This VB feature existed to accommodate programmers coming from the DOS based QB IDE who were used to the one function per screen view there. To my sensibilities, it does not make much sense with the advent of high-resolution desktop environments.

I recognise it from regularly talking with fellow programmers at the local tech meet-ups. At least in my area, the work places with result-oriented policies were and still are in the clear majority, and only big companies with likewise big financial reserves could afford to pursue the economically wasteful route of process-oriented policies.

> [Wx] uses the native toolkit no matter where you run it

This is false. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24250968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24259040 It was false in 2020 and it is still false today (I just checked).

I wish the Wx proponents would stop saying these things. Who exactly are you trying to fool? Do you have no concept of reputational damage? What good comes from a claim that is so easily disproven by just installing a Wx application and looking?

Do you understand the difference between a toolkit API and a graphical widget?

I’m not trying to fool anyone. I'm not affiliated with the project. I’m just aware of it and have used it a few times. You, on the other hand, have called me a liar and a fraud because I repeated exactly what the project docs state and which your two links do nothing to contradict. In fact, you linked to yourself being corrected by the actual maintainer of the project. Did you read anything he wrote?

> Do you understand the difference between a toolkit API and a graphical widget?

I think I do. I have taken a few minutes on the Web to compare that what I had in mind is correct. What was the point of asking this question? Was it to trap me in a gotcha, or paint me as clueless, or what?

> have called me a liar and a fraud because I repeated exactly what the project docs state

Good, you realise you are taking on the claims made by Wx on paper. However, there's more to the world. To get the full picture, you have to also engage with what I have listed. The docs say one thing, the reality shown in the screenshots say another. There is a contradiction. It remains unresolved, not for lack of trying on my part.

> your two links do nothing to contradict

You are not further allowed by me to invalidate what I was writing about by simply disregarding the evidence. Engage with the points I was making. The differences in look and feel between Wx and native are plain for everyone to see and verify. So, what now? Who is right?

> Did you read anything he wrote?

Yes. Examine this:

his claim> OTOH all the standard UI elements (buttons, checkboxes, text controls, date pickers, ...) are native

my counter-evidence> Well, let's verify that… https://i.imgur.com/uHfjoUs.png No, they're not.

his deflection> Sorry, I don't know what is this supposed to prove

So instead of admitting that there is a contradiction, he just pretends to not understand it.

Also examine this:

> look good

> look good

> looks fine

> look good

I never mentioned anything about looking good, this is a distraction designed to deflect from the central point I was making. As I wrote before, the central point made by me remains completely unaddressed.

Alas, I cannot deal with those crazy-making techniques, his behaviour measured by outcome is indistinguishable from the mentally ill. With the help and advice from a friend, I came to the conclusion that it was not safe for me to respond, so I then decided not to.

I don’t really care what you “allow” me to do, and I don’t owe you my time for a deep rebuttal of your claims.

I accept that you’ve had a bad experience with the project and that you are speaking in good faith about that experience. I do not accept that I’m a liar or a shill because my experience does not match yours, and you will not convince me to accept that.

Whatever has gone on in other places between you and some third party has nothing to do with me. I didn’t see any credible threat to your safety in the links you shared, but I’m willing to guess that’s not the complete story between the two of you. I really can’t and won’t be dragged into the middle of that, because I don’t know either of you.

I notice you did not address the central point. This is, of course, because you are unable to. You have no argument to attack the evidence I have shown, you cannot answer any of the questions I have posed, the sidetrack about the other HN user was fruitless, you rationally know you are holding on to an indefensible position. And yet… the fragile ego cannot allow admission of being wrong, or even merely entertain the thought. So "muh experience is different" emotional cope comes out instead of dealing with objective reality, like installing a Wx software or looking at a screenshot. Stop digging, man, we already feel embarrassed on your behalf.

If you can read someone’s thoughts so thoroughly you should be making a living playing poker. All you have cited as evidence is your own other posts. You just have to have the last word, though, and that word has to be an insult to a stranger.

check comment history

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47582720

Purely hypothetical, hasn't happened yet. The reason is that Linux system vendors are lead and staffed by people who are idealistic like the average Linux system customer. They know their clientele, they know it would be bad for business.

> Perl nowadays have TypeScript-style type checking for function parameters.

I can't believe that.

TS code, compile time error "TS2345: Argument of type 'null' is not assignable to parameter of type 'number'."

    function foo(x: number): void {};
    foo(null);

Perl code:

    use Kavorka qw(fun);
    use Types::Standard qw(Num);
    fun foo(Num $x) {}
    foo(undef);

This code passes CHECK (perl -c), but should not if you are correct.

I invite you to prove the claim. Rewrite this with any module you like.

Because perl5 Types::Standard went the broken python way of type hints.

cperl types worked, and actually made it faster.

Can the software dump the recognised pitch and lyrics and timings to Performous text format? There's no formal specification, but examples are available on https://performous.org/songs

Homepage: https://perl.petamem.com

In case HN shows its user hostility again by cutting off the URI fragment, the intended deep-link was presentation slide #/4/1/1

Ugh, deep links should be part of the path, and anchor should be where on the page to scroll. Very annoying slide software. If the content weren't so good I simply wouldn't bother.

HTML+JavaScript-based statically hostable apps (eg. presentations) can't use paths as deep links, since there's no standard for simple static hosting or URL rewriting (even 30 years later). Oh well.

You should be able to use the query part of the URL (after ?). You can get at it with Javascript, but it doesn't influence which static HTML page is served.

I'm not sure why people hate using the query string so much.

They absolutely can generate the file tree so that each slide has its own url.

They also could use the query part on the url rather than anchor.

Lastly statically hosted doesn't mean no URL rewriting, they could again catch links to parts easily.

The poor UX of these tools is just a lack of will, not a technical limitation.

Then again hacker news should probably not blanket delete the hash in URLs either.