Stack Exchange
log in

dotbitcode

 The 2nd Monitor

General discussion about codereview.stackexchange.com - Welcom...
5
2
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:47
@skiwi I know, I bought my laptop there..:p
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:42
That's in the italian keyboard too
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:42
@rolfl Please stop it.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:41
@SimonAndréForsberg That's the same for me actually
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:38
You convinced me to use * instead of / anyway.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:38
@SimonAndréForsberg Are you saying we should accept an answer as is without doing some logical thinking?
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:36
@rolfl Of course, there's the fiddle ;)
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:35
@SimonAndréForsberg I thought it woult be too broad/localized and prone to closing?
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:34
Critics are needed if not we'd all be monkeys without progress.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:32
@rolfl Please don't bring up the trolling word to colmate a sentence's hole.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:31
@SimonAndréForsberg I didn't I've brought up the matter here to see what your opinion was and then weigh them to decide.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:29
@skiwi When you have to talk about Markdown syntax for example. But now that I think about it, you'd use more slashes than asterisks?
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:26
@rolfl It still has to be parsed by a person, doesn't it?
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:25
@Nobody Cool
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:23
It could be the same for: ` //italic// `
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:22
@SimonAndréForsberg Since when you concentrate on the juice of the discussion instead of the syntax used by the interlocutor :)
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:19
What I wanted to write was * * italic * * without the spaces, but I got bold text
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:18
italic
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:18
@skiwi Isn't that the same for asterisk delimited test?
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:11
@SimonAndréForsberg Maybe because you're too young as am I? :)
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:10
Doesn't /italic/ makes more sense than * italic * or _ italic _?
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:09
always from that site's guy
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:08
@SimonAndréForsberg Well, I wouldn't call it retarded, but I share the concerns.

For example this says it all:

Since the inception of the internet, the following have been rather standard:

*bold*
_underline_
/italic/

Markdown breaks from this long-established standard, with the following rules:

*italic*
_italic_
/normal text/
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:03
I'll base it on Markdown and change what people want changed
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:02
That's what I mean by feedback ;)
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:02
from blog.elliottcable.name/posts/markright.xhtml
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:02
While Markdown is a huge step in the right direction, there are still things that nag me, and I surmise might nag others as well.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 11:01
is laying it down: Markdowns non-standard choice of *em* and **strong** are retarded. Let's use _em_ and *strong* instead. Who's with me?
Tweeted by ELLIOTTCABLE on February 27, 2009 at 7:18 AM
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:54
double backticks, double colons..:)
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:54
@skiwi That looks like ReST syntax
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:42
So I guess

`Heading\n-------` (without actually writing the newline of course) is easier than `=Heading=` right?
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:38
@amon It's good. If one of them ends up feeling actually easier and is not just a trend I'll use it and avoid inventing my own.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:36
@rolfl Is a trend always the normal thing? :) What I'm trying to said is, don't give me a suggestion just because it's commonplace and someone decided it will be the cool thing for 20 years to come. If you personally feel more comfortable typing markdown than anything else then that's a good (read: personal) feedback.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:30
It should feel easy for both people and programmers, hence the tab functionality for example.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:29
If markdown feels easier let's go for it. Else improve upon the syntax.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:28
@amon I'm building an editor based upon people feedback, not following the trend if not necessary.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:21
I already implemented the tab one
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:21
Also, if you want to see a feature implemented, tell me.
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:20
People, I'm building an editor and need feedback jsfiddle.net/NUveL/8
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:20
Mostly about the functionality
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:18
Gd'a
dotbitcode
May 5, 2014 10:18
_o/_\o/
 

 Ask Ubuntu General Room

Normally: General discussion around Ask Ubuntu, Ubuntu & offic...
4
1
dotbitcode
Apr 14, 2014 21:05
@Braiam hehe nice one :P
dotbitcode
Apr 14, 2014 21:04
0
Q: Was any Stack Exchange site ever publicly benchmarked?

dotbitcodeHas anyone, or was any Stack Exchange site ever publicly benchmarked? This curiosity came to me because I'm building a site similar to this and needed an already existing site as a model, to compare the benchmarks with my site's own. I've tried nearly everything so far, but the results are far ...

discussion
dotbitcode
Apr 14, 2014 21:04
:)
dotbitcode
Apr 14, 2014 21:03
Anyway, posted the question to StackOverflow Meta let's see what we find out :P
dotbitcode
Apr 14, 2014 21:03
@Aditya @Braiam Yeah but here it doesn't happen so often ;)
dotbitcode
Apr 14, 2014 21:01
@Aditya Strange, we had a power outage here too o_O I live in central Europe..
dotbitcode
Apr 14, 2014 20:41
@Braiam I see that. But numbers would speak even more. Well, that's a good suggestion, I'll do it right now.
dotbitcode
Apr 14, 2014 20:38
Benchmarking 198.252.206.24 (be patient).....done


Server Software:
Server Hostname:        198.252.206.24
Server Port:            80

Document Path:          /
Document Length:        3885 bytes

Concurrency Level:      5
Time taken for tests:   1.857 seconds
Complete requests:      10
Failed requests:        0
Write errors:           0
Non-2xx responses:      10
Total transferred:      39890 bytes
HTML transferred:       38850 bytes
Requests per second:    5.38 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request:       928.537 [ms] (mean)