|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
eggsovereasy wrote: You need a ";--" at the end because of the order by
Not really, the "order by" was taken care of by the preceding "select * ", although it is unnecessary since no row will be returned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long time ago, in a vb6 application I found this:
Private Sub SetFocusControl(ByRef objControl As Control)
Dim EnabledControl As Boolean
EnabledControl = objControl.Enabled
objControl.Enabled = True
objControl.SetFocus
objControl.Enabled = EnabledControl
End Sub
Marc R.
|
|
|
|
|
That person must have come from the Access world where you can't set the focus to a control unless it's Enabled first. IIRC, you couldn't even set the Text of a control unless it had the focus!
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all! He is from c and c++ world...
Marc R.
|
|
|
|
|
MarcR. wrote: He is from c and c++ world...
I guess VB6 can do that to the best of us.
BDF
|
|
|
|
|
Typical VB code script.
Follow your nose using DoubleAnimationUsingPath
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I think control must be enabled then only we can set the focus.Because i faced this problem in one of my project.
If the control is in diabled then we can't do any operation on it.if you want set focus on the control, it must be enabled as per the code which you written here.
otherwise it throws the exception....
Any mistake pls forgive me.
Thanks and Regards
Ganesan.S
Software Engineer
|
|
|
|
|
The question is, why would you want to imperatively set focus on a potentially disabled control?
It's like, are you giving a user a listbox that lists all of the controls on the form and when they select one, you set focus to it? I mean I could see how that's useful...like if you have 20 thousand controls on the form. But here's the real question...Why would you want to make a disabled control enabled?
Maybe it was a handler for a checkbox and when the user checks the box, it enables a previously disabled control and sets the focus so the user...can...oh wait, it disables the control before the user can do anything.
WTF?
|
|
|
|
|
bool bool_report_progress = false;
private void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
...
if (bool_report_progress)
backgroundWorker1.ReportProgress(x, listbox1_Search.Items.Count + " items were found so far.");
}
private void backgroundWorker1_ProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
{
lable_reported_progress.Text = e.UserState.ToString();
}
private void checkbox1_report_progress_CheckedChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
<font color=#00ee00>bool_report_progress = lbl_reported_progress.Visible = checkbox1_report_progress.Checked;</font>
}
As if I've been charged per letter;P
Smile: A curve that can set a lot of things straight!
(\ /)
(O.o)
(><)
|
|
|
|
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)
