Perpendiculous Programming, Personal Finance, and Personal musings



Filed under: Personal,Programming — cwright @ 12:09 am

The past few weeks have been largely under the radar, with a lot going on with software, finance, and Alias. I always find it funny when people start approaching me in real life to ask whether or not things are going ok since I haven’t written anything in N weeks (where N is an integer greater than 0). Fear not, I am ok 🙂

I’ve pumped a ton of hours into my second job lately, which has sapped most of my development/writing time. And it’s physically intense (for someone as unfit as myself at least), so it wipes out my evenings too. But the income is always welcome. (no comments on additional income streams, please)

Lately I’ve noticed a disappointing trend when it comes to programming — instead of spending time covering new territory, I’m spending more and more time fixing bugs with current territory. I’m fine with that when it’s my code, but working around other peoples’ bugs is starting to get annoying. It’s a massive time sink, and afterwords there’s nothing new and flashy to show for it; just something that should have worked in the first place. *sigh* Oh well, I’ll manage. I really ought not to complain — I’ve got it so much easier than 99% of the world, after all.

Another hate: Why the hell isn’t there a free physics engine for OS X? PhysX and Havok both have free versions, but only for windows and effing Linux. Yes, Linux. I wonder if there’s really more money in Linux than OS X. Linux would be handy for this stuff only because of clustering and whatnot. I’d link to both of these products, but since I’m on a Mac and they’ve basically stiffed me, I’ll let you google them if you’d like.

Well, if I write any more I’ll wind up like every other mac blogger who invariably whines about not having any work. That’s not the case for me, but I’ll still sound that way….


  1. Were/are integers your favorite type of number too? Obviously more interesting than whole or real numbers, but not stupid like imaginary numbers were in the beginning, though not as abstract as prime numbers. . . Definitely my favorite for years.

    Comment by peetie — 2008.06.02 @ 8:44 pm

  2. I think rationals are my favorites — there’s just something elegant about perfect precision that I enjoy. Integers, of course, are a subset of rationals. Although I always found it somewhat strange that one can have a rational, imaginary number (1+1i)… not sure how that works 🙂

    Comment by cwright — 2008.06.02 @ 11:43 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress  •  Hosted by Kosada