CS student here. Almost everything we've learned so far has been data structures and theoretical algorithms stuff. I want to actually make something with a user interface instead of a terminal.
What books would give a nice introduction to GUI programming?
Just google a winforms tutorial, then choose a shitty GUI program to write and learn about the components on the fly.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-26 11:53
Start with Qt, get QtCreator (Qt IDE) and QtAssistant (Qt documentation), then when you understand the basics of GUI coding move to some other library like wxWidgets or Swing.
>>6
GTK programming isn't that bad. I wish people wouldn't do it though. The UI is disgusting and I'm not talking about appearance.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-26 12:54
Swing for the win!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-26 13:13
Imagine a giant cock flying towards your mouth, and there's nothing you can do about it. And you're like "Oh man, I'm gonna have to suck this thing", and you brace yourself to suck this giant cock. But then, at the last moment, it changes trajectory and hits you in the eye. You think to yourself "Well, at least I got that out of the way", but then the giant cock rears back and stabs your eye again, and again, and again. Eventually, this giant cock is penetrating your gray matter, and you begin to lose control over your motor skills. That's when the giant cock slaps you across the cheek, causing you to fall out of your chair. Unable to move and at your most vulnerable, the giant cock finally lodges itself in your anus, where it rests uncomfortable for 4, maybe 5 hours. That's what using GTK is like.
>>37
It's not because it's old. It's because the parens make it unusable. Its semantics are almost perfect, pero the syntax leaves a lot to be desired.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-26 18:09
>>38
just that? wasn't there already a project called "lisp without parentheses"?
>>39
Paredit already uses indentation as a visual cue and it's not enough. Prefix notation sometimes just doesn't cut it. I'm certainly not a fan of Perl's operator hell, but it's nice to have infix operators for certain things.
>>42 Either make an argument or shut the fuck up, fagstorm. >>43 You know, an operator for everything and all that.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-26 19:41
>>44
ok.
Lisp's lack of syntax takes about an hour to get used to. It's lack of syntax is the key to the power of the semantics that you claim to understand. Writing macros in a Lisp with syntax would require the programmer to do 'manual parsing' to convert the syntax to s-expressions anyway. In the end, syntax just feels pointless and over-complicated and in the way.
Or you could just get this argument from google. Nothing new here.
>>44
There are a lot of ops like there are a lot of functions in the standard library. Or like there are a lot of CPAN modules. It's not hell, quite the opposite.
>>45 Lisp's lack of syntax takes about an hour to get used to.
I think Ive heard this about a thousand times. I want my God damned infix operators. I don't want to write (+ 3 4); I want to write 3 + 4. I don't want to write (vector-ref v i); I want to write v[i]. I don't want to write ASTs by hand, that's the compiler's job!
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-27 11:35
Geehrte Damen und Herren wären sie bereit für einen Augenblick die Augen zu schließen und sich vorzustellen wie ich langsam meinen Penis in ihren Mund führe, halten sie kurz inne, riechen sie diesen Würzigen strengen Duft ein ungewaschenen Glieds? Nähmen sie sich zeit und lassen sie es auf sich wirken während ich langsam weiter ihren Rachen runter gleite merken sie die plötzlich Luftknappheit? Erschrecken sie sich nicht sie werden sich schnell dran gewöhnen weinen sie ruhig wen ihn danach zumute spüren sie dem Rhythmus des pochenden Gliedes konzentrieren sie einzig und allein auf die würzige Zwiebelwurst die ihren brechreiz wieder und abermals auf die probe stellt. Und dann werden sie eins, eins mit dem Moment der Vollkommenen Entleerung genießen sie jeden einzigen klebrigen tropfen der ihr Kehle herunter tropft und werden sie sich dem Leben in seiner vollen Wonne bewusst.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-27 12:48
>>47
you are missing the point so far that it's funny.
Infix operators and easy-to-use arrays are only attractive if you're a C-programmer and NEVER abstract anything off of doing pointer arithmetic.
In Lisp you slather layers of abstraction on everything you do, including things that are 'primitive operators' in lesser languages like arithmetic.
here's dot product in Scheme:
(define (dot a b) (apply + (map * a b)))
or would you rather a loop or lots of infix math operators?