|
 |
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:498335df$1@news.povray.org...
> Invisible wrote:
>> unecessarily complicated,
>
> That kind of depends on whether you need the complicated bits, don't you
> think? The opposite of "unnecessarily complicated" is "lacking features."
Its code isn't a sparkling paragon of elegant efficiency. Shoulda used
Haskell!
*wink*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
>
>> poorly documented,
>
> MS has some of the best documentation out there, and they teach classes in
> using their stuff. Just because you never learned it doesn't mean it isn't
> out there.
>
>> resource-inefficient,
>
> Somewhat, but what are you comparing it to? How resource-efficient *you*
> could make it if you didn't have any commercial constraints?
>
>> insecure,
>
> Somewhat. Much of that is due to people not installing patches or people
> not using the system as designed.
>
>> Let's suppose that a particular Word document is corrupted. Why should
>> that make Word crash? Shouldn't it just pop up a message saying "I can't
>> read this file, it seems to be corrupted"? Isn't that what "graceful
>> failure" is all about? But no, Word just crashes outright.
>
> Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If it's corrupted in a way that's
> hard to check, it crashes, because if it didn't, you'd be using up even
> *more* resources to be doing the checking. See?
>
>> I opened the same file in OpenOffice, and it just opened up as if there
>> was nothing wrong with it. I saved it again, and it has worked in Word
>> ever since.
>
> It probably deleted whatever it was that was confusing Office.
>
>> Why is it that Word, a premium product designed and produced by the
>> richest software company on earth, cannot do something that OpenOffice
>> can?
>
> Why is it that OpenOffice can't do something that Word can?
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> "Ouch ouch ouch!"
> "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
> "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
