bergfex wrote:+1 (Mini enough?)admin wrote:I thought about it again, and now I find it not such a good idea. It actually might lead to forum bloat! To get higher ranks people will begin writing superfluous mini-posts like "Thanks" -- "You're welcome" -- "You, too" -- etc.
It could also be the Antivirus program... I made a test a while ago, and the results was about 3.000 msecs! with Antivirus turned on and 990 msecs with Antivirus turned off... It could also be any antispyware tool which scans in the background or any similar stuff. My computer was fast with 2GB ram and Intel Duo Core processors.admin wrote:You have a slow computer. I startup 6.80 in about 600 msec. Anyway, the difference is mainly the CKS, I suppose (I could find out, of course, but no time...).serendipity wrote:I agree with Jeff on all accounts. XY can go a long way if it remains bloat-free (like it has for past 10 years).
BTW, I checked the start-up speed of the latest version 6.80 with last free version 5.55 (I tried my best to have similar settings). 5.55 loaded in 2.128 seconds and 6.80 in 2.685 seconds.
Well, that's harsh. I mean, what would you say about my computer then : Application loaded in 6 885 msadmin wrote:You have a slow computer. I startup 6.80 in about 600 msec. Anyway, the difference is mainly the CKS, I suppose (I could find out, of course, but no time...).serendipity wrote:I agree with Jeff on all accounts. XY can go a long way if it remains bloat-free (like it has for past 10 years).
BTW, I checked the start-up speed of the latest version 6.80 with last free version 5.55 (I tried my best to have similar settings). 5.55 loaded in 2.128 seconds and 6.80 in 2.685 seconds.
And what matters most is that it's fast when I use it, and it is 
jacky wrote:Well, that's harsh. I mean, what would you say about my computer then : Application loaded in 6 885 msadmin wrote:You have a slow computer. I startup 6.80 in about 600 msec. Anyway, the difference is mainly the CKS, I suppose (I could find out, of course, but no time...).serendipity wrote:I agree with Jeff on all accounts. XY can go a long way if it remains bloat-free (like it has for past 10 years).
BTW, I checked the start-up speed of the latest version 6.80 with last free version 5.55 (I tried my best to have similar settings). 5.55 loaded in 2.128 seconds and 6.80 in 2.685 seconds.
Honestly though, I don't really care; It's not slow, and I rarely start XY anyways, it's always there
XY is one of the rare product that keeps getting better & better but never goes the bloat way, and that is another reason I, and I think we all, love it (so much)
Yeah, me too. Although I have to say, "Here is Scripting!" : that's got me all excited already!admin wrote:I'm especially looking forward to the file-based scripting (aka script files). It's like "plugin user commands", very cool.
This is super! Well done, Don.jacky wrote:Yeah, me too. Although I have to say, "Here is Scripting!" : that's got me all excited already!admin wrote:I'm especially looking forward to the file-based scripting (aka script files). It's like "plugin user commands", very cool.
Looks pretty cool, and we can even mix them together already :
::#128::#1418::#1419::#1420
works like a charm!
This is going to be really good !
Arrgh, you spoiled my surprise I planned for you only tomorrow!!jacky wrote:Yeah, me too. Although I have to say, "Here is Scripting!" : that's got me all excited already!admin wrote:I'm especially looking forward to the file-based scripting (aka script files). It's like "plugin user commands", very cool.
Looks pretty cool, and we can even mix them together already :
::#128::#1418::#1419::#1420
works like a charm!
Maybe some kind of comments or alias or whatever to make the script easier to read would be niceadmin wrote:Arrgh, you spoiled my surprise I planned for you only tomorrow!!jacky wrote:Yeah, me too. Although I have to say, "Here is Scripting!" : that's got me all excited already!admin wrote:I'm especially looking forward to the file-based scripting (aka script files). It's like "plugin user commands", very cool.
Looks pretty cool, and we can even mix them together already :
::#128::#1418::#1419::#1420
works like a charm!
But what is ::#128::#1418::#1419::#1420 ??? I see, I must add a little script-friendlylizer...
admin wrote:Arrgh, you spoiled my surprise I planned for you only tomorrow!!
oops, sorry! Not my fault, I got too excited trying this out! Well, I think for XY commands there was already such things as alias planned, no? eg "#1" or "Goto"admin wrote:But what is ::#128::#1418::#1419::#1420 ??? I see, I must add a little script-friendlylizer...
I certainly wouldn't disagree with this, but maybe we could find some appropriate graphic to indicate that jacky is the wiki-master and that I'm the blog-editor? For any of those who haven't figured that out already..admin wrote:I thought about it again, and now I find it not such a good idea. It actually might lead to forum bloat! To get higher ranks people will begin writing superfluous mini-posts like "Thanks" -- "You're welcome" -- "You, too" -- etc.
Not only is it somewhat hard to read, it means that these values would have to remain stable in future, so having some sort of a 'dictionary' that would translate these back to internal id's would seem to be a way to go, if that isn't already planned...so that user would select from the English name for the ID, thus allowing the numerics to change behind the scenes if needed.admin wrote:But what is ::#128::#1418::#1419::#1420 ??? I see, I must add a little script-friendlylizer...
Yes, I'll see...j_c_hallgren wrote:I certainly wouldn't disagree with this, but maybe we could find some appropriate graphic to indicate that jacky is the wiki-master and that I'm the blog-editor? For any of those who haven't figured that out already..admin wrote:I thought about it again, and now I find it not such a good idea. It actually might lead to forum bloat! To get higher ranks people will begin writing superfluous mini-posts like "Thanks" -- "You're welcome" -- "You, too" -- etc.
Those numbers will be there when the sun has already exploded. They are the backbone of XYplorer. Exception: UDCs. When you delete a UDC and create a new one, the old ID will be re-used for the new UDC.j_c_hallgren wrote:Not only is it somewhat hard to read, it means that these values would have to remain stable in future, so having some sort of a 'dictionary' that would translate these back to internal id's would seem to be a way to go, if that isn't already planned...so that user would select from the English name for the ID, thus allowing the numerics to change behind the scenes if needed.admin wrote:But what is ::#128::#1418::#1419::#1420 ??? I see, I must add a little script-friendlylizer...
I don't think the ID's will ever change; the whole point of such things might be just that : they are unique and allow to always identify a function, as they never change. Unlike, say, some "alias" that could be added or change later on...j_c_hallgren wrote:Not only is it somewhat hard to read, it means that these values would have to remain stable in future, so having some sort of a 'dictionary' that would translate these back to internal id's would seem to be a way to go, if that isn't already planned...so that user would select from the English name for the ID, thus allowing the numerics to change behind the scenes if needed.admin wrote:But what is ::#128::#1418::#1419::#1420 ??? I see, I must add a little script-friendlylizer...
No, I just meant a little reference list for looking up a number in case you forget.jacky wrote:Well, I think for XY commands there was already such things as alias planned, no? eg "#1" or "Goto"admin wrote:]But what is ::#128::#1418::#1419::#1420 ??? I see, I must add a little script-friendlylizer...
But I'm not sure for UDCs, maybe a new field "Alias" to be set by user ?
Sounds like a variant of the 'dictionary' that I had just mentioned...admin wrote:No, I just meant a little reference list for looking up a number in case you forget.
XYplorer Beta Club