Reptorian

joined 1 year ago
[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I use Levels filter tool for that in Krita. Already non-destructive.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Scala does look nice. Just a quick syntax view makes me want to give it a whirl when I want an alternative to Python. I used to code in C++, and C#. I use G'MIC (DSL) as my main. Scala seems right up my alley.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

When I do commit, I write up the title of what I did, and describe it, and then use periods for related commits. Just easier.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 2 points 9 months ago

I been meaning to learn Ruby to get around using Python. I like Ruby syntax better.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Coming from some one who used 4 different languages (C#, C++, Python, and G'MIC), I just feel more comfortable when there's a explicit end blocks, which is why I don't like Python. Of all of those languages, only Python does not make that explicit end block which is off-putting in my opinion, and there isn't any other options with the similar role to Python.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 6 points 10 months ago (16 children)

You mean a interpretative language with similar role to Python, but more like Rust/C++ style? I actually want that so that I can ditch Python even if I learned it and use this instead.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago

This is great, even though if I code in Python, I'm not using it for performance reason, but for convenience.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

Chances are there's probably something similar to dictionary in Python in your languages or at least it's a import/#include away. Although I don't use general programming languages at all, in my used language (G'MIC), I do something like dict$var=input where $var is a defined variable, and this way I can access input by doing ${dict$var} and that's similar to Python dictionary. In C++, there's hash table implementation out there via github. That being said, there are sometimes when you don't need a hashtable dependent on the hashmap, and sometimes, it's just as simple as basic mathematics to access data.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

Seems like a good idea, I'm hoping that the syntax is sane. As far as languages goes, I think you're missing out on G'MIC to compare as it does have things like FFT and other tools all for image processing which is just part of digital signal processing. And then, there's Python with libraries and so on.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I only stick with these:

  • pull
  • add
  • commit
  • push

Easy.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For raster graphics image processing, I'd highly recommend G'MIC. Otherwise, Python and especially for string using regex library. I wish there was a vector graphics version of G'MIC.

[–] Reptorian@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here's my opinion, a well-developed DSL could even be arguably more flexible than say Python even with existing libraries on their specific domains. So, if one is just limited to domains, they may be very well be preferable to general languages.

I have coded in C#, Python, C++, and currently nearly everyday, G'MIC. Which one of those are a DSL? The last one. What it is? It's a Domain-Specific Language that has been geared toward raster graphics image processing. Why do I use it? Looking at the stack-based processing, commands, built-in mathematical functions. It seems that it has a lot more things that are built-in than say Pillow library for Python and other things. And I only do create images with code, so I am happy with this, and I even did things like Python itertools combinatorics with more things like rank2list/list2rank variation of those combinatorics which aren't image processing by themselves, but can aid to it.

If I feel that it is way too limited for that Domain, then I wouldn't use it. DSLs are only good if the other options are much more difficult to build with and their flexibility are often enough to entice their audience which is one with limited use cases. Of course, generic languages are usually better even than most DSL even within their domains because of wider support, and wider audience. More DSLs would be better than generics given enough time and support for their domains in my opinion.

view more: next ›