|
Ta! ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
Eh??? 
I have no idea what I just said but my intentions were sincere.
Poore Design
|
|
|
|
|
Ed.Poore wrote: Eh???
Let me help you out. Since the first Macintosh was introduced decades ago, it became obvious to nearly every normal person that wysiwyg editing is superior - far superior - to the "edit here and preview there" approach. Nevertheless, on this (and many other sites) the user is unable to do what those one-megabyte, one-megahertz Macs could do. It seems that Shog has addressed and solved the problem, in his spare time, while the "professionals" at CodeProject either don't see the problem, or don't care, or whatever. I'm wondering if the re-write that we keep hearing about will be as good as Shog's add-ons. That's all. Can they, after more than seven years, finally get the premier coding site up to the standards set by the early Macintoshes without using third-party add-ons?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: It seems that Shog has addressed and solved the problem, in his spare time, while the "professionals" at CodeProject either don't see the problem, or don't care, or whatever.
Osmo,
Instead of acknowledging that Shog's a genius, you are trying to make it look as if what Shog does is the norm and therefore CP-devs have to be bad. You have to get a proper perspective of Shog's astonishing abilities (both in terms of web-scripting and in terms of innovative ideas), before you go complaining that CP's not as good as Shog's add-on is.
Also, Shog's not answerable if CPHog breaks something. The few hundred who use it would not be mad at him if it causes something bad to happen. But Chris can't take the same risks. For instance, I've noticed on multiple occasions in the last week how people using CPHog are misquoting authors when they reply to a post. It seems to be a CPHog bug where the parent post's author is associated with the current post's content. No one complained and the issue is not even noticed much or commented upon. If Chris made a similar bug he'd have been attacked strongly on the Lounge and would have received a few 1000 angry emails.
So by comparing CPHog's powerful UI with CP's native UI, you are being as unfair as you possibly could be.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: So by comparing CPHog's powerful UI with CP's native UI, you are being as unfair as you possibly could be.
I mentioned Shog simply because he appeared at the top of the thread. What I really want to compare, and ask, is this:
Why are machines and software that are literally thousands of times bigger and faster than the original Mac so much less user-friendly? And why does no one seem to notice? Or care? Shouldn't we all, as developers, be ashamed? I know I am. When I have to teach a new user how to use, say, Windows, I always begin with an apology for the tasteless over-complexity of the thing.
So what is our excuse? We know the thing can be done better - because it has been done better. On much less capable machines. What is holding us back? Why can't today's developers do what a handful of pioneers did over 25 years ago? I'm not concerned with Shog and Chris here except as examples. I am concerned that the whole industry has apparently lost sight of what constitutes good design, efficient implementation, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly the answer is to do with the fact that the industry moves on so fast that developers are just trying to keep up with things. Yes I know that we can simply refuse to learn new technologies but what happens when your clients ask why are you still using C++ rather than the latest new fangled hype from Microsoft.
Things are beginning to be made easier to develop with new technologies etc but you are still talking about a website here that has 3 million + members spread all over the world, I've come across problems between machine configurations within the same company which is supposed to have standardised PCs, imagine how much more complex the whole process becomes when you deal with 3 million individual configurations. And as Nish said people here don't mind if free utilities like CPHog break because a) they're regular enough on the site to know about them, b) they know the author of them and c) respect him for spending his free time creating such a nice utility so they give him some slack. When Chris has to do something it will impact (the majority anyway) of those 3 million users without them having to do anything so it has to work, the impact of Shog's stuff is so much smaller in comparison. (Sorry to go back to your example but I thought I'd continue the trend  ).
|
|
|
|
|
You foget that this is the web, it is infinately more difficult to develop working systems here then it is on a desktop application of a similiar sized application. Because we are limited by what 3rd parties have done we can either take the built in features for browsers (which are always different per browser and very badly written to begin with)or build them from scratch, again causing a cross browser problem or a huge load problem.
If you do not know about advanced web development then please do not comment on it.
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Bradml wrote: You foget that this is the web, it is infinately more difficult to develop working systems here then it is on a desktop application of a similiar sized application. Because we are limited by what 3rd parties have done we can either take the built in features for browsers (which are always different per browser and very badly written to begin with)or build them from scratch, again causing a cross browser problem or a huge load problem.
If you do not know about advanced web development then please do not comment on it.
Actually, I'm not "forgetting that this is the web" - I'm commenting on that very thing. It's a mess and needs to be fixed. How? Well, that depends on who you are...
Maunder, for example - having declared his site to be "Microsoft-Centric" and having limited his audience to "Visual Studio and .NET" programmers - should simply insist that everyone who uses his site use the Microsoft browser. That would simplify life for him, make the thing more reliable for his users, and provide a more stable and simpler (I use the term loosely) development environment for features like those we had 25 years ago on the Mac. It would also help to promote Microsoft's monopoly and the eventual elimination of those irritating 3rd parties together with the confusion they cause.
Osmosians, on the other hand, have dedicated themselves to an even larger goal, hoping (as it says in our Manifesto) within three decades to make the entire "Windows/Intel/Linux Era nothing more than a bad memory in the annals of computing." This will, of course, require drastic (and unilateral) measures. When the time comes, we will introduce an "Alternet"(tm) over which computers of the PAL 3000 variety - and only those computers - may communicate. Our "Alternet"(tm) will, of course, be much smaller at first, and may never rival the original Internet in size or diversity; but that's not the point. It's an "Alternet", not a "Replacementnet"; an alternative to the monopoly mentioned above. It will be simpler, cleaner, and large enough to be useful, and that's enough for us.
It always strikes me how parochial the views expressed here are. "If it doesn't help me with the problem I've got right now, and help me right away - or help me make more money - I'm not interested." Doesn't anyone dream anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
Ok comparing Pal to Web development is drastically different. The whole point of the HTTP protocol is to have it's content interpreted by the other end. This means that anyone who can recieve the response can interpret it.
What the Web needs is a drastic re-vamp of it's standards, which is something that will never be achieved while the W3c is in "power" (and I use that term loosely).
Because at this time it is beyond me to change this I just have to settle for work arounds and lesser content. I will eventually start a small organisation for a new web standard but I do not have time for that.= right now.
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Bradml wrote: Because at this time it is beyond me to change this I just have to settle for work arounds and lesser content. I will eventually start a small organisation for a new web standard but I do not have time for that.= right now.
Fine, fine. But here's an opportunity to keep an eye out for.
Let's say some huge (or not so huge) corporation wants us to develop an internet application that will allow their employees to access the company database and place and track orders from their laptops. Well, we can either implement this as a web application (with all the grief we've been discussing), or suggest that each employee will do his work using a small client program that we will write - a client-side application that only knows how to work with the company database. This puts us - with the exception of a tiny bit of low-level internet protocol - entirely in control of both the interface and the internals of the thing. We can make it look and feel and operate exactly as we wish, providing the customer with a reliable, easy-to-use, and easy-to-learn system.
Now, why isn't this approach taken more often? I say it's because today's developers, as a whole, have forgotten (or haven't ever learned) how to actually design and implement systems from scratch. So instead of giving the customer one big program that does exactly what he wants it to do, they end up giving the customer hundreds of little programs - in several different languages, most of them interpreted - that don't quite do what he had in mind.
Consider, for example, this site. Making it entirely wysiwyg, with edit-in-place and all those other nice features, using current internet protocols, is hard. But writing a client-side application to do those things, and distributing the thing free to CodeProject members, is relatively easy.
In other words, let us, as individual developers, (1) admit that internet protocols and standards are unreasonably goofy, unreliable, and not likely to change for the better; and then (2) use them as little as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately that is not going to happen for a few reasons:
The main one being that I never would have tried the CodeProject if it were like that becaue:
a) I won't just instal anything on my computer, especially without knowing the people for a fair while.
b) I never would have stumbled apon it because google can't index applications internals.
c) I would not bother to install it on every computer I work on, because:
i) A huge percentage is not on the Windows Platform
ii) I work on about 8 diffrent terminals on a SLOW day, this can range to 600+, so I would not install the software on the majority of them.
And for the system you just gave as an example I would use the Web if they wanted a reasonable cross-platform product that doesn't require a proprietary piece of software.
Again I know that the web is completely messed up and I am going to work on a new standard when I have the time.
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Bradml wrote: Again I know that the web is completely messed up and I am going to work on a new standard when I have the time.
How do you plan to get people to accept your new standard?
|
|
|
|
|
I know developers, rather I am a developer. I know exactly what should be in a web standard and I know how important it is to keep standards upheld. Apart from this I have a few other ideas to convert users but what it all boils down to is the acceptance of the standard by the ones who could benefeit the most from it, the developers.
If you are interested in helping ou with the standard or have suggestions then please drop me a line (you have my email) and tell me about them.
I think your Pal system could benfeit from the system once it is realesed so your contribution would effectively be to the advantage of your own product.
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
When you say "web standard" do you mean something like this[^]? If so, how do your proposed standards differ from theirs?
|
|
|
|
|
You can't call something the w3c chucks out a standard with a straight face. They don't have any method of ensuring standadisation and they are so far behind the methods that it is left to the browser companies to decide what they implement and what they don't.
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Maunder, for example - having declared his site to be "Microsoft-Centric" and having limited his audience to "Visual Studio and .NET" programmers - should simply insist that everyone who uses his site use the Microsoft browser. That would simplify life for him, make the thing more reliable for his users, and provide a more stable and simpler (I use the term loosely) development environment for features like those we had 25 years ago on the Mac. It would also help to promote Microsoft's monopoly and the eventual elimination of those irritating 3rd parties together with the confusion they cause.
Can you agree that "Centric" isn't the same as "Devotion"?
Seriously, you'd have to be pretty dense to not see that this site is to assist developers working with MS technologies. Not to force anything, but to assist. This isn't a religion. Its just work.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: When the time comes, we will introduce an "Alternet"(tm) over which computers of the PAL 3000 variety - and only those computers - may communicate.
The Grand Negus wrote: an alternative to the monopoly mentioned above.
So you propose to replace one monopoly with another. And how is this better?
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris-Kaiser wrote: So you propose to replace one monopoly with another.
Absolutely not. Our "Alternet"(tm) will not replace, but exist as part of, the current internet; it will provide, as the name suggests, an alternate mode of communication on the 'net.
Chris-Kaiser wrote: And how is this better?
This is better because it will provide a choice where previously there wasn't one. Individuals can use whichever method they prefer. Or both.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: . When the time comes, we will introduce an "Alternet"(tm)
So is that actually trademarked, or are you merely tacking on a TM to lend it misplaced credibility?
Oops - soory. I see AlterNet has already happened[^]
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: So is that actually trademarked, or are you merely tacking on a TM to lend it misplaced credibility?
There are two ways to get a trademark or a copyright (neither of which matters much because the guy with the most money and lawyers wins in the end anyway). One method is the to register first and then use the name or copyrighted material; the other is to stake the claim and see if you can get away with it. Having neither the money nor the inclination to waste on lawyers, we generally take the latter route.
My database design methodology, for example, goes by the name "Extended Relational Analysis" with the obvious acronym ERA. It was introduced (and trademarked) during those exciting decades when the "Equal Rights Ammendment", also known as ERA, was daily news fodder. I'm happy to report that we've co-existed peacefully with those other advocates for over 25 years. Steve Jobs and the Beatles (two of four now dead), on the other hand, have had significantly more trouble with that "Apple" moniker...
Chris Maunder wrote: Oops - soory. I see AlterNet has already happened[^]
Yes, we're aware of this (we have Google, too). But the names refer to quite different things (like database methodologies and constitutional amendments), so perhaps it will all work out. On the other hand, if it's more like computers and recording companies, well, then we're probably headed for a name change!
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Nevertheless, on this (and many other sites) the user is unable to do what those one-megabyte, one-megahertz Macs could do
Well, if those one-megahertz macs had WYSIWYG HTML editing components for use in browsers then I would have been impressed. This is a website, not a desktop application, and so we rely on what the browser can do for us, not the client OS or hardware.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: we rely on what the browser can do for us, not the client OS or hardware.
Which is exactly my point. We need to get away from this paradigm. Working entirely within the limitations of ill-defined standards implemented on incompatible browsers is not an effective means of systems development.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Which is exactly my point
Really? Let me quote:
"Let me help you out. Since the first Macintosh was introduced decades ago, it became obvious to nearly every normal person that wysiwyg editing is superior - far superior - to the "edit here and preview there" approach. Nevertheless, on this (and many other sites) the user is unable to do what those one-megabyte, one-megahertz Macs could do. It seems that Shog has addressed and solved the problem, in his spare time, while the "professionals" at CodeProject either don't see the problem, or don't care, or whatever"
I thought your point was "Shog, in his spare time has solved a problem that we 'professionals' have not been able to solve."
We'll add features in the order that we feel benefits the majority of our readers and which we can accomplish with the time and resources we have at our disposal. I value your criticisms but find your method of expressing them counter-productive.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I value your criticisms but find your method of expressing them counter-productive.
I'm having a bit of trouble believing this since you've recently implemented a "feature" that allows any two or three of a handful of cranks to delete my messages from the forums as "spam or inappropriate". A wide variety of my posts - some with ratings as high as 2.7 (indicating that someone appreciates them) - have been violently removed in this fashion. And it is all the more difficult to know where one really stands because some of these cranks have managed to achieve very high status levels, skewing the votes in a most distressing manner.
In any case, our proposed solutions to the industry's problems involve major surgery applied across the board to problems we view as systemic - so unless you're ready, willing, and able to "take on" Microsoft instead of "teaming up with" Microsoft, it's unlikely that we'll be seeing eye-to-eye anytime soon. Nevertheless, I will try to be more circumspect and discrete in the future, selecting my examples from elsewhere. Believe it or not, my goal is not to add to your burdens.
|
|
|
|
|
That's really weird. Can you replicate this on other machines? Other non-Vista machines?
There's a line "document.MessageForm.ContentText.focus();" in the OnLoad method of the parent window that should be called only for the parent, not the child window. I've no idea why it's being triggered by the browser by the child window.
I can force the child window to be modal by forcing it to keep focus. Would this be useful or annoying?
The other option is move to a WYSIWYG editor but I just worry so much about HTML grafiti already. Giving people the ability to make their posts have 18pt bright yellow font at the click of a button just seems to be asking for trouble 
It's meant to be about the message, the text, and not about the formatting...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Can you replicate this on other machines? Other non-Vista machines?
Yes, I can replicate the behavior on 2 other XP boxes, one running IE6 and the other IE7.
Chris Maunder wrote: I can force the child window to be modal by forcing it to keep focus. Would this be useful or annoying?
Imho, equally annoying. Ideally the reply or preview window's modality should be controlled by the user (a la normal Windows behavior) by simply selecting the window they want to have focus.
Chris Maunder wrote: The other option is move to a WYSIWYG editor
Oh God, no.
Don't worry about - I can learn to live with it.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
