|
In terms of 3 dimensional CGI views, what kind of perspective do you need to view 400m of backdrop?
Lousy joke really. I ought to give up... So should he...
Ninja (the Nerd)
Confused? You will be...
|
|
|
|
|
Good comemnt on the screen size. As I read the thread, I was thinking what monitor even has 25000 pixels across it's width. A 50 inch monitor would need a pixel width of 50 microns in order to accomadate that.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, even if the columns were a single pixel wide, the grid still extend over 21 feet. Now that's useful! 
|
|
|
|
|
So what we need now is one of:
- much bigger monitors;
- horizontal outlining;
- line wrap (and maybe taller monitors).
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
this months tips:
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
|
|
|
|
|
...and if the user looks at 1 cell per second, it would take almost 7 hours
to view the data for 1 row..if he can get it to scroll that fast 
Sweet.
Mark Salsbery
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++
![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
I was only able to get 24,348 columns, he'll never be able to make it 25,000. It's impossible.
Seriously though, could you imagine trying to come up with 25,000 column headers? I can just imagine the person trying to read the data and remember a column value that was 10,000 columns behind where they currently scrolled.
My next question, is this a web app? Can you imagine that amount of data over a healthy 56k line. 
|
|
|
|
|
It is just one of those things people come up with to justify their quest for a new
and bigger machine ...
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
this months tips:
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Kowalske wrote: Can you imagine that amount of data over a healthy 56k line
Sure, he'd just have to come back and check it next month to see if it has loaded 
"Any sort of work in VB6 is bound to provide several WTF moments." - Christian Graus
|
|
|
|
|
Ya, now think about all the times you've seen a healthy 56k line (0 for me). 
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Kowalske wrote: think about all the times you've seen a healthy 56k line (0 for me).
Must have been some years ago. I have not used dial-up for about 6 years now
"Find it your bloody self - immediately!" - Dave Kreskowiak
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Kowalske wrote: Seriously though, could you imagine trying to come up with 25,000 column headers?
No need to have unique Headers: That would be like "Peak No. 523, Signal/Noise Ratio".
Ist not nonsensical to display the Info at all. Its his attempt to press them in one flat table.
Only Database-specialists would even think of something like that...
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not money, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
George Orwell, "Keep the Aspidistra Flying", Opening words
|
|
|
|
|
jhwurmbach wrote: Only Database-specialists would even think of something like that...
|
|
|
|
|
Holy crap. That's got to be the most unusable UI design ever. Even worse than Microsoft Bob. No. This is the Elephant Man of designs. It's the design that the other UIs at school would gang up on and steal its lunch money.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
He's employed by MS as a usabilty expert working on office 2009... the joke is on us!
|
|
|
|
|
You know, I generally dislike stupid questions such as this one and 75% time coming in unmistakable Indian spelling, however after I read "No sir, i mean 25000 columns . it is req. of our software" line my heart went out for him. I truly feel sorry for any guy who has to deal with clients who can think up such idiocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
JazzJackRabbit wrote: I truly feel sorry for any guy who has to deal with clients who can think up such idiocracy.
The level of which is astounding, isn't it?? According to management, the customer is ALWAYS right! Yeah? BS! 
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
The level of which is astounding, isn't it?? According to management, the customer is ALWAYS right! Yeah? BS!
This is the point at which you say "Ok, sure, I can do that. That'll cost (25 x $NOMINAL_AMOUNT). However, here's a better design, which will cost ($NOMINAL_AMOUNT). Which would you prefer?"
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual."
- Frank Herbert
|
|
|
|
|
My current employer hired a contractor who, himself, contracted out some software to India.
It was textbook quality work - in other words, lacking insight. It was, after some debates (read: swallow pride) relegated to the scrap-heap - unused.
This would seem to be an even more extreme (and certainly more amusing) example of meeting design specs as would a thoughtless drone. That, assuming these were the given design specs. It could well be (I'd bet on it) that our UI Mage determined this to be the design required due to his calculations - not explicit customer specs.
Then, again, what would one expect from a software mill scenario?
Management (as a species) often seem to have a special skill at managing to muck things up. Usually on life's grander scales.
First there was a make-or-buy -> make was cheaper they said.
(until they learned that maintainence, custom modifications, upgrades, etc. cost money, too.).
Next, they decided if we have to 'make' our software, let's get it done cheap in some distant land. Turns out that it's not so cheap, after all: once you factor in the extra time in getting the specs understood, and fix after fix on items that should have (would have!) been common sense if it were done home-grown.
Can't wait to see what's next! I've heard that some are contracting out the management, too.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: I've heard that some are contracting out the management, too.
Interesting choice. Boneheaded decisions taken 5 timezones later. I suppose that it might be better than instant stupidity.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
JazzJackRabbit wrote: truly feel sorry for any guy who has to deal with clients who can think up such idiocracy.
See, thats where you're most likely mistaken. A client would never come up with that _exact_ idea. The client simply wanted to see 25000 pieces of info in screen. This "smart" developer figured that a datagrid would be best for his needs. And now that people have told him that its impossible, guess what he's going to tell the client? "Sir, its impossible to display 25000 pieces of information on screen.".
|
|
|
|
|
OMFG LOL!! Wat n00b, my grandpa could think of a better idea :P
|
|
|
|
|
I had to go back and look at how the product search was working on an old classic asp application. I happened to find this little gem lurking in the database. Fortunately there is some sanitizing going on in the asp to prevent a sql injection but a little piece of me died when I saw it.
<br />
ALTER procedure [dbo].[ily_products_search_keyword]<br />
(@sWhere varchar(2000) )<br />
as<br />
<br />
set nocount on<br />
<br />
declare @sql varchar(8000)<br />
<br />
select @sql = 'SELECT products.product_id,products.product_name,products.file_url, '<br />
select @sql = @sql + 'products.print_url, products.product_desc '<br />
select @sql = @sql + ' FROM products '<br />
select @sql = @sql + ' WHERE products.active = 1 '<br />
select @sql = @sql + @sWhere<br />
select @sql = @sql + ' ORDER BY products.product_name '<br />
<br />
exec(@sql)<br />
|
|
|
|
|
Agile development in it's purest form :p
xacc.ide
The rule of three: "The first time you notice something that might repeat, don't generalize it. The second time the situation occurs, develop in a similar fashion -- possibly even copy/paste -- but don't generalize yet. On the third time, look to generalize the approach."
|
|
|
|
|
eggsovereasy wrote: ALTER procedure [dbo].[ily_products_search_keyword]
(@sWhere varchar(2000) )
as
set nocount on
declare @sql varchar(8000)
select @sql = 'SELECT products.product_id,products.product_name,products.file_url, '
select @sql = @sql + 'products.print_url, products.product_desc '
select @sql = @sql + ' FROM products '
select @sql = @sql + ' WHERE products.active = 1 '
select @sql = @sql + @sWhere
select @sql = @sql + ' ORDER BY products.product_name '
exec(@sql)
I wonder what will happen if I try the following:
exec [dbo].[ily_products_search_keyword] ' delete from products select * from products'
|
|
|
|
|
You need a ";--" at the end because of the order by, but yeah, its pretty bad.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Badger | [badger,badger,badger,badger...]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/badger.gif)