[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

FLTK 2.0 for Ruby - beta

gga

4/24/2007 9:14:00 PM

Just to announce a beta update to the FLTK2 swig wrappings. This has
been in development for some time, but has not yet been advertised.

Getting closer to a v1.0 (or is it 0.1? :) release.

Currently, it is still only available thru SVN, as no rubygems release
is available yet. The software should be considered beta.


svn checkout svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/fltk/trunk rubyfltk2


This beta release simplifies the SWIG wrapping dramatically, fixes a
lot of GC problems and tries to use as much from the FLTK .h files as
possible, as FLTK2.0 is still in development. It adds new SWIG
typemaps for catching potential errors (references and pointers being
passed to functions).

It has ports of all the ruby demos for fltk2 and fltk1.

It has ports of several of Greg Ercolano's fltk cheats, ported to ruby
fltk2.

It adds a compatibility layer called fltk1.rb to help porting ruby-
fltk1.1 applications.

It adds patches to fix SWIG ruby wrappings (not 100% needed to have
ruby fltk2 working, but will help with their stability) (*)

It adds a patch to fix FLTK2.0's broken ValueInput (*).

fluid.rb now opens, but it is still extremely buggy and unusable.

TODO:

- Make a rubygems release.
- Finish bug fixing fluid.rb, glpuzzle.rb, qubix.rb, checkers.rb.
glpuzzle and checkers work, but have some minor bug issues in their
logic code.


(*) this patches have been submitted to the fltk and swig maintainers,
but have not been merged yet.

2 Answers

Mike Lovell

11/7/2011 10:13:00 PM

0

On 2011-11-07, George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.com> wrote:
> 1. I say there is no flaw in the work.

Agreed

> 2. You have pointed out no such flaw.

Agreed

> 3. You give us no reason (eg credentials)
> to indicate you are even qualified to
> discuss the work.

Agreed

> 4. Obviously it is pointless for a qualified
> graduate scientist like me to even
> waste time talking to an aggravated
> unqualified wannabee who is not
> interested in inquiry, but rather is
> looking for an argument because
> he's an uneducated loudmouth
> asshole.

Not agreed :-)


That's exactly what I'm saying. There's no point looking into it in
great detail if you won't consider the possibility there a flaw *could*
exist. If you don't consider that even a possibility then you're not
really doing good science and it hints heavily on starting with a
conclusion (God exists) and working backward.


So, as I've pointed out before and you don't seem to dispute, there's no
point looking into your paper in any great detail because you're not
open to the possibility it's flawed.


And also, still no word on those details of the scientific journal this
was published in (that isn't the one of the same name).

--
Jews, Christians & Muslims
The content of your posts will show how much you
really believe God is looking over your shoulder

James Warren

11/7/2011 11:32:00 PM

0

On 07/11/2011 5:57 PM, George Hammond wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:22:28 -0600, Mike Lovell
> <mike.lovell@null.local> wrote:
>
>
>> [Mike Lovell]
>> Like I said before, unless you're willing to reject your own work if a
>> flaw is found in it there's no point discussing it.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> 1. I say there is no flaw in the work.
> 2. You have pointed out no such flaw.
> 3. You give us no reason (eg credentials)
> to indicate you are even qualified to
> discuss the work.
> 4. Obviously it is pointless for a qualified
> graduate scientist like me to even
> waste time talking to an aggravated
> unqualified wannabee who is not
> interested in inquiry, but rather is
> looking for an argument because
> he's an uneducated loudmouth
> asshole.
> ========================================
> GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> Primary site
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/geor...
> Mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsiteh...
> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/h...
> =======================================

Is it possible George that you are overinterpreting
Factor Analysis?