I'm still prevaricating about cross-platform apps: the fact is that G'Nunix is by far a more enjoyable platform in which to code. I feel a bit of a half-wit coining that word, but GNU was coined along with the saying, "I see a gnu; I see a g'nother gnu."
And I must g'remind g'people that g'handheld g'computers g'permanently attached to a g'phone are just another instance of giving power to the users.
And I must remind users and programmers, who might be thinking I left off a final 'g', that boys of my kind made any excuse to climb onto the roof; which made the story of a dumb-blonde who was helpless in every way but that of coming into coin, a bit of an unbelievable one for having an adult son who didn't know how to spell ladder.
Yes it is dangerous: we learnt not to tell Dad.
Once people have looked at the word duplicity, and contrasted it with the word lie, they aught then contemplate the word compromise. I've been trying to figure out why I've had an urge to make a cross-platform scripting language that doubles up as a shell. We do things for just because: to go into causes would be to talk theology, plain and simple. Some people think that theology only exists because people don't like to talk plain and simple.
I came, at the age of forty, to the resolution of bitter feelings I held against a family who effectively saved me the trouble of having a wife; but I subsequently found, through a friend, that the mother had had a painful ending. I share this because this family talked very much with me upon computing matters.
Compatibility layers come with a performance hit. I advocated a language which was a compatilibity layer, and which had all the features that aught to make programming easy, on account of us being told that market dominance is stifling innovation and bringing people to make use of tools that, besides being unnecessary, no-one understood how they worked: I was quite vociferous that we all aught to put our weight behind Java.
Business-logic is a weaponized-word, used to tell programmers to stop fucking around and get the job done; business owners at times fuck around with words like layer, which a programmer sees and wonders when he'll have to punch a hole in it.
There's also such a thing as a necessary work-around.
Programmers all call mobes bricks: ever-green also means ever ready to stomp on a work-around; but what do we do with a jumping tree?
It takes behaviour like that of a thief in the night in order to exercise the choice that we've monotonically insisting is a choice. And now I'm just going to bash people on the head with the idea of a jumping-tree mobe. But G'nunix is just not ready.
Saying good-bye to things which strictly speaking we only personify, as I said good-bye to some challenges which only existed, some think, because people don't like to look at the word daemon, I bash my head on one of my trees, just because they like it.
And then I do it again, because anyone reading this is likely to be thinking I aught to be getting some lessons in the matter of relevance.
And then I do it a third time with three trees for the sake of those who wish to give me a lesson in compatibility.
Some people, when they think of compatibility as it applies to g'computers and g'phones, which doesn't relate to the endless game of making new plugs and sockets because last year's ones aren't looking pretty any more, and also not to the matter of data format, which is tricky to describe technically because distinguishing between types of files is not a matter of three or four letters on the end of it, will first think of being able to look at a picture.
Photo viewing apps, however, only get programmers to look at the matter of the multiplication of data formats, not to mention the matter of structure, which in itself is a format, but only in the mind of a programmer.
I like coffee: do you like coffee? I like coffee! Did I say that already?
Sometimes I add a few grains of salt. Don't ask me why. But it should now be obvious that compatibility in terms of platforms starts with this.
I apologize to those who don't follow. Try again next year.
Or maybe go play with some retro toys.
Some people do stick to character-matrix apps. The reason they do so is none of your business. Clearly. Trying to read something in a character matrix app should tell you everything about why I continue to talk about guis.
But I forget, too often, that suggesting someone read something is the best way to make enemies. Of course, an author might give a child insight into present-day political problems by writing a story which some call a story about furry bunnies.
But a child's delight, which might get others to read the same book, can be a confounding thing to a man.
My opinions on typefaces, not to mention what we're calling them nowadays, which we do so as to squirt ink into the eyes of mortal users, is definite, has definitely changed, and I suppose it may change further.
Now to mention what we must call it, because while our identifiers can be random strings, we still must be able to discuss with each other certain aspects of programming, and not just tell people to look at a source listing.
The first thing that thus presents itself, before we can say it has come to mind, is that of a tool to look at source listings.
And the first thing children need is colour!
But that means our tool, which word we reserve for apps that only interest programmers, is hardly going to interest any programmer but ourselves; for else the programmer must start thinking about meta-parsing.
And I didn't know what the fuck that meant until I wrote it.
To highlight source code one needs to parse it, in exactly the same way that a compiler does. In order to make their editor useful to everyone including children who're still learning to appreciate true beauty, programmers have to make very big compromises. That is, they end up saddled with something very ugly.
And while their baby is all about sensitivity or lack thereof, the thanks they get for the useful tool that they've given away, thus far has driven such programmers to give up.
Of course, highlighting HTML is about the easiest thing to do once you've got an appropriate string structure.
But I hear that physicists are working on discovering the ideal string structure, after which, I assume, they'll give their minds to meta-parsing.
Which is about all I need to say on fonts; which is the identifier for these things, and therefore the word we must use, if we look at compatibility.
If we do look at compatibility, we must look at sets of identifiers that do much the same thing, but are different for just because.
And sometimes programmers must choose identifiers for just because.
In a case sensitive language, or even in a case insensitive one, we might use capitalization in order to work around the use of the underscore: which is a struggle that English teachers, who know that the invention of the hyphen was a disastrous one, might appreciate.
For we can hardly ever remember if we used an underscore or just went with a true contraction.
Hoping that more than just programmers are reading this, I present an identifier that only a programmer looking at compatibility is likely to come across; simply as a matter for contemplation.
This subroutine is available in the SDK which is now freely available, but requires a programmer with many years of experience in order to be able to find that which isn't covered by layers, and that which isn't simply a matter of doing the same old thing in new ways.