Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!



GNU Texinfo 5.0 Released

Per Bothner Re:texinfo is good for writing documentation (173 comments)

Aside from the fact that it's Just Plain Horrid(TM) to read or write in source format, TexInfo suffers from the same problem that HTML does: No semantics.

You don't seem to know much about Texinfo. It is definitely very much about semantics - quite like DocBook. I agree DocBook takes the semantics thing slightly further than Texinfo - but it has big holes too: For example DocBook doesn't have a standard way to specify the structure of a command/function synopsis except for the C language.

The reason that DocBook is so "verbose" is that it actually indicates what things are.
One reason DocBook is so verbose is because it is XML, which by definition is verbose and human-unfriendly.

I've written plenty of documentation in both Texinfo and DocBook. They're both reasonable formats, but it is clear that DocBook is very tedious if you have to write it "by hand" rather than use a word-processor. Texinfo is much easier to both read and write, and it handles the "semantics" pretty well.

about 2 years ago

GNU Texinfo 5.0 Released

Per Bothner texinfo is good for writing documentation (173 comments)

Texinfo is is a decent format for writing documentation in - nicer and less verbose than HTML or DocBook. You can generate either HTML or DocBook or XML from Texinfo, and then do a bunch of processing on it. For example the documentation for Kawa is written in texinfo, then makeinfo converts it to docbook, which is then converted to html. The result isn't splashy but (if I say so myself) fairly nice.

about 2 years ago

How To Crash the US Justice System: Demand a Trial

Per Bothner Re:Sometimes not just money (897 comments)

I honestly hate to go into this because you're right for the most part but most cases in the average metropolitan area have overwhelming evidence.

I'm skeptical, given how frighteningly many cases where someone has been proven innocent after years in prison based on a single eye-witness or jail-house informant, which we know are extremely unreliable, or scientifically bogus evidence, or coerced confessions and plea bargains.

more than 2 years ago

Balancing Performance and Convention

Per Bothner Re:That's rich! (171 comments)

Question was JRuby.

Right, but the suggestion was of using JRuby for the Ruby implementation (including Rails), and using "real Java" for the performance bottlenecks. I responded to a comment making fun of that idea.

Now, ensure that you also score memory performance.

"Memory performance" is not a goal in itself - it only matters to the extent that it affects speed (though GC, cache misses, and so on). (And of course if you don't have enough memory to run your application at all or without paging, but that's seldom a problem these days.)

Note I'm not saying that memory usage is unimportant - today calculation is free and accessing non-cache memory is expensive. But nobody cares about memory usage except to the extent that it affects speed.

As you point out, these are short artificial benchmarks, so they may not tell us much about real-world performance. My point remains: Don't dismiss the performance of Java. A lot of smart people have worked hard on making Java run fast, and that is one reason it is widely used in "the enterprise".

more than 5 years ago


Per Bothner hasn't submitted any stories.


Per Bothner has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?