I downvoted your comment, not because I'm a MuseScore apologist, but just because calling an extraordinarily complex piece of software like this "trash" just because it's missing an obviously-useful-but-non-critical feature, seems extremely hyperbolic.
I consider the feature critical. Why on earth present a GUI and then tell people not to use it as a GUI? What is the purpose of letting you grab and drag things on the staff then, if this is a huge no-no?
And how is this "hyperbolic?" A quick search will show you that this is a question that is asked numerous times about MuseScore. Examples:
I suppose the main reason I think it's hyperbolic is because I disagree with you that this is a critical feature. First of all, I've written lots of scores with MuseScore and Sibelius and I don't remember ever missing this feature. It's possible at some point I tried to drag a note around and realized I couldn't, but if so I've forgotten because it's not remotely close to being a critical feature for writing scores, at least not with my workflow.
Second, I'd point out that Sibelius also doesn't allow dragging notes around, and now that I think of it, I haven't seen any GUI notation software that does. Either the developers of all of these apps made the same oversight and haven't realized how obviously critical and non-problematic this feature is, or, maybe the people who responded to you on MuseScore forums explaining that it actually would be a problematic feature are right.
A reasonable response. Priorities differ. But to me the point is to provide a GUI-based means to edit a score. I'm doing bog-simple, single-note-at-a-time transcriptions of trumpet parts by ear... and finding it to be cumbersome as hell. That strikes me as a poor experience.
Reportedly, Finale lets you drag notes around. Can't speak for the others.
Regardless of how important anyone thinks this feature is, I could accept the limitation more easily if the application didn't pretend to let you do it and then refuse. To do so wastes the user's time, which should be stringently avoided.
I just installed version 4.1 and it seems a little better than I remember, so I will give it another look.
"Critical", in my book, means "required in order to accomplish the purported goal of the software". With this definition, your desired feature is in no way essential. It may be annoying or aggravating to you that this feature does not exist (in a similar way that Ctrl+C not working in Emacs is annoying and aggravating to a Windows user), but one can write and edit full orchestral scores with what MuseScore offers out of the box.
Exactly. I did get the impression that the author is more familiar with OCaml than Rust. However I don't think they were claiming Rust's greater low-level control makes it inferior to OCaml in general. They're just saying it makes it less suitable for writing compilers, since (in the author's opinion) this level of low-level control isn't necessary for that task.
It seems too early to say "no one else is able to replicate it", given that the claim was only posted to Twitter yesterday, and the Gizmodo article linked to here was only posted 4 hours ago.
It's the opposite for me. Typing seems to have gotten easier. Especially now that Apple added their own swype-like functionality, I've found I'm more willing to type longer pieces of text on the phone, where I previously would have waited until I could type it on a computer.
The point though is that the tone of his article seems to suggest that this is some scary "gotcha" of the language, whereas some of us consider this to just be the expected behavior.
Well to me the "gotcha" wasn't that you could control the match from the abstract class, it was all the silly things that you could do. Which for me was the point of the article. I mean the first palindrome example was pretty cool no?
I'm puzzled by your statement that "Coaxing the engine to use an index is much harder, if not impossible in postgres so far". If this were true it would make Postgres pretty much unusable for any non-toy applications, which is clearly not the case. I'm assuming there are some qualifiers missing from this statement.
You're interpreting the headline too literally if you what you took from it was that people care about the actual color of the messages. The point is that they care about preserving the advantages of everyone in a group chat being on iMessage. As soon as even one participant in the conversion is on a non-Apple device, the chat switches to SMS, and you lose some of the fancy iMessage features. There also may be a status component where some kids think iPhones are cooler.
Of course this doesn't apply to every group of people. As you say, in some circles other non-Apple chat platforms are more popular so this isn't an issue. But don't make the mistake of thinking that just because iMessage isn't popular in your friend circle that it's not popular in general.
While you may not have to directly call malloc and free in Rust, the memory management still feels very manual compared to a language with GC. When I want to pass an object around I have to decide whether to pass a &_, a Box<_>, Rc<_>, or Rc<RefCell<_>>, or a &Rc<RefCell<_>>, etc. And then there are lifetime parameters, and having to constantly be aware of relative lifetimes of objects. Those are all manual decisions related to memory management that you have to constantly make in Rust that you wouldn't need to think about in Go or Python or Java.
Similarly, idiomatic modern C++ rarely needs new and delete calls, but I'd still say it has manual memory management.
I suppose it's reasonable to talk about degrees of manual-ness, and say that memory management in Rust or modern C++ is less manual than C, but more manual than Go/Python/Java.
There are other reasons for deciding not to sell a house after advertising it other than pulling a bait-and-switch scam. Maybe the seller changed their mind about selling it, or realized the house is worth more than they advertised it for. The mere fact that someone placed an ad for their house doesn't legally obligate them to sell it. I'm not a lawyer so don't know what exactly would legally be considered a bait-and-switch, but I presume you'd have to show that the plan all along was to use the initial offer as bait in order to draw a buyer into some other deal.
While you're absolutely right, I don't see how its relevant in this case.
>you'd have to show that the plan all along was to use the initial offer as bait in order to draw a buyer into some other deal.
I mean, its pretty obvious that their plan is to use the excitement of the harrier jet to lure people into buying pepsi and pepsi points. The question really becomes: might a reasonable person believe that they're actually selling the jet. I would say its quite likely. I think this is bad precendent.
