|
ZurdoDev wrote: Then you might want to re-analyze your "problem."
Because you don't understand it?
That's your problem, not mine.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't have any big troubles with this issue - but now that I think of it...
Why do we have this concept of moving an object into a window for handling it? Why don't we simply execute the program, or look at the document, or whatever, right there where it resides? In the old days, before computers, you never moved a book into a reader. If you made notes on a pad (of paper), you didn't move it into a writer. Maybe you put the pad on your desktop, but there wasn't any "window" that existed before and after to put it into.
Some pre-PC electronic things did need a box, like a telephone. But when you put the receiver back on-hook after a conversation, the phone had no function; it didn't stay open for you to do something else with it. Conceptually, the phone didn't have any function by itself; if you conversation partner had been in the same room, you could have had exactly the same conversation without using the phone. So what is it there for? It is just that we have to use something to help us of we are too far apart, but the best would be to manage without it.
So it is with the window as well. If we cold just handle the program or document or whatever by itself, get rid of that window frame, wouldn't that be much better? Would you really prefer to have your documents on microfiche cards so you can't read them without turning that huge microfiche reader on, fit the card in the holder, and navigating to the image of the page you want to read, rather than reading the physical document?
The old MDI - Multiple Document Interface - certainly was no long-lasting success. MS Office switched to a model where each document lives by itself on the desktop, at least graphically. But not internally! You can't run one (stateful) dialog in one document and another one in another document; you have to complete the dialog with one document before you can talk to the other. That really annoys me much more. Lots of other state info is shared between conceptually different documents.
Tabs was sort of a successor to MDI, but you can't see two documents side-by-side in the tab model. But some systems, such as Notepad++, lets you pull a tabcard out of the pile - and then it runs completely separately, without sharing state with the others. Pulling a tab out of the stack has become common in web browsers as well, but I believe that the common way of handling it is still keep significant state info in a common root process; even the tab pulled out is run as a subprocess of the same root as the other tabs. I wish it would be a fully independent process, similar to the Notepad++ solution.
If done properly I would prefer each object to be managed on the desktop line a physical desktop. I don't see why I should have empty window frames (or photo frames) laying around on my office desk. So why should I want than on my PC desktop?
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try to not notice that you appear to be saying that you would like the operating system to handle absolutely everything, and give you a much more appropriate real-world example:
When you take the last tabbed file out of a filing cabinet or file folder, does the filing cabinet or file folder cease to exist?I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
(sorry for being so late responding - I had overlooked the reply from you)Mark_Wallace wrote: you would like the operating system to handle absolutely everything
Certainly not. That is similar to the recent discussion about the value of OO. When you make a huge program system, you may put all the functions for manipulating all the different kind of data into a single basket. Or you may associate data objects with suitable tools for manipulating them.
I am much in favor of associating a document with a document editor, a music file with a music player etc. Not as an operating system, but as a tool. An operating system is like a house where I can find the hammer, the CD player, the bread knife or whatever tool I need, but there are not the house, and they are not defined by the house.
For your analogy: The traditional way to use software is to pick up the tool, the hammer, and then see if can hit a nail by it. You've got the tool as the primary object, with e.g. the document as more or less secondary, non-primary "data" that is there just for the tool to have something to work on. That is what I have concluded to be backwards.
A storage facility like a cabinet or folder is a first class object by itself. It may contain other objects, dynamically changing, or as more or less fixed components. You've to operations to manipulate a cabinet or folder object, e.g. placing documents there. That is similar to operations to add words to a document. A document exists as an object even if it has no words in it. The cabinet exists even if it has no documents in it.
The problem is that you consider the editing function to be a first class object. You treat it as if it were a cabinet. But the cabinet is not a function to operate on documents. You see the editor functions as an object only because you see the executable file as something on your disk. Conceptually, it isn't - is is a set of invokable actions. There is a difference between actions and objects. Imagine the different actions you can do with your car: Those actions do not exist as an "object". When they are not invoked, they exist primarily in you head as the ability and training you've got that enables you to drive that car - but that isn't an object. When I see a car that is moving, I see a car where the driving function is being invoked. I do not see a driver that handles one or more cars as data.
I want to move the focus from the executable file over to the document (or whatever). The nail being hammered in is conceptually essential - the hammer doing it is not. And when you focus on the document (or nail), you see four separate documents (or nails being hammered in), not one "Insert word" function that operates on a set of four documents. You do not put four nails into the hammer, you hammer in one nail at a time, and you might as well use four different hammers. There is no reason to let the tool create any bonds between the four documents, or the four nails.
You can view a .docx file an object on which you can apply editing functions. Separate .docx are presented in separate windows; there is no way to put them all into a single "editor window". Unfortunately, behind the curtains, there is a mess, making operations on the documents not fully independent. In Notepad++ you can pull .txt documents out to run in fully separate processes (but you have to accept to start up with the documents in a pile in a single process). I don't know any way to run MS-Word as similarly independent processes, but I wish there were. Then I could view a document as an object with editing functions, rather than seeing a editor tool where the data it handles as secondary.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: For your analogy: The traditional way to use software is to pick up the tool, the hammer, and then see if can hit a nail by it. You've got the tool as the primary object, with e.g. the document as more or less secondary, non-primary "data" that is there just for the tool to have something to work on. That is what I have concluded to be backwards.
That's where we diverge.
If I have a nail, I pick up a hammer; a screw, a screwdriver.
But I don't put the tool down when I've finished hammering in one nail or screwing in one screw; I keep hold of the tool and process any other nails/screws that I want to process, and only put the tool down when I've finished.
Similarly, if I want to work on projects, I'll double click the project file, which does the equivalent of picking up the tool to process it for me, but when I've finished working on that project, it's my decision whether to put the tool down or to open another project to process.
It's the same with any tabbed interface -- click an Internet link, it picks up the browser tool for you; close that page, and you should have the option to "process" other pages (which is usually what you want to do) or put the tool down.
It's not the hammer's job to decide that you don't want to bang in any more nails.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
In QA from someone asking a question:
...would you please tell me all methodnames in "InvokeMember"...
This is essentially the same as "send me da codez".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you surprised?
QA querists ask stupid questions: sometimes because they are confused and panicking, sometimes because they have no idea that documentation (or even Google) actually exists, sometimes because they are extremely lazy and / or thick as two short planks.
"all methodnames in 'InvokeMember'" is refreshingly almost sensible compared to some of 'em ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Just to give him the benefit of the (very minimal) doubt, ask him which school it's for -- say it's because some require the method parameters to be included in the answer and some don't.
If his response is as expected, kick his @rse.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: kick his @rse.
until it's blue?
Poor member rse. 17 years, no messages.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_in_2780 wrote: Poor member rse. 17 years, no messages.
and probably a huge bunch of notifications  
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.
modified 28-Mar-20 18:15pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_in_2780 wrote: Poor member rse. 17 years, no messages.
Well, I keep trying to communicate with him, to get him to come out of his shell, but nothing seems to work.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
[^]
Clearly a prickly subject for him
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, he's got his hackles up.
|
|
|
|
|
Who does he think he is, issuing such commands to all other inhabitants? The leader of a hegemony?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
And give them back to our Paul. He owns them!
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Come on Sonic, don't be so tight rolled...
Well, here's someone who'd better always shave properly.
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like nature is in the process of a long-term cleansing activity.
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: Looks like nature is in the process of a long-term cleansing activity.
If that is the case, she is making it too nicely.
It is going to be damned annoying and we are going to have a lot of (self made) problems, but we are still going to survive this.
And the worst... I think we won't learn anything for the long term.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
... Or until more effective treatment for it is found.
The guys in the labs aren't exactly sitting on their thumbs.
[edit] But do try to avoid eating caustic cleaning materials, no matter which certain-coloured moron says it's a miracle cure. [/edit]
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: ... Or until more effective treatment for it is found.
The guys in the labs aren't exactly sitting on their thumbs.
Yes I know, known people involved in medical and laboratory areas. And that's exactly why I think it is going to need more time than desired.
At least to do it right.
The other possiblity is that someone comes shouting we have a(not throughfully tested) cure and the same morons that usually get excited with all other buzzwords and hypes start buying and distributing it (with probably more secondary effects / collateral damagesthan the virus itself).
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: The other possiblity is that someone comes shouting we have a(not throughfully tested) cure
You mean like this?[^]
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: what the [mastadon] was that moron thinking?
He was thinking "I've got to say something that gives me attention and makes me look good NOW!"
Never mind ten minutes from "NOW!", he needs immediate and constant adulation.
He's lucky the man who died wasn't English, because we have laws about con-men touting fake coronavirus cures, where the responsibility for any ill done to the "suckers" is assigned appropriately.
i.e. We would have no choice but to apply to have him extradited on a charge of murder -- murder has no statute of limitations, and that certain-coloured house won't protect him forever.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif)
was that moron thinking? (and I don't speak of the poor man that died)