WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-24 00:19:35 +0000

I'm Feeling Lucky Sugar?

OK Sysop, here's a challenge for you: Can we get some html sugar that links text to the google I'm feeling lucky? My link to candorville would have been some syntax like: <lucky>Candorville</lucky> And that would translate to: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Candorville&btnI=I'm%20Feeling%20Lucky">Candorville</a> Cut and paste that link for the magic.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-24 01:29:46 +0000

If you browsed the web using emacs like I do, you wouldn't have this problem. I'll take it under advisement. It might be easier to lobby W3C.org to get this included in the standard. Syntactic sugar is a SICP fagen.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-24 12:18:46 +0000

The article on <lucky>Syntactic Sugar</lucky> is great. My job is a mixture of syntactic sugar and syntactic heroin. Regular expressions are syntactic heroin... so are macros... I love macros... need more macros... Macro Magic! emacs is arcane and for people clinging to the past. I was at a conference (Java One, many years ago) and <lucky>James Gosling</lucky> was there and he claimed that Java was the only worthwhile thing he'd done in his life. From the crowd came protests of, "EMACS!" Gosling replied, "Emacs? I use VI."

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-24 15:17:01 +0000

Four?

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-24 15:17:14 +0000

Oops. Six?

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-24 16:35:48 +0000

Yeah. The six editor. It's awesome. Ask for it at work.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-24 19:05:47 +0000

Confirmed that Landin is properly credited in a footnote of SICP.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-24 19:43:11 +0000

I'm going to go out there and say you were way off base with the SICP thing. The term "syntactic sugar" clearly predates that book, and is common in computer science. Fuck MIT.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-24 20:19:24 +0000

I remember first coming across the term in SICP, I was glad to see that they properly credited Landin who coined the term. And How!

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-25 03:31:29 +0000

Have you tried 1994?

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-25 12:52:23 +0000

Oops. 994.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-25 12:59:56 +0000

OK, you've got me. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-25 13:02:24 +0000

VIM!

Posted by tgl on 2006-10-25 13:02:58 +0000

vim.org

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-25 13:36:47 +0000

VIM is not legal roman: 994 is CMXCIV.
Wouldn't "<lucky>VIM</lucky>" have been better?
This is cool: <lucky>CMXCIV</lucky>

Posted by tendiamonds on 2006-10-25 13:39:03 +0000

OK, what is cool is that if you have the Googlepedia extension, it pulls up the Wikipedia article for 994, I'm not sure how they are resolving that.

WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

home | about | tracker | comics

tracker / 2006 / 10

I'm Feeling Lucky Sugar?