In article <5msm409n7fsv43fi2uj8ge1miv2oalorbe@4ax.com>, no### [at] spamhere 
says...
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:50:36 +0100, "Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim.nikias (@)
> nolights.de> wrote:
> >"Ease of use" - that's
> >what standards are for, you know? That's why some comply to them, and others
> >try to define new ones to introduce advancements. 
> 
> Ease of use in standards? - oh, boy, are you ever way off the mark. I
> work in the software industry and the numerous standards I come into
> contact with certainly do not feature ease of use as their main drive.
> 

The real problem here is that companies like Microsoft equate "Ease of 
Use" with dumming things down to a point where a chimpanzee can use the 
basics of a program, but preventing anyone that knows what the hell they 
are doing from accomplishing real work that requires real and *stable* 
features. The result is it actually gets harder to do anything creative 
or useful with the software, not easier. Case in point - I had a test 
project in VB I wanted to design. VB handles all the maintenance and 
complicated BS like making sure memory is freed when classes go out of 
scope and other matters that require 2-3 times as much time to code and 
debug, but MS also left out most basic API support, requiring that you 
link it externally and have the C++ headers to find values for things 
like flags. Nothing they make that provides API library documentation 
bothers to tell you what the hell any of those values are.

The entire program once I tracked down all the stuff I needed was maybe 
200 lines. Had I tried to code it in C++ I would have had to fight with 
GCC or the free Borland, which would have made the task 20 times harder 
than using VC++. I could use VC++, but the version I have was made back 
when Windows 95 first came out and I can't afford a new version, so I am 
screwed out of most simple ATL solutions I could have employed to make my 
life easier. But the time I finished I would have had 2000 lines of code 
and half of it I wouldn't have the slightly clue how it worked or if I 
missed some memory leak or other problem.

I am also still trying to find some way to get around the fact that VB 
intentionally hides the Invoke and QueryInterface functions that allow 
you to do simple things like switching a window and its controls between 
design and run mode. All in all, I love VB for the ease of design, but 
the implementation and artificial limitations they put into it because of 
the "VB programmer won't need or want this" mentality makes anything 
beyond die cast, one size fits all program designs difficult to the point 
of near impossibility. There is no valid excuse for this, save for the 
belief that MS has that it should cater its efforts to the lowest common 
denominator, all of whom are apparently too stupid to code real software 
or use the Windows API properly.

Sadly, much of the computer industry you talk about being a part of take 
their own cues from the 'stupid is better' philosophy that MS uses, so it 
isn't surprising that "Ease of Use" means "practically useless" and 
"versatile" tends to be an alias for "complicated and hard to use". 
Claiming that this is normal, expected or somehow unavoidable imho 
implies your association with the wrong crowd of people, not a law of 
nature.

BTW, most of the *standards* MS comes up with are by their own admittance 
designed to be intentionally difficult, overly complicated and badly 
implemented. They believe designing such things will give them an edge 
over Linux and other open source projects, by making it impractical or 
too complicated to provide compatibility. I.e., screw the customer and 
developers by making it harder for them to use things, so that they have 
no choice but to consult with you or buy your solution. If you use simple 
standards that make sense, anyone can design with them, and there is no 
reason for your customer to buy the latest version of *your* database, 
spreadsheet, <place type of product here> solution. Don't believe me?:

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/

MS' description of how to deal with people using 'simple' protocols like 
HTTP or anything else people can actually figure out makes for a very 
interesting read.



-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message