On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:20:38 -0700, Patrick Elliott
<sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>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.

I concur 100%.

My particular bugbear is MS Access. Fine if you like keeping your
record collection indexed in a digital fashion. Absolute pants if you
want to record information in a meaningful manner with ease-of-entry
of new data.

>
>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.

This really is not limited to MS. I have to deal with standards from
varying sources and they suck and blow at the same time. It's always a
pain in the rump to have to consider them. But I have to do this on a
daily basis. Gnash!


--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com

Post a reply to this message