 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/15/2011 3:55, Invisible wrote:
> In short, almost nothing is documented. I find this extremely frustrating.
It is all documented. It's just not documented in a place that it's easy for
non-programmers to get to. Do you have an MSDN subscription, for example?
Basically, documentation of this type costs extra. :-)
> When you *buy* an expensive commercial product, you expect better than this.
> Sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't.
Yes, that's really my gripe. I'd be happy to pay $100 for a program I can
get free elsewhere if it comes with good documentation. I'm still pissed
that I bought a $300 modeler and they sent me the documentation from the
version two generations back because they hadn't sold as many copies of the
software as they expected and printed too many manuals 3 years ago.
The other problem is people are starting to write test-driven-design style
documentation for products that have APIs. And that's just the *wrong* way
to do things. You can't design a public API based on tests. Otherwise you
wind up with crap like this:
this.Exit() will cause the game that's running ("this") to exit the next
time it leaves the Update phase of the game loop. Unfortunately, you can't
run two games in a row with the same process (say, for unit testing) because
it also makes any subsequent games leave the update loop after the first
time. Perfectly reasonable, as long as you never *tested* running two games
in the same process and hence didn't design it to handle that.
There's like a dozen of these in XNA. There's an example of how to do
things, and if you do things *differently* from the example, it screws you.
Creating a new graphics device disposes of the old graphics device some time
later in the initialization loop. You basically have
constructor->initialize()->update()->draw()->update()->draw()->...
If you reconfigure the graphics device in the constructor, the framework has
apparently been holding onto the old one and disposes it for you. But if you
load a texture in the constructor (instead of initialize), it uses the old
graphics device (and stores it in the texture structure) even if you've
already set up the new one. So when you later try to draw with the texture,
it crashes out. There are so many undocumented rules, you might as well
just be as absolutely conservative as possible, because there's no
documentation saying what you can't do, just examples of what you can.
Documentation by hypothesis and induction. The whole coding exercise turns
into one giant cargo cult exercise. "I have to put this here and that there,
because that's what the people before me did. I don't know why, but if I
don't do what they did, the cargo won't come."
So there's an example of taking one model and drawing thousands of copies. I
copy it and try to draw several different models using the same technique.
OK, it works when I get my own bugs out. Then I add a model with two
different textures, and even the ones that worked stop working now, except
only on the xbox and not on the PC, so it's probably not my code at all. Now
it only draws the first instance of each texture. But the example uses all
kinds of routines that are documented with things like "Texture GetTexture()
returns the texture." Gee, thanks for that. Maybe the guy who writes the
example in the documentation shouldn't be the guy who has access to the
source code that actually describes what the crap does inside the library.
Because there's no documentation about how to set any of that up or what it
does beyond tracking through the type signatures of routines. And if you
want to make a change, like use the *same* code to draw a *different* model,
there's zero guidance, because your only documentation is how to do it with
exactly the model that came with the sample code.
</rant>
I feel *much* bettahhhh...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/15/2011 5:34, Stephen wrote:
> anything other than email, Skype, browsing the internet or downloading
> books, films, music, or porn.
I think it's safe to say there are lots of *users* out there. They print
flyers for their yard sale, they do their banking and taxes, etc. But they
don't know what it's doing inside. They do more than that stuff, but it's
all basically commercial software that keeps you from having to know how
anything works.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:55:53 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> Most of the MS documentation is pretty good, really, but it has indeed
>> been going downhill.
>
> The thing that annoys me about MS products is that if one day somebody
> phones you up and says "when I try to open Outlook it says error 28123",
> there is *no way* of discovering WTF this code actually means. If you
> open the settings for a program and some option has an ambiguous name,
> you can't look up what the setting actually does. [Bonus points for
> inventing the "help button" which informs you "no help is available for
> this item".] If I see something in Task Manager called mdm.exe, there is
> no way of finding out what this is, what it actually does, or anything
> about it. "Cryptographic Services". Cryptography *for what*? So, do I
> need this? Is it safe to turn it off? Or is it vital?
>
> In short, almost nothing is documented. I find this extremely
> frustrating.
Now it's been years since I had to seriously look up a Windows error
code, but it at least used to be that the MS Knowledgebase was pretty
good about having the things I needed (usually STOP error codes). Maybe
that's changed since I switched to Linux; the last Windows thing I did
was set up a 2008 server and XP clients for our mobile testing centre,
but I don't use Windows if I don't have to (as you probably know by now).
> The Commodore 64 came with an extensive (yet surprisingly small) user
> manual which, as well as telling you how to wire up the device [which
> admittedly isn't that hard] and advertising all the addons you could buy
> [not many], also tells you everything there is to know about programming
> in BASIC. Well, except for the part about how to *design* a program. It
> tells you exactly what every single command and function in the language
> does. [Admittedly, there aren't that many to describe.]
Yes, the C64, with only 64 KB of memory and a 1 Mhz (more or less)
processor was a much simpler machine from a much simpler time.
Similarly, the Model T Ford was a lot simpler than the hybrid Ford
Focus. That should really not be that surprising. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/04/2011 04:51 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/15/2011 3:55, Invisible wrote:
>> In short, almost nothing is documented. I find this extremely
>> frustrating.
>
> It is all documented. It's just not documented in a place that it's easy
> for non-programmers to get to. Do you have an MSDN subscription, for
> example?
>
> Basically, documentation of this type costs extra. :-)
So I paid money for some software, but I need to pay more money to find
out how to actually use it? WTF?
I find it really bizarre that if I want to look up the name of the Win32
function call to open a new window, that's free, but if I want to find
out what a particular configuration setting for MS Word does, I have to
pay money for that. [Or at least, that's what your post implies. I'm not
aware of this information being available *anywhere*, paid or not.]
>> When you *buy* an expensive commercial product, you expect better than
>> this. Sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't.
>
> Yes, that's really my gripe. I'd be happy to pay $100 for a program I
> can get free elsewhere if it comes with good documentation. I'm still
> pissed that I bought a $300 modeler and they sent me the documentation
> from the version two generations back because they hadn't sold as many
> copies of the software as they expected and printed too many manuals 3
> years ago.
It's annoying when freebie stuff isn't very well tested, or doesn't do
what the documentation says it does, or there's just no documentation.
But when you pay money for it (and MS products are insanely expensive),
you don't expect this kind of nonesense.
> The other problem is people are starting to write test-driven-design
> style documentation for products that have APIs. And that's just the
> *wrong* way to do things.
This is so very, very wrong.
> Documentation by hypothesis and induction. The whole coding exercise
> turns into one giant cargo cult exercise. "I have to put this here and
> that there, because that's what the people before me did. I don't know
> why, but if I don't do what they did, the cargo won't come."
So wrong.
> </rant>
>
> I feel *much* bettahhhh...
But do you? Do you *really*? You still have to figure this crap out,
remember? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/04/15 06:55, Invisible a écrit :
> The Commodore 64 came with an extensive (yet surprisingly small) user
> manual which, as well as telling you how to wire up the device [which
> admittedly isn't that hard] and advertising all the addons you could buy
> [not many], also tells you everything there is to know about programming
> in BASIC. Well, except for the part about how to *design* a program. It
> tells you exactly what every single command and function in the language
> does. [Admittedly, there aren't that many to describe.]
>
> The Sam Coupe had an excellent manual. Actually, it was excellent
> hardware. It's surprising that nobody's ever heard of it. If you imagine
> a C64 or a ZX Spectrum with a 6MHz CPU, 256KB RAM (upgradable to 4MB),
> 128-colour graphics, stereo digital sound and an implementation of BASIC
> with primitives like drawing a curved line with one command, that's
> basically the Sam. The manual was extensive, assumed no prior experience
> with computers, and told you EVERYTHING.
>
I still have the documentation that came with my Apple ][+. It does
include the full source code, in assembly, of the "system monitor" ROM
code, or bios. It also included the electric scematics.
Add the documentation of 2 flavours of basics: integer only (integer
basic) and floating point support (Applesoft basic, by Microsoft).
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/15/2011 10:16, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> So I paid money for some software, but I need to pay more money to find out
> how to actually use it? WTF?
No. You have to pay money to learn how to fix it. "I paid all this money for
my car, and when it breaks down I have to pay a mechanic to repair it too?"
> I find it really bizarre that if I want to look up the name of the Win32
> function call to open a new window, that's free, but if I want to find out
> what a particular configuration setting for MS Word does, I have to pay
> money for that. [Or at least, that's what your post implies. I'm not aware
> of this information being available *anywhere*, paid or not.]
Now you're changing what you're talking about again. What word configuration
are you curious about.
> (and MS products are insanely expensive)
Generally not. Have you looked at the price of something like autocad or maya?
> But do you? Do you *really*? You still have to figure this crap out,
> remember? ;-)
Well, I just spent an hour putting my own 2-color trivial model in in place
of the 1-color trivial model in the demo, and confirmed that it works in
every configuration *except* the one I actually need to use.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/04/2011 4:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/15/2011 5:34, Stephen wrote:
>> anything other than email, Skype, browsing the internet or downloading
>> books, films, music, or porn.
>
> I think it's safe to say there are lots of *users* out there. They print
> flyers for their yard sale, they do their banking and taxes, etc. But
> they don't know what it's doing inside. They do more than that stuff,
> but it's all basically commercial software that keeps you from having to
> know how anything works.
>
Yes there must be, I agree.
I’m probably in a strange position having worked in the computer/tech
business for 40 years and not having any friends who use them for
anything other than work or trivial entertainment.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/04/2011 2:53 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> From my memory.
>
> That's not how I remember it, but hey, OK...
Yes everyone is different.
>
>>> The possible answers include:
>>> - Play video games.
>>
>> There weren't any then. Text games or wireline graphics.
>
> I certainly remember knowing several people who owned a C64 or a ZX
> Spectrum or something similar exclusively so they could play games on it.
>
Different peer groups then.
>>
>> Most people used pen and paper. Most people could not type and the ones
>> that could probable learned how to at commercial lessons or typing
>> classes.
>
> Again, I certainly remember us owning a typewriter. Me and my sister
> used to type stuff on it just for entertainment. Having a word processor
> made life so much easier. And then my parents got a dot matrix printer
> to go with it...
>
> As late as 1995, one of the people at school paid hundreds of pounds for
> an "electronic type writer" that was basically a computer keyboard, dot
> matrix printer and a tiny LCD all in one unit. So, like a real
> typewriter, but computerised. (I don't think you could even turn it off
> without losing your work, mind you...)
>
My father had one of them. IIRC it was a Starwriter, a typewriter style
keyboard, a 4 or 6 line LCD display and a printer all in the cace of a
portable typewriter.
> Yeah, I'm having trouble thinking of any large volume of information
> that you'd actually bother keeping that would be too large to hold on
> paper... The contents of your filofax maybe.
>
Since all official communication was by paper it built up. Some people
keep every thing.
>> You probably don't realise how much things have changed just in my
>> lifetime.
>
> I know how much they changed in *my* lifetime, but I'm not quite as old.
> ;-)
>
Not quite, indeed. :-D
>> Cars were for the rich, children could play in the street without fear
>> of getting knocked down. But collecting number plates (I don't mean
>> ripping them off cars) had just gone out of fashion but adults thought
>> that it was a suitable hobby. Ballpoint pens were banned in schools, we
>> used dip pens. (That changed when I went to high school). The first
>> check book I got cost 1/2d per check for stamp duty. People used to go
>> out to the airport to see planes taking off and landing for
>> entertainment. Foreign holidays were unheard of for most people.
>
> As I say, I'm younger.
And live in a new town.
>
> When I was a kid, almost everyone had a TV, most people had a knackered
> old car that they spent months per year fixing,
Sometimes when out for a drive.
> and some but not all
> families owned an 8-bit home computer of some sort. I can distinctly
> remember being utterly addicted to Space Invaders, so much so that I
> didn't want to leave my friend's room when mum said it was time to go home.
>
I forgot, you live in the affluent south. (As I do now.)
> My parents bought a ZX Spectrum so they could run "educational" type
> games on it for me and my sister. Later my dad had a Commodore Plus4.
> That died spectacularly; left on his bed, the air vents apparently got
> blocked, and I came back to find that the tape hadn't finished loading.
> Instead, the screen was now pink with diagonal white stripes and random
> flashing glyphs. It never worked again, so we got a C64. Pitty; the
> Plus4 was better.
>
I had rubber bands to play with and marbles. ;-)
> I haven't seen that one yet. Then again, I've only really got experience
> of one brand - Acer.
>
My old Acer laptop came with a manual on the HDD.
> Unless you count that IBM thing I was allowed to use, way back in
> 1990-something. You know, when only business executives, accountants and
> professional programmers could such things. Cyan and magenta screen that
> rippled when you touched it. VGA graphics FTW! :-D
>
A tad more people than than that but I worked in industry then so there
was more need for things like spreadsheets etc.
>> Yes, plug it in and clean with a damp cloth but not at the same time.
>
> During boiling, the outside of the kettle may become hot. This does not
> indicate a fault condition.
>
LOL
>>> What, you don't know any gamers? ;-)
>>
>> Only you. My brother-in-law plays some sort of fantasy football game but
>> that is a solo thing, I think. I don't play games myself I'm not any
>> good at them.
>
> Solo games are still games. ;-)
>
I was thinking of people like your clan.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/04/2011 07:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/15/2011 10:16, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> So I paid money for some software, but I need to pay more money to
>> find out how to actually use it? WTF?
>
> No. You have to pay money to learn how to fix it. "I paid all this money
> for my car, and when it breaks down I have to pay a mechanic to repair
> it too?"
OK. So if I wanted to do something crazy like make it so that when a
user drag-and-drops a file onto my program's icon, it loads up Excel, my
program fires a bunch of data to it, and Excel generates a graph and
pastes it into the email I'm writing, *that* I would expect to have to
pay money for. Trying to figure out what the options in the settings
dialog do? *That* I would expect to be part of the product documentation.
> Now you're changing what you're talking about again. What word
> configuration are you curious about.
Right now I don't need to look anything up. My point is that every time
I've needed to find something out, I haven't been able to.
>> (and MS products are insanely expensive)
>
> Generally not. Have you looked at the price of something like autocad or
> maya?
That's like saying "housing isn't overpriced at all; have you seen the
price of buying Buckingham Palace?!"
>> But do you? Do you *really*? You still have to figure this crap out,
>> remember? ;-)
>
> Well, I just spent an hour putting my own 2-color trivial model in in
> place of the 1-color trivial model in the demo, and confirmed that it
> works in every configuration *except* the one I actually need to use.
WIN!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/16/2011 3:18, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> OK. So if I wanted to do something crazy like make it so that when a user
> drag-and-drops a file onto my program's icon, it loads up Excel, my program
> fires a bunch of data to it, and Excel generates a graph and pastes it into
> the email I'm writing, *that* I would expect to have to pay money for.
Except you don't.
> Trying to figure out what the options in the settings dialog do? *That* I
> would expect to be part of the product documentation.
What option are you talking about that isn't sufficiently documented?
>> Now you're changing what you're talking about again. What word
>> configuration are you curious about.
>
> Right now I don't need to look anything up. My point is that every time I've
> needed to find something out, I haven't been able to.
I don't mean to offend, but you've demonstrated many times here that you
aren't really very good at looking things up. Maybe it's not the product's
fault? (Maybe it is, sure, but without a specific example, I'm actually
going to err on the side of my own experience.)
> That's like saying "housing isn't overpriced at all; have you seen the price
> of buying Buckingham Palace?!"
"Overpriced" and "insanely expensive" are different things. You just seem to
never have gotten used to the fact that commercial software costs money.
$200 for a commercial program isn't expensive. $20,000 is expensive.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
