The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
But hypertext was a well known concept. Ted Nelsons book was published in 1974. Every now and then I bring my copy of the book to work to show to young, new employees the ideas of almost fifty years ago. They are amused, and a little bit impressed.
Some are fascinated when I point out Ted Nelson's two different hypertext scenarios: The one that survived, where text is is the vertices (nodes); edges (links) are without content. In the second one, vertices are mere selection points; text is found on the edge between two selection points. You consider text from one vertex to the second to the third and so on as one continous, coherent chain of text fragments to be read as a whole.
The two approaches obviously are suited for different uses. In a network of independent nodes you cannot easily store much data between the nodes. The text-in-the-edges approach is mainly suited for one coherent text body, that can be read along an arbitrary number of paths. When I write a personal letter (I am old enough to remember the days when that was a common thing...), writing one sentence gives me two different associations, two lines of thought, and I wish I could follow both in the following sentence. I am forced to string them out sequentially. In printed books, footnotes are a slight suggestion of the concept, but you can't follow the footnote path very long (*), and you divert from the main track, you are not given two+ equivalent alternative paths.
Most people never considered alternatives to text-in-the-nodes. Presentation of an alternative sets them thinking: Everyone knows the situation where you want to follow two lines of thought from the same point; they certainly see the usefulness of the alternative that lost. So let us bring it back again!
(*) Except for some authors that excel in writing footnotes to footnotes, present major plots in footnotes etc. Some books may be read either way - e.g. "Spoon River Anthology" may be be read as a continous path from one person/epitaph to another one, crisscrossing through Spoon River, even though it textually is a text-in-nodes structure.
Links is highly ambigious, hyperlinks less so. Links may be any sort of reference or asocciation. It may be "backwards" screws/nuts. It may be a radio beam. It may be a fragment of a chain.
There are thousands of ambiguous terms that we still manage to handle. In most cases, we get the right understanding from context. In some contexts, two or more interpretations are equally valid. There is the classical example:
"You are right" - "right" is unambiguous in this context, right? But the statement was made at a tennis court, with two couples. So the complete statement is "You are right. I am left". Is the understanding of "right" still the same?
Now at this tennis court, there are actually three couples who play around. So the statement uttered is not yet complete - it could either be: "You are right. I am left. She is middle." The second meaning of "right" prevails. Or they may be taking a brief rest, and one of the guys tells "You are right. I am left. She is gone!". The last word in the third sentence completely reverses the meaning of the two preceding sentences.
I just created a new project in Android Studio from one of the templates and while the template project was being generated and built for the first time I saw this popup in the bottom right corner of Android Studio: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wb0Zh.png[^]
"Would you like to install a shell script formatter?" [install] [No, thanks]
There is a little circle i icon but there is no hovertext or any additional information that appears on that icon. There's no additional info. Just that question.
Some (many) devs are not great at providing context.
pretty tame, if you want to properly get people to do something:
Would you like to XXXXX [Yes] [Later]
- android itself, and more than a few apps are getting that way.
- winduds of course even more blunt take's that to the next level, they enforce a limit on "later"
- can't say for apple but I'm pretty sure it's gonna be the same.
wait till the auto manufacturers bring that on, hopefully not in my time
after many otherwise intelligent sounding suggestions that achieved nothing the nice folks at Technet said the only solution was to low level format my hard disk then reinstall my signature. Sadly, this still didn't fix the issue!
Good point, because I felt like saying [no, thanks] was making me miss out on something.
Seriously, because I was like, well, if I say no then can I ever try it later?
It's kind of cool though because FOMO is very popular right now.
So does it beautify your shell scripts, by formatting them nicely, or does it wipe all your shell scripts, like a drive formatter?
That's a very good point about the use of arbitrary (non-specific) language in the message too.
The creation of this popup and the message was probably the junior programmer's first day and first chance to put some code into production.
Last Visit: 7-Apr-20 7:36 Last Update: 7-Apr-20 7:36