|
Wordle 1,176 3/6
π¨β¬β¬π©β¬
β¬π¨π¨π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,176 3/6
π¨π¨β¬β¬β¬
β¬π¨π¨π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,176 4/6
β¬β¬π¨β¬β¬
β¬π¨π¨β¬β¬
β¬π¨π©β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I need my vector graphics library to be feature complete enough to render most SVG.
I have that, with some compromises for embedded, such as using TTF instead of WOFF or whatever for the font formats.
The trouble is there is just so much to it. You have fills, strokes, gradients, textures, fonts, paths, basic shapes, and all kinds of minutia therein.
I've fleshed out my header file for my class, and it's huge, and I'm not entirely finished with it.
I'd like to break it up somehow because I'm overwhelmed, but I need to get a lot of it done before I can even test a little.
I pasted the class proto here, sans supporting structures to give you an idea of the mess I'm up against.
I hate messes.
class canvas final {
void* m_info;
canvas(const canvas& rhs)=delete;
canvas& operator=(const canvas& rhs)=delete;
public:
typedef gfx_result(*on_write_callback_type)(const rect16& bounds, rgba_pixel<32> color, void* state);
canvas();
canvas(size16 dimensions);
canvas(canvas&& rhs);
~canvas();
gfx_result initialize();
bool initialized() const;
void deinitialize();
canvas& operator=(canvas&& rhs);
on_write_callback_type on_write_callback() const;
void* on_write_callback_state() const;
void on_write_callback(on_write_callback_type callback, void* state=nullptr);
size16 dimensions() const;
void dimensions(size16 value);
rect16 bounds() const;
rgba_pixel<32> stroke_color() const;
void stroke_color(rgba_pixel<32> value);
canvas_gradient stroke_gradient() const;
void stroke_gradient(const canvas_gradient& value);
canvas_texture stroke_texture() const;
void stroke_texture(const canvas_texture& value);
canvas_stroke_style stroke_style() const;
void stroke_style(const canvas_stroke_style& value);
canvas_dash stroke_dash() const;
void stroke_dash(const canvas_dash& value);
canvas_paint_type stroke_paint_type() const;
void stroke_paint_type(canvas_paint_type value);
rgba_pixel<32> fill_color() const;
void fill_color(rgba_pixel<32> value);
canvas_gradient fill_gradient() const;
void fill_gradient(const canvas_gradient& value);
canvas_texture fill_texture() const;
void fill_texture(const canvas_texture& value);
canvas_paint_type fill_paint_type() const;
void fill_paint_type(canvas_paint_type value);
stream* font() const;
void font(stream& ttf_stream, size_t index);
float font_size() const;
void font_size(float value);
canvas_fill_rule fill_rule() const;
fill_rule(canvas_fill_rule value);
canvas_compositing_mode compositing_mode() const;
void compositing_mode(canvas_compositing_mode value);
float opacity() const;
void opacity(float value);
::gfx::matrix matrix() const;
void matrix(const ::gfx::matrix& value);
rectf fill_bounds() const;
rectf stroke_bounds() const;
gfx_result move_to(pointf location);
gfx_result line_to(pointf location);
gfx_result quad_to(pointf point1, pointf point2);
gfx_result cubic_to(pointf point1, pointf point2, pointf point3);
gfx_result arc_to(sizef radiuses,float angle, bool large_arc, bool sweep, pointf location);
gfx_result rectangle(const rectf& bounds);
gfx_result rounded_rectangle(const rectf bounds, sizef radiuses);
gfx_result ellipse(pointf center, sizef radiuses);
gfx_result circle(pointf center, float radius);
gfx_result arc(pointf center, float radius, float a0, float a1, bool ccw);
gfx_result close_path();
};
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: The trouble is there is just so much to it. You have fills, strokes, gradients, textures, fonts, paths, basic shapes, and all kinds of minutia therein.
Lots of software suffer from the checklist syndrome. The designers' / developers' / maintainers' fear is that some customer will ask: 'But can you do so-and-so? Well, if you can't, then I'll have to look for some other alternative!'
In my very first project after getting my degree, the marketing people came to me with checklists from the great reviewers of our software sector: This is what they are looking for. What can we provide today, and when will you have the rest implemented?
My impression is that commercial software have relaxed a little bit with checklists, but open source developers have become increasingly more determined that noone shall reject FOSS because of lacking features. (The current manual of gcc options come in three volumes, doesn't it?  ). I use some commercial software for my home PC and private projects, and FOSS people trying to pressure me into replacing it with FOSS is regularly arguing: But can your software do this? And that? Answering: But I have never had any use for those functions! is - in these discussions - an invalid argument. Even if I never needed a function: If my software doesn't provide it, it proves my software inferior, and I am silly continuing to use it.
Another field where you see this feature creep at full power is in programming languages. Once, language design was clean and manageable. Today, maybe version 1.0 doesn't include everything that all the other languages have - but by version 7.3 they certainly will! Isn't about every single programming language today 'multi-paradigm'? (Who was that stating 'Any sufficiently high-versioned standard is indistinguishable from a can of worms'? That goes for programming languages as well!)
Often, you see software turned down (typically by reviewers, not potential users) on completely irrelevant grounds. To take my oldest example: For my thesis, 40 years ago, I was doing an analysis of a database project that was abandoned. One of the arguments was customers rejected a DBMS that limited a database to 4 GB size. I asked what is the largest database of the current DBMS. The biggest one was 160 MB (note that this is 40 years ago! ) - 4% of the limit of the new system. (That wasn't a design limitation, only the specific proposed first implementation.) I laughed at it then, but during the following 40 years, I have seen similar things numerous times. Reviewers, and potential customers as well, don't have a clue about their real needs. They unconditionally go for 'More is better'. The number of check marks is a primary evaluation criterion, when you don't have sufficient expertise to consider your own need for each feature. Most customers don't. I suspect that a lot of reviewers don't, either.
So, I don't think SVG is any special at all. That is the way software is today.
(Bonus 100% true story: One of my classmates was for his thesis implementing an animation of a data flow model; you could watch how inserting an instance into a data store lead to data traffic among the involved classes. The work was done on a brand new PERQ graphic workstation. The system library could draw any pixel on the screen -- nothing else. (Rather primitive, the way you prefer it ) This data flow model involved 'processes', drawn as rectangles with rounded corners. PERQ couldn't draw 90Β° arcs. My friend had to implement that himself - our graphics textbook told us how to. The textbook algorithm used a sine function. PERQ had nothing of the sort, so he had to implement a small trig library. The Numerical Methods textbook provided the method, using floating point values. PERQ didn't provide any floating point, so he had to implement a floating point software package, before implementing the trigonometric functions, before implementing the graphic functions for drawing circular arcs, and then he could draw rectangles with rounded corners.
Personally, I prefer the graphic packages of today, capable of drawing circular arcs as a basic function. Disclaimer: I am not currently working in an embedded environment. (And when I was, graphics was totally irrelevant in our applications.)
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, a lot of people have no idea what they need, and that SVG isn't special in its bloat. It's just overwhelming to deal with.
But I really want nice pretty vector graphics for my little ARMs and stuff, and now the 32 bit ones have enough ooomph to do it.
I just got sick of interfaces that look like they were crafted in the mid 1990s. LVGL seems to find its way around that, even with raster graphics, but I couldn't make heads or tails of its rendering process.
I wasn't really going to do a whole vector engine, aside from loading and rendering a reasonable SVG subset which I already had finished, but not one with an exposed API you could draw with.
The reason I did is I could not find efficient algorithms for doing anti-aliased draws with alpha-blending. The anti-aliasing would cause pixels to be drawn in the same place twice, which fouls alpha-blending.
With vector graphics you get the mess basically as a series of polygons except all the lines are actually bezier curves. When you go to render, the way it's done, the issue above isn't an issue.
But it's sort of an all or nothing deal because the latter works nothing like the former at all.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
At explaining Higgs fields and gravity in an understandable manner? Just came across this, and it seems as foo-foo as every other explanation I've heard: How the Higgs Field (Actually) Gives Mass to Elementary Particles | Quanta Magazine[^]:
> "...As I mentioned earlier, these standing waves are nothing more nor less than motionless elementary particles, rippling in their respective fields."
The engineer in me says that particles must move in order to create waves/ripples, so they aren't 'motionless' 
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Anyone care to take a stab ... At explaining Higgs
Shouldn't they then write their own article and get it published? After all the link you provided is attempting to do just that.
Myself I feel it comes down to just as the article says is that the problem is in trying to fit the theory into the preceding theories. But that is the point, the new theory is needed because the preceding ones don't work.
I feel it helps to realize that Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to disprove the increasing evidence as it went along that his theory was not in fact complete. Because of course that evidence did not fit into his theory. So one either learns the new discipline completely or just accepts it as unknowable at the personal level.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
The key point "I think" is the example of the ball and string. The ball floating in space can be moved but exhibits no vibration. In a gravity field the ball is held in place by the string and force must be applied to move it. The ball then swings (vibrates) so it exhibits a repetitive motion within the boundaries of the swing (the vibration) but no motion outside of the vibration. The ball exhibits mass via the frequency of the vibration. Now gravity is basically one direction. The Higgs field acts like it but in all directions. So it causes the vibration of stationary particles and the vibration is related to what we call mass to set the particle in motion (outside the range of their normal stationary vibration) we must overcome the inertia of that mass.
(Now my head hurts).
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote: (Now my head hurts).
That makes two of us. But I can understand what you are getting at through the pain!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks?  Now it is just couched in a different set of obscurations.
|
|
|
|
|
My understanding of the ripples / standing waves etc. is this refers to the field whose ripples give rise to a particle moving or not. When he stated earlier "... Higgs field makes the elementary particles vibrate at higher frequencies ..." I assumed he was referring to the field associated w/ the particle which does the actual vibrating not the particle itself. There must be better foo foo articles than this. Have you seen this one How the Higgs Mechanism Give Things Mass - YouTube[^] He's a bit above foo foo.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is my stab with a rusty spoon (i.e. a very bad analogy based on the link you provided)
Particles are like boats on a flat lake, the 2D surface of the lake representing our 3D universe.
Without an anchor (massless objects) they go racing about the lake, as the current directs them.
If they have mass then they have an anchor hanging down into the lake. This will not simply hang down, as the water is not thick enough, but will swing back and forth like a pendulum. This will cause the boat to oscillate and that will cause ripples.
(Just about everything in the analogy is wrong, I'm afraid, but I was trying to emphasize the role the anchor plays and how something can be stationary and still cause ripples.)
|
|
|
|
|
It occurred to me the other day that Chat GPT might be able to convert a C# WinForms form to HTML, or at least it would be interesting to try. ChatGPT 4o[^] seems to be a bit improved over ChatGPT 4. I would not be surprised others have tried the same.
So, I created a simple Windows Form, with some labels, textboxes, a drop-down list, a checkbox and a button. I then uploaded the contents of the Form1.cs, Form1.designer.cs, and Form1.resx files to the chat, and asked it to return the code for an HTML page. I also asked it to return a Blazor razor component page.
It did a pretty good job. Not perfect, but for trying to convert the UI portion of a WinForms application, it could save time from simply manually doing the conversion.
I did not try anything complicated, and I would not expect it to translate the C# code to code for Blazor, but I plan to experiment further.
Since this forum is not for programming questions, I am hesitant to provide files, but you should be able to replicate the process yourself.
For those interested, it might make an interesting thread.
|
|
|
|
|
"AI" writing code makes me paranoid to the point where I'd have to review every line to feel good about it.
Most of the time, that means between prompting and review, I'd blow more time than I would solving it myself.
I don't know if that's true in this case, but certainly the review part is an issue.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
That is not the problem here. I am having it do one page from one form.
Yes, of course, I review and revise. I don't expect AI to produce complete, bullet-proof code. I don't have that much experience writing HTML and the byzantine world of CSS. Compared to WinForms (with a designer) and C# code, HTML/CSS (with no designer) is so backwards and unnecessarily convoluted, it saves me time. I have written HTML/CSS by hand like the cavemen did, but it takes less time to design the page in WinForms, then export it via AI (all within Visual Studio) than hand coding the HTML/CSS.
I've known many web front end coders, and they all think they can write a fairly complex page quicker than a designer, but in real world projects, the WinForms folks have always finished well ahead of the hand coders.
The trick is to realize I just want the WinForms to have the UI components and validation code (events in WinForms, things like onclick or mouseover), and let Copilot in Visual Studio generate the Blazor page file(s). From there, almost all of it is just C#. In short, just have AI do whatever takes me more time by hand. I keep it as simple as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing that a lot of you, here on this site, have read this book.
Star Trek Cats[^]
A lot of you mention cats & a lot of you are 100% geek. 
I haven't read it...yet.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: I'm guessing that a lot of you
I am guessing not. Unless the word "lot" has a different meaning than I understand.
There is a vast array of stuff out there for various cultural themes. Very few attempt to acquire all of it even if price itself was not an issue.
After all if ones spends all their time and money on Star Trek then what is left over for Pokemon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I see that you don't deny that you've read it.
Busted!! 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: you don't deny that you've read it.
Check your logic.
To the best of my knowledge, you've never denied committing murder, armed robbery, and drug dealing. Does that imply that you have committed these crimes? 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Duh...this is how the modern world works. Guilty until proven innocent.
|
|
|
|
|
Even though I've been writing code for a long time, I often find that I don't understand things the way I should.
I've been reading Grokking Data Structures[^] (Manning publishers -- I mention because they do a great job on books)
A few years ago I read, A Common-Sense Guide to Data Structures and Algorithms, Second Edition: Level Up Your Core Programming Skills 2nd Edition[^], so along with the experience I have I had a good foundation.
However, this book goes in depth explaining how Data Structures are built on top of UDT (User defined types) and it is absolutely fascinating. The only problem I have with the book is that the samples are written in Python.
I've used a Bag data structure in ASP.NET (ViewBag) but I never really thought about how it is implemented and this book explains that type of stuff.
I'm 70% thru and it's a really great book.
Have you read it?
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Have you read it?
Nope, but totally applaud you for peeking underneath the hood to get your learn on.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
