Is there a way to avoid working with the command-line installing and using LESS??
There are several offers for GUIs for the compiling-phase, but I did not find a way for the Installation-Phase.
I have been working in the IT-business for so many decades (more in the mainframe and midrange area and as a project-manager and programmer in the application development) and could by now avoid to go as far down to the command-line-world.
I did develop quite fine Websites using HTML5 and CSS3 and doint this I felt a desire for all that, what LESS and/or SASS are offering and the Syntax and logics dont look difficult to handle. But I fail in the first step of just installing it.
The LESS-Website offers command-lines to key in. But I am not sure, if this will be all I have to key in, but only the significant line to be embedded in a sequence of other commands very familiar to all those working at this Level.
How do I e.g. define the place to store the Installation and to refer to in the href in the link-Statement of my html-file .... ??
Thanks
Gerhard (from Vienna/Austria, living in Trier, Germany)
Less is a CSS pre-processor. if you are include less.js in you html page
You can use less directly in to your html page.
Other ways you can use less compiler
Kola this is an open source application it will help you to compile less to css
Your Topics are clear to me. I even downloaded Koala already and I have no Problem in including less.js in my html. And I have read Bass Jobsens book about the Syntax, which does not seem to raise great Problems to me.
But before working with it, I will have to download LESS -what I have done from the Less-Website to the Folder of my choice. My Problem is the next necessary step: To install this downloaded program. There is no install.exe or something like that. The book as well as the info in the less-Website tell me to key some crpytic commands into the command-line.
Related
well the question is, exist some app or language/etc to write a custom syntax to can check files?
You know, when we works in different places, ppl and projects every one have differents rules to how write, code style and all that things, the idea its can check all this things because at least to me normally i forgot something.
Ideally some app without a heavy GUI, thinking maybe a terminal app, or editors like gedit, avoid plis apps like Eclipse and similars.
For now i need only check simple parts, if you can recommend both a simple/limited app and a complex/full app would be great.
Obvs, if exist a simple/full app, will be better.
Thx.
If what you're looking for is a program that rewrites a source code given a specific coding style, I advise you to take a look at GNU Indent.
If you want to do more complex operations like build an AST and work on it to add things, edit, check for existing dependencies or whatever, you'll want to use a tool like Flex/Bison, Clang, Pyrser, etc.
I've been developing a lot of small web development projects in various IDEs, and find myself laboriously typing in jslint configuration headers to silence JSLint. Its warnings and errors are all valid, and I want to keep JSLint in my work cycle, but I spin up 2-3 isolated environments a day, sometimes from generators in Yeoman, other times by hand. These all end up with gripes from JSLint that require the following in every .js file:
/*jslint browser:true*/
/*global require,yada,yada,yada*/
JSHint has a wonderful feature whereby you can declare all these in a parent folder using the body of the .jshintrc file. Does JSLint have something like this? It seems like such an obvious addition, but I can find nothing like this which will work across IDEs (Visual Studio, IntelliJ, Brackets, Sublime Text,...).
I found this for .NET, but I find Visual Studio heavy for projects I might only spend a couple hours on and then throw away (https://jslintnet.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=JSLint.NET%20Settings).
Does someone have some insight on this?
Edit: (See my new answer below.)
I think the quick answer is that setting global settings for every file you JSLint is the job of your IDE or favorite text editor. That is, JSLint is essentially just a big javascript file. It doesn't care about file paths, etc, and won't look for a server-wide config.
I mean, you can change the options used when JSLint is called, but that essentially reduces to the same problem you have now.
So then the question is, if you don't like Visual Studio, what tools do you use? In VS, I've used this tool and liked it a good deal. I think that's different (as in not forked or related, but I could be wrong) than the one you found. In Sublime Text, there are two. I've been using Darren Deridder's, but I get the impression that it's the less popular of the two. Etc etc.
So this isn't a javascript/JSLint question so much as a JSLint wrapper question.
It should be said that JSLint's code is very clean, and it's easy to rig up your own process using Node or something similar. I've done it with JavaScript.NET, though I'd use Node if I was doing it again.
And I'd also suggest you consider keeping the file-by-file JSLint headers. I tend to do so, and it keeps your use "excuses" to a minimum, keeping your code tighter. It's way too easy to get a giant /*global ...*/ header line, for instance, if you have a lot of shared config info. It also means that when someone else uses a "shell" tool different than yours to JSLint your files, you know they're using pretty close to your intended accepted behaviors.
So the literal answer to your question is, "No, JSLint doesn't inherently support a box-wide config file." The longer answer is, "Tell us where you do like to work." ;^)
EDIT: Debated staying out of the usual 'Hint vs. 'Lint discussion, but I will quickly say I like how you're thinking. JSLint is more draconian, but JSLinted code means something more specific than code that's been JSHinted. I won't argue that more specific means better, per se, but I will say that I see JSLint's draconian-ness to be an advantage. It might not be the only way to do something, but there's nothing that Crockford's telling you that's a bad idea, and it's nice to get familiar with those conventions. In the parlance of my times, Crockfords's not wrong, Walter.
EDIT 2: So Brackets looks like it's come a long way since I last used it. Seems to have JSLint by default.
It looks like you can set global JSLint options using the jslint.options setting in your preferences file (and there might be/have been a goal to make that a more interactive UI eventually), like this...
{
"debug.showErrorsInStatusBar": false,
"styleActiveLine": true,
"jslint.options": { "sloppy":true, "white":true, "browser": true }
}
And it does allow settings at the top of the file to override these settings.
This really is approaching a golden age of text editors. I still fall back on VIm a lot, but mainly live VS and Sublime Text, with even jEdit, Coda, and PhpStorm for specific tasks. Looks like this might be my new Sublime for Node & html frontend dev. The quick CSS edit is wonderful, though bindings will complicate it. Thanks!
While the previous excepted answer is an excellent one (and many thanks to its author for making it even better over time!), the world has moved on from JSLint. I'd recommend to anyone reading this very old question that you seriously consider chucking JSLint out of your development cycle in favor of its very effective successor, ESLint. For an even better experience, I'd suggest taking a hard look at the ES7 vs. TypeScript paths, with TSLint being your best option for TypeScript linting.
However, for the development experience that trumps even these modern libraries, go directly for Prettier.js. With Prettier, your linting woes become irrelevant, since Prettier will rewrite your code in an opinionated manner every time it's run.
For the best results with Prettier, add the packages "lint-staged" and "husky" to your dev-dependencies, then add the following in your package.json:
"husky": {
"hooks": {
"pre-commit": "lint-staged"
}
},
"lint-staged": {
"*.{js,json,css,md}": [
"prettier --write",
"git add"
]
},
This will force Prettier's auto-linting behavior to run every time Git's commit command runs.
I can't tell you what a relief using Prettier has been for the front-end development teams and projects I am responsible for. We've gone from code reviews bleeding with linting correction comments to zero almost immediately. Feedback from the teams has been universally positive.
The only modification I've made has been to the tabs-vs.-spaces setting. I've modified my .prettierrc.json file to select tabs instead of spaces, because use of spaces at different widths causes dirty git merge histories. You can't control the indentation of 250+ developers spread over multiple hemispheres, some of whom drop in and out of the project before you even know their names. So, setting tabs as the default indentation allows all of the developers to operate with the indentation they're comfortable with without modifying lines in Git. Here's my .prettierrc.json file, with some other slight modifications:
{
"arrowParens": "always",
"bracketSpacing": false,
"singleQuote": true,
"useTabs": true,
"trailingComma": "none"
}
Every Python developer knows tools like Sphinx. You write some text in a markup language, write make in the shell and let some compilers do their job. In the end you get beautiful HTML or PDF.
I am looking for something like that, just for Finite State Machines, e.g. I put SCXML into a file (with a GUI or manually with VIM as I desire) start a compiler and out comes a picture file format that i can use however I please and that looks good even if I don't know what I am doing. Example:
$ vim my-fsm.scxml
$ scxml2svg my-fsm.scxml
writing file...
finished writing my-fsm.svg
$
The closest I got so far is using various Eclipse plugins (years ago, dislike huge IDEs), draw.io or what I am using now: Umlet. Even Umlet has problems, though. For example it doesn't support the workflow I am used to (write text files, start compiler, see beautiful result). The results are often also suboptimal, because the engine is actually quite simple. But everywhere I look for a more useful alternative (python wiki, other SO questions, tools) I still don't find a simple compiler.
Now I would be really happy if anybody would know such a compiler. If not possible a FOSS GUI editors with PNG/SVG export would also be okay.
GraphViz has a file format which can be written manually and compiled to different picture formats.
I wrote some tools to do this: http://goo.gl/V97ft
Alfresco allows uploading newer versions of documents in the repository and also keeps track of the version history, it seems. However, I could not find any way to compare or diff a document with its prior versions.
Is this possible? are there any good external plugins or tools for this?
I assume you think of something similiar to the good old Unix diff tool which basically compares text files and can show the result in a human readable form.
The general equivalent situation in alfresco is far more complicated. You have an arbitrary amount of properties of different type. The text file you might think of just happens to have character bytes in cm:content.
So to answer your question : I don't know of any extension providing a general diff between versions, but it should not be two hard rolling your own for text files other simple special comparisons. In the former case you might want to have a look at Java library for free-text diff for libraries providing the base functionality.
Looking for the same functionality and found this Alfresco addon
http://code.google.com/p/versions-difference-alfresco-plug-in/
What are some good authoring tools for creating cross-platform help files for end-users? (Our application is using the Qt framework, if that makes any difference.)
Note: I'm not interested in internal API documentation--we're using doxygen for that.
Ideally, a solution would:
Allow us to manage all help content (text, table of contents, images, etc.) in a single location.
Output to native help formats. (CHM for Windows--or at least something we could feed directly into the HTML Help API; not sure what other platforms' "standard" help formats are.)
Decent WYSIWYG support: handle common text entry, images, cross-references, etc. easily, but we can edit the HTML when we need to.
Text-based file-format for help project (XML, etc.) so that it can be versioned in Subversion.
Any hooks that help keep it in synch with the actual code base would be great. (Perhaps somehow a help topic is associated with a code file, and can check Subversion to see if any changes have been made and flag a topic as "possibly out of date" ... am I dreaming?)
Help content can be localized.
Not opposed to commercial product, but a free option would be nice.
I'll go ahead and make this a wiki and start with a few examples. Vote 'em up or down if you have experience with them, and leave some comments. Add additional tools as well.
I just discovered Sphinx; I think I'm in love.
Better than WYSIWYG over HTML: reStructuredText
Outputs to QtHelp (among other things), so will be easily to distribute (and integrate) in our application.
Not sure about localization yet, but we'll cross that bridge when we need to.
Was easy to set up and "just works"; looks professional.
I have used robohelp for years.
It is fine, but the core technology is very old now. Also the way they lock to Word versions is a total PITA (and has forced me to avoid MS office upgrades several times).
We are moving to madcap flare http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/robohelp.aspx
I think DocBook addresses all you requirements except possibly the synchronisation hooks, which I'll think a bit further on. It's essentially a subset of XML designed for creating documentation, and is free and open source. It's just a format plus a set of XSL output transforms that convert the Docbook into more useful formats (HTML and thus CHM, JavaHelp, PDF via XML-FO or Tex).
This means that you still need to choose an XML authoring tool to actually edit it so things like WYSIWYG will depend on the features of your XML authoring software. We use Syntext Serna as it has good support for WYSIWYG and inline editing of XML #includes (no-one else seems to support the latter). You may find other XML authoring tools better suit your needs - Serna is an reasonably pricey commercial offering.
Docbook provides a lot of flexibility via profiling, which allows you to include/exclude xml elements based on their attributes. Example use cases would be to have slightly different help output for OS=Windows than OS=Linux. Localization is also supported via profiling and other mechanisms.
A fairly good introduction to Docbook can be found here.
We use Docbook for our help format, and compile it to CHM files that contain help only for the features relevant to a specific product (ie Enterprise edition has features that aren't in the Standard or Demo versions). The relevant steps are:
Run the Profiling XSL templates on the XML Source (using eg XSLTproc).
Run the HTML-Help XSL templates on the output of 1.
Compile the output HTML files using Microsoft's HTML Help Compiler (HHC).
Help & Manual
Robohelp
The only one I know is Latex, one of the latex2html converters, and then a few adaptation to make the resulting html ready for the CHM archiver.
text,html,chm,pdf, ps no problem.
Converting to Word via RTF used to be a disaster, don't know current status.
latex 2 html converters, while several, all have their own problems.
The pdfs look absolutely great.
WYSIWYM (via lyx) possible.
This archive has a bunch of CHMs that way (notably the prog,ref and user parts, the rest (rtl,fcl,lcl) are generated by our own doxygen equivalent, fpdoc)
http://www.stack.nl/~marcov/doc-chm.zip
Note that the above CHMs are made with our own (portable) CHM compiler. Yes, no more workshop.
A Lyx document as PDF and html:
pdf: http://www.stack.nl/~marcov/buildfaq.pdf
html: http://www.stack.nl/~marcov/buildfaq/