|
Google's support for Microsoft's TypeScript in Angular was a key turning point for the young extension to JavaScript Why bother making it a success yourself, when your competitors can do it for you?
|
|
|
|
|
TypeScript took off because coding in pure JavaScript is like, hmmm, I don't think I can come up with an appropriate analogy. 
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: an appropriate analogy.
I think you did 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Why bother making it a success yourself, when your competitors can do it for you?
A bit like how Rx (also in Angular), invented by Microsoft, seems to be used mostly by non-Microsoft stack developers , while most Microsoft-stack developers have never heard of it!
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
To show what that future could look like, a digital artist created an interactive job interview that simulates a world where AI is entirely in control of the hiring process. For those who missed Eliza the first time around
|
|
|
|
|
My son's name is Joshua, so back off!
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft has filed a DMCA complaint against a modified version of Windows named Ninjutsu OS. The creator of the piece of the software is accused of customizing Windows 10 in a way that breaks the terms of the company’s software license agreement. They really, really want you to play Candy Crush, don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
What a bunch of sphincters.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand this. How could anyone think that distributing a derivative of Windows would be legal?
You're not allowed to create derivative works of commercially licensed software and distribute them whether you charge for them or not.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft says that users could experience issues using or accessing Storage Spaces configurations on some devices after updating them to Windows 10, version 2004, or Windows Server, version 2004. Good thing no one ever needs to check the health of their hard drives
Another day, another Win10 issue
|
|
|
|
|
'QA' must not mean what I thought it means.
Quit Asking?
Quite Abysmal?
Quality Abyss?
Qatastrophe Achieved?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Another day, another Win10 issue
So true... 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Developer Experience is a term with a self-declaring meaning — the experience of developers — but it eludes definition in the sense that people invoke it at different times for different reasons referring to different things. I don't know, but if I get another 100xp, I make it to 6th level!
And then I can get Fireball!
It is still at 6th, isn't it? They didn't change that from AD&D? I'm a few editions out of touch.
First time I think I've seen a desktop web page designed for only viewing on a phone in portrait mode. Mobile First(tm), I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Pah!
To this day (i.e. D&D 5e) One can cast level 3 spell at level 5th since AD&D 1e!!!
|
|
|
|
|
/shrug I always thought it was 6th. I guess that’s why I always played a thief.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
That's OK!
I like Chaosium games more now (like Call of Cthulhu!  )
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, many great times with CoC (and Runequest, blessed Runequest). 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: What is Developer Experience (DX)?
I suppose that it is what is missing at many QA Departments out there...
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
You might be an expert in software testing techniques. But often, QA professionals require industry domain knowledge in order to respond to unique specifications, workflows, or technology adoption. Because sometimes you want to know why it breaks?
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that Linux never made it to the desktop, and so many Linux apps failed in the competition with sometimes quite expensive commercial applications?
|
|
|
|
|
Talk about stating the obvious.
What is not obvious is that the more you learn about the "domain", the more you realize the customer, who should know about their domain, doesn't. This is particularly true when you're writing software that integrates between different departments (the left hand doesn't have a clue what the right hand is doing) or you have to integrate with third party software, with the sad realization that the third party API's are crap and that the customer doesn't even understand their own data which is necessary in order to integrate with some third party API.
|
|
|
|
|
To lots of coders, it is not obvious that they must understand the customer/user's problem. They must understand it the way the customer/user understands it, and in the customer/user's context.
Often, the customer has a less formalized view of the problem (and desired solution), and the developer's first task often is to add some formalism. But we do wrong if we take the customer/user's lack of formalism as a lack of understanding. Our task is to bring his understanding into a formal framework, rather than to push his deep knowledge aside and push onto him some formal description based on our understanding, which is often quite limited and very often without an understanding of the context. Unfortunately, that happpens far too often.
You just can't go to a customer and say "I know better!" - in particular when your software relates to two different user groups.
An example: I was in a project like that, for developing an integrated maintenance framework covering both mechanical and electronic parts. The old system of the mechanical guys identified components in a hierarchical structure by function, while the electronics guys identfied components by their location: Rack, shelf, board, X/Y position on a board. This is also a hierarchy, but a quite different one. You cannot just declare that "The best alternative is x; we'll build the software that way". Rather, you must come in as a negotiator, fully understanding why the one camp has ended up doing it this way, the other camp doing it that way. You must be able to argue for both alternatives, and to develop a compromise that takes care of all the needs of both camps, not the way you as a developer see it, but as they see it, in both camps.
As computer guys, we cold much more relate to components on boards than to shafts and gears. The negotiations were not that successful. Not until we employed a guy who had a Master in mechanical engineering (with lots of emphasis on CAD/CAM - but as a user, not as a programmer). He spoke the language of the mechanical guys, didn't need to have terms and work patterns and tools explained to him. He had deep knowledge in that domain. Quite quickly, the project went from semi-disaster to a great success project.
One essential reason for the great success of IBM in the 1970s and 1980s, and of Microsoft in the 1990s and later, is their communication with the customers. The many thousand hours of video they make of users to see how they utilize various functions, logs of how many errors they make, timings of various operations. When Win95 arrived, lots of people cried out about the GUI changes; MS responded with statistics from 18,000 hours of video and gigabytes of logs of both a number of alternatives that were rejects, and those who were found to improve the user satisfaction and productivity. (As far as I understand, they do similar observations to evaluate all major changes, but in the Win95 case, this was discussed a lot in media.)
The reason why Linux tools have such a great success in software development environments is that software develpers have deep domain knowledge of software development. Now that's in the "obvious" class.
On the other hand, developers of freeware office tools do not have similar deep knowledge of an office context. Tech/Metafont developers had quite limited knowlege of typography work. Developers of free sound editors and CD athoring systems have rarely worked much in a recording studio. Developers of free photo editors have not been eating that dogfood. The list of functions offered may be complete, yet it isn't put together "the right way" for a professional in the field!
Sometimes when you encounter a new piece of software, you feel that it is "just right". Made by people who know what the software is for. That's a great feeling. I got that "Wow!" feeling when I started using audio sorftware from Steinberg, after having fought with free alternatives for a while. Steinberg is certainly not free, but worth every penny. Same with office tools: The LibreOffice (and its relatives) makes attempts, but fails miserably. It shines bright of "freeware", made by freeware developers, but "untouched by user hands". I guess MS Office is not the only commercial alternative, and it isn't perfect, yet I willingly pay for a tool made by people who know the needs, not just the coding aspects.
Lack of domain knowledge is the greatest obstacle to the success of Linux and other freeware outside the software development domain. It is a significant problem, that you can't just brush away saying that "The professionals in the field have a poorer understandig of their problems, tasks, work patterns and solutions than I - a software developer - have!" Sorry to burst the bubble, but it simply isn't true.
|
|
|
|
|
With the current 3rd-party integrations I'm working on, this hit me right in the feels. If you ever start thinking some of your software is crap, just try integrating with a 3rd party. You'll feel a little better, yet somehow also worse.
|
|
|
|
|
I am excited to introduce our next feature update, Windows 10, version 20H2, which is targeted for release later in the second half of this year, and provide an overview of our plans for this next release. "Gloom, despair, and agony on me"
OK, I use that one a bit too often. Perhaps.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: OK, I use that one a bit too often. Perhaps.
Because it's true.
BSODs galore on my work machine since two updates were installed - I now have to try and persuade the corporate IT department to uninstall those updates
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
