sometimes prefer Markdown or Mediawiki syntax, since Textile headings
> are ghastly. But Textile's quick CSS modifiers for margins and paragraph
> indentation are very neat, and on the whole it's a bit richer.
FYI, RedCloth 3.x does (some) Markdown too,
http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/usingRedcloth3.html
but it's only mentioned in the tag line of,
http://whytheluckystiff.net/ruby/redcloth/
Regards,
John Gabriele
> David Vallner wrote:
> >
> > I sometimes prefer Markdown or Mediawiki syntax, since Textile headings
> > are ghastly. But Textile's quick CSS modifiers for margins and paragraph
> > indentation are very neat, and on the whole it's a bit richer.
>
> FYI, RedCloth 3.x does (some) Markdown too,
>
I've tried RedCloth, but IIRC it wouldn't let me tell it only process
Markdown (and not Textile markup) so I switched to BlueCloth. I got
the impression that, with RedCloth, Markdown is a bit of a 2nd-class
citizen.
The BlueCloth source looks to be fairly straightforward (maybe a
fairly direct recoding of John Gruber's own Perl version?), is only
one source code file, and is pretty well-commented.
---John
Doug H
He stated a valid opinion, which you disagreed with and couldn't handle
so you spewed ad hominems and fud like "WYSIWYG is so '90s".
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/d8a6759e03c190c8?dmode=source&hl=en
James Britt
> James Britt wrote:
>
>>David Vallner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>But Dr. Dobbs' point -is- valid, exposing someone to that by default,
>>>heck, without a WYSIWYG alternative is just vile - even if it's
>>>technically a very good alternative to HTML, it's an annoying We Know
>>>What's Good For You Better Than You Do attitude to your users /
>>>customers.
>>
>>It seems more like a "We're offering an option for people who prefer
>>Textile to WYSIWYG or hand-coded HTML, since no one is forced to use any
>>of these tools, and choice is good" attitude.
>>
>>The reviewer missed this same point.
>
>
> He stated a valid opinion,
No, it was an ill-informed opinion.
> so you spewed ad hominems and fud like "WYSIWYG is so '90s".
An ad hominem is an attack on the person. I used parody to mock his
opinion, not him.
"[C]ouldn't handle" and "spewed"? Really; whose FUD'ing whom with the
ad hominems now?
--
James Britt
"Inside every large system there's a small system trying to get out".
- Chet Hendrickson
Doug H
James Britt wrote:
> >>The reviewer missed this same point.
> >
> >
> > He stated a valid opinion,
Actually what I said was:
"He stated a valid opinion, which you disagreed with and couldn't
handle
Austin Ziegler
You said that, but that doesn't make it correct. The reviewer's
opinion is *not* correct or even remotely valid. (Frankly, Writeboard
doesn't present itself as a collaborative word processor as Writely
does. Writeboard is intended to fill a different niche entirely.)
-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halos...@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* aus...@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
* aus...@zieglers.ca
William James
> James Britt wrote:
> > David Vallner wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But Dr. Dobbs' point -is- valid, exposing someone to that by default,
> > > heck, without a WYSIWYG alternative is just vile - even if it's
> > > technically a very good alternative to HTML, it's an annoying We Know
> > > What's Good For You Better Than You Do attitude to your users /
> > > customers.
> >
> > It seems more like a "We're offering an option for people who prefer
> > Textile to WYSIWYG or hand-coded HTML, since no one is forced to use any
> > of these tools, and choice is good" attitude.
> >
> > The reviewer missed this same point.
>
> He stated a valid opinion, which you disagreed with and couldn't handle
> so you spewed ad hominems and fud like "WYSIWYG is so '90s".
If "WYSIWYG is so '90s" is fud,
then "Welcome to the 1980s." is fud.
Can you comprehend that?
John Johnson
> As part of their "best Ajax" article:
> http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/192203368?pgno=7
> Welcome to the 1980s. Want to make text bold? You'll
> have to put the characters * and * around it. For big
As always, Different Strokes for Different Folks.
Applications like Word and, apparently, Writeboard aren't word processors
anymore. They are desktop publishers. People spend way to much time
"prettying up" throw-away documents, such as interoffice memos (IOM),
email, etc. E.g. A lot of people at my employer use Word to write an IOM
announcing, say, someones promotion. 5k of text becomes 200k+ with the
logo in the header, formatting commands and so on. Who knows how much time
they spend changing paragraph indentation, kerning, line spacing, etc.
Very often I need something just a little more expressive than standard
text. Perhaps a bulleted list, emphasis here and there, maybe links to
external resources. I find RedCloth (in the form of Textile) to be
excellent for this purpose.
In effect the DDJ article reviewers were looking for Word, and wound up
bashing a markup language.
Regards,
JJ
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Doug H
Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 8/30/06, Doug H <dou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > James Britt wrote:
> > > >>The reviewer missed this same point.
> > > > He stated a valid opinion,
> > Actually what I said was:
> > "He stated a valid opinion, which you disagreed with and couldn't
> > handle so you spewed ad hominems and fud like "WYSIWYG is so '90s". "
>
> You said that, but that doesn't make it correct.
Which is why I cited the article in which Britt said that quote. I can
also cite the ad hominem stuff, such as about how the original author
doesn't have a clue, and Dr. Dobbs journal sucks, etc., all of which
have nothing to do with his opinion.
Doug H
> "Welcome to the 1980s." is fud.
> Can you comprehend that?
Look it up. When you argue for one software/api/language whatever by
saying or implying without any basis in fact that another is out of
date, unpopular, etc., that is fud.
Austin Ziegler
Let me be a little more explicit:
Your statement that James "couldn't handle" a "valid opinion" is
incorrect on two levels.
1. Preston Gralla (the DDJ reviewer, whom I mostly respect) reviewed
Writeboard as if it were an AJAX word processor instead of a simple
wiki with insanely fast deployment. This is like faulting a 99 cent
ball-point pen because it isn't a gold-plated fountain pen. OF COURSE
IT ISN'T. It doesn't try to be, either. So, Preston's tossed off
statement about Writeboard is *not* a valid opinion. It's an
assessment of the wrong technology. Start with the wrong assumption,
you don't get a valid opinion.
2. James could handle it, if it were a valid opinion. Since it
weren't, it isn't necessary to handle it.
Basically, Doug, you muffed it here. Thanks for playing, haveanicedaybuhbye.
Chad Perrin
I think you're missing a point intended in the statement about the '90s.
As I understood it, the comment was meant as a satirical reference to
the "Welcome to the 1980s" comment in the review, pointing out that:
A) it is ridiculous to use that sort of attack on the Writeboard
technology because it is not a 1980s answer to a 21st-century problem,
as the article's author is implying, but rather an answer to a
completely different problem than the one the author addresses
B) far from proving that the Writeboard solution is out of date, the
author is instead indicating that his criteria for judging it might in
fact be out of date
That's a hyperbolic demonstration of the inappropriateness of the
author's criteria, not FUD, as far as I can tell.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);
why the lucky stiff
> If "WYSIWYG is so '90s" is fud,
> then "Welcome to the 1980s." is fud.
> Can you comprehend that?
"Can you comprehend that?" is fud just like "Yes, I can comprehend that!" is fud.
I like this!
_why
Chad Perrin
Why?
>
> _why
Oh, that's why.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
This sig for rent: a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/
Adam Sanderson
appropriate ruby logic!
Matz is Nice -> Matz made Ruby -> Ruby is Red -> Redcloth is Red and
Ruby -> Redcloth is Nice!
Tada.
Anyways I think that Markdown, Textile, Redcloth, RDoc (I really like
it!), and all the rest of the wiki style markup syntaxes are an
acquired taste. I love them because I can focus on what I'm writing
instead of formatting things. WYSIWIG has some appeal, but how many
times have you tried to make a list in Word and have it do utterly the
wrong thing, or try to not make a list which Word insists will become a
list?
Anyways, in the long run, some people will like markup interfaces, some
will prefer WYSIWIG stuff, but it's really just that, a preference. I
think that quote was a little short sited, but hey that's probably
because I dig these markup syntaxes.
.adam
Adam Sanderson
> >
> > _why
>
> Oh, that's why.
>
How can you argue with that? :)
.adam
John Johnson
wrote:
> Matz is Nice -> Matz made Ruby -> Ruby is Red -> Redcloth is Red and
> Ruby -> Redcloth is Nice!
-> Matz is Redcloth ?
:-)
Chad Perrin
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:30:42 -0400, Adam Sanderson <netg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Matz is Nice -> Matz made Ruby -> Ruby is Red -> Redcloth is Red and
> >Ruby -> Redcloth is Nice!
>
> -> Matz is Redcloth ?
No . . . but Redcloth is Matz!
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"A script is what you give the actors. A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall
why the lucky stiff
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 01:52:44AM +0900, John Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:30:42 -0400, Adam Sanderson <netg...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Matz is Nice -> Matz made Ruby -> Ruby is Red -> Redcloth is Red and
> > >Ruby -> Redcloth is Nice!
> >
> > -> Matz is Redcloth ?
>
> No . . . but Redcloth is Matz!
Dr. Dobbs is a Doctor -> Doctors fix Matz -> When he's Broken -> RedCloth is
Broken -> Dr. Dobbs is a murderer!!
Can you comprehend THAT??
_why
James Britt
I fear the uncertainty of doubt!
--
James Britt
David Vallner
Argue? Heavens forbid. We just remove all objects sharper than a wooden
spoon and back away. Carefully.
David Vallner
David Vallner
Badoom-tisch!
David Vallner