denverpotsmoker

"Scribus" supports layers! I'm using it to make some pdf files of gamebooks that are clickable. Fun stuff!

Muchos Gracias Rick Brewster! I'm almost certain that "layer technology" is missing from many modern programs. I don't know how teachers are expected to grade electronic papers without it. In addition, digital editing of text documents would be much easier with visible/non-visible layers. OFFTOPIC: I myself am working on a font that has more editing characters than just new paragraph: new document = ND! (with a circle around it) =ALT+051 delete = DEL R! = Research (with a circle around it) SP? = Check spelling "STAR" symbol = important * = annotation (high astrick) ....imagine if I could insert them in a layer above my text! OMG!

I was noticing that .pdn saves layers. That got me thinking about "layers technology" and I was wondering what paint.net developers thought about this subject. Here's some questions: 01. who first thought of layers for use in graphics programs? 02. why don't (do you think) other types of programs use layers? The second question is the most important to me... For instance, text editors could use layers so that copyediting marks could be put into the file, without changing the original text. These marks could be hidden similar to the way paint.net layers work...and yet that isn't in any text editor that I know of. Just wondering...thanks.

Yeah, I pretty much "gave up" on graphics programming after the Apple IIe. I tried some on my Atari 800XL, but the graphics just didn't look as good. I was pretty young at the time (elementary school). Check out my new module template (I put them in folders then have a batch file paste them in the order required)...part of what I call "structural commenting" using ascii art...you delete the // line numbers for actual code, but the concept is kept for reference both in program code and for other coders. saturn5-ABBV--template v4.txt

You really shackle creativity when you tell someone how to think or how they can express their thoughts. Luckily, you can work around such barriers with languages like XLISP and C#, to really accomplish your vision. Kudos to paint.net developers for supporting C# instead of python/java/etc.

Yeah, back then structural commenting was, like, impossible and stuff. I'm guessing getting a print out of your code was a pain, though probably possible. My mother said one of the biggest problems with coders back then was them misorganizing their (code) punch cards. The operators would then have to get them to remember how to put the cards in order over the phone. Yeah, disorganization is very bad for computers. Today we have folders and files to help organization. I never got much into assembly programming. I dunno why. Oh yeah, pretty sure using goto's would compile quicker due less replacement coding in compilation. That's pretty significant.

If you look at the historical context of Dijikstra's paper, I think he might have been right. Fact 01: Programmers often had to time-share computers, meaning that one glitch or non-ending loop could cost thousands of dollars AND a loss of allocated time on a computer. Fact 02: Many financial institutions also time-shared mainframes, so one non-ending loop could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Fact 03: Being in such a "time-sensitive" coding environment, if a bad goto needed to be found, many programmers would have to work on debugging it. Thus, sloppy/unformatted/undocumented code could cost a ton of money. Those would be very "harmful" things back then.

@ArgusMagnus That's what I was saying. They could have easily suggested wait loops using gotos, but they (the magazine/book code writers) kept telling everyone to use FOR-NEXT loops. FOR-NEXT Loops were new then, and (I guess) it just made it so easy to do (as compared to making a wait loop using goto), that I guess everyone just jumped on that bandwagon and used FOR-NEXT for those doomed wait modules...to their own program's eventual deprecation. I think it is sad, and probably the reason I prefer to make my own looping constructs to this day.

Well, grouping symbols are probably better done using structural commenting (IMO). //=====================LOOP01: start //=====================LOOP01: end The hierarchal structure could be good, but what if someone needed to "figure 8" through code? All I'm saying is that the "computing world" lost a whole generation of programs due to that FOR-NEXT (wait) code from the early 1980s. Who's to say if that was a bad thing or not as those programs couldn't do much, but it is a real chin scratcher. Now, that code could have been suggested in goto form...but it was not. Coincidence? I read an interesting "web opinion" page in the mid-2000s that was titled something like "Real-Time Programming", that really said some stuff that made sense. The person was arguing that code should have more system time checks in it, instead of just relying on processor speed. You know, stuff like: //==============================timer loop (start) delay = 10; //seconds TIME = DateTime.Now.TimeofDay; if (WAIT < TIME + delay) then <loop>; //==============================timer loop (end) In this way, the program always will take 10 seconds to do whatever, even with hardware upgrades.

Yeah, MS-DOS BATCH can use variables for its goto statement, unfortunately, my brain shuts down whenever I get to making a batch with variables with "% %" around them. I always thought the BASIC $tring variable was pretty lame tho. I might also offer up for argument the fact that: For-Next Should Have Been Considered Dangerous... as its used to replace goto loops a lot. Back in the day when things like (QBasic's) gosub and for-next and do while loops were being introduced to the "general public" through their new home computers (early 1980s), people were taught to use FOR-NEXT loops as time delays. The idea was that (due to the speed of the processor), counting so many times using FOR-NEXT would equal so many seconds. The problem was that as processors got faster, the length of time the programmer's FOR-NEXT loop took grew to nothing, and thus parts of their programs became no longer functional without a CPU emulation program. Oh well, I guess I'll never get to play that "Hong Kong Hustle" type-in game...

Yeah, that would be a good one to add to Goto. Also, how about GOTO <variable>... as in: A = X:\User\Program\Pallete Engine\RGB Engine LINE-041 B = ? GOTO A? ....ahhhhh, that's it for me on this topic bros. looks like you guys win again. true pain here. :foaf:

Yeah, personally I wish goto was stronger and could include going to a separate text file and position in that file. if (g=100) {goto code-base01.txt line-021;} ...probably needs some other upgrades too. I hate having to put all code in one document, that's WAY too old-school for me. Here's the Kevin Flynn way: if (g=100) {goto LINE-35013} ...that's some funny stuff... :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: :game: # :game: # # #

Hey! I'm busy learning C# and it's pretty cool. I've programmed plugins in XLISP, so learning C# hasn't been too bad. I just learn as I go. Anyway, why all the hate on using Goto to make loops? I mean, wasn't Dijkstra really saying that the programmers in the 1960s were so awful that they needed to use FOR-NEXT loops or they'd mess it all up? I mean, I'm definitely for assemblers that won't make (or test) code that will lock up a machine, but I don't think forcing people to not use Goto to make their own loops and code jumps is the answer. What's your opinion? http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/36899/Why-goto-Still-Exists-in-C http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6545720/does-anyone-still-use-goto-in-c-sharp-and-if-so-why

Thanks for the helpful reply! I wish UI's could be more like real electronics, tho I haven't been too happy with the audio program VST "realism" look in particular...but it's probably mostly how the controls behave to mouse control. Turning VST knobs is difficult with a mouse. I was thinking about it today and (I think) a drop-down list is supposed to be like a knob control. You know, the knob is "inside" the device and each "turn" reveals an option. Judging from the example code, I suppose multi-radio buttons can only have one choice...You know, IF 1 & 2 are selected... then do something. So I'll probably go with three check boxes (which I think is supposed to be like switches) for my plugin. Thanks again.

I have a question about the multi-radio button UI element. In the example: byte Amount1 = 0; // [1] Delete|Black|White ...what does [1] mean? Thanks!