We can't correct the spelling errors
-
@blakeyrat said:
@eViLegion said:
@pjt33 said:
Everyone who uses Visual Studio's visual designers?
I love how the "Visual" in Visual Studio is such a red herring.
Personally, I think its a great suite of software... it has it's quirks, and its not usually the best possible tool for any specific thing, but for all round convenience it's basically unbeatable.
But why all the visual shit?
The idea that development/coding tasks can be made easier by hiding the unambiguous symbols, and replacing them with some graphical representation is just nonsense. The task doesn't get any less complicated, its just that useful information is hidden from the developer.The "visual" is for WYSIWYG GUI layout tools. You idiot.
You managed to completely misunderstand what I was trying to say. I do know what the word visual means, and am fully cogniscant of how microsoft have applied it to various suites of tools over the years. It is not strictly limited to GUI; they have visual tools for architecture design, database design and management, TFS configuration, build configuration, and a large number of other things. You have informed me and everyone else here of nothing that we didn't already know, you clown.
What I was asking, was why Microsoft insist on continuing making such tools when there don't actually hold much value. Since most of them hide a lot of details from the user, and since programming is pretty much ALL about the details, then the entire paradigm is flawed. In addition, even if you use such tools, like the WinForms stuff for example (which is useful to some limited extent), to actually do anything valuable you have to drop to code anyway, and if anything goes wrong (which is pretty much always going to be the case when you're doing something non-standard, which is always) you will DEFINITELY be using code views to debug it.
But I tell you what, since I don't want to burst the little bubble of unfounded arrogance that you reside in, lets all just pretend that you're the cleverest guy in the world, that no-one else could ever hope to understand all the excellent stuff in your unfathomably awesome mind. Yes, lets all do that. You cunt.
-
I thought WinForms was pretty great. The form designer was easy to use and the guides made it simple to arrange elements in a consistent and visually appealing way. So of course Microsoft deprecated it and made WPF the new future.
-
If Blakey could program entirely without the use of a keyboard, he would. And he'd tell you how shitty the tools you're using are if they don't work the same way.
-
@eViLegion said:
Since most of them hide a lot of details from the user, and since programming is pretty much ALL about the details, then the entire paradigm is flawed. In addition, even if you use such tools, like the WinForms stuff for example (which is useful to some limited extent), to actually do anything valuable you have to drop to code anyway, and if anything goes wrong (which is pretty much always going to be the case when you're doing something non-standard, which is always) you will DEFINITELY be using code views to debug it.
So what you're saying is... things like the WinForms GUI designer allow you to make GUIs easily with drag-and-drop and some tweaking. But if you need more advanced things, WinForms allow you to drop down to the code and make changes.
And somehow this is a bad thing?
Look I hate WinForms as much as the next guy now that the whole world is moving towards separation of presentation and context, databinding, etc. But that doesn't mean it was a bad idea when it came out. WinForms predates all of that and it was basically made to be the equivalent of MFC for .Net, a role it fulfilled well.
-
@joe.edwards said:
So of course Microsoft deprecated it and made WPF the new future.
WPF is cool. I'm all for tech that forces you to follow some kind of good practices (separation of concerns and stuff) and the fact that "The devs make a quick dummy interface and make a real working backend interface. The designers make the actual interface and hook it up to the backend interface and it just works (tm)." is a core feature.
What's not cool is that there are essentially four or five versions of XAML now, all mutually incompatible. There's Silverlight, WPF, Windows 8, Windows 8.1 (a few controls removed, a few added, I think), and then all the various beta versions which had different attributes and bugs. All of these make it nearly impossible to Google for help with any one you're working with. When I was making a toy W8 app, I ended up bookmarking a page on MSDN which had a list of all the damned controls that W8 has along with pictures of how they look, just so I didn't have to search for "How do I make a horizontal row of buttons" and get results that I'd later discover were actually for WPF.
-
@eViLegion said:
What I was asking, was why Microsoft insist on continuing making such tools when there don't actually hold much value.
WYSIWYG Visual GUI designers "don't hold much value." I guess the reason I didn't interpret your post that way is because that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Pop quiz: which of the following more quickly, accurately, and easily communicates the logical structure and intent of a database table:
Did you answer the top one? Congratulations, you're an idiot.
@eViLegion said:
Since most of them hide a lot of details from the user, and since programming is pretty much ALL about the details, then the entire paradigm is flawed.
What (relevant) details is the GUI database designer hiding? Praytell.
@eViLegion said:
In addition, even if you use such tools, like the WinForms stuff for example (which is useful to some limited extent), to actually do anything valuable you have to drop to code anyway,
Well fucking duh!
@eViLegion said:
and if anything goes wrong (which is pretty much always going to be the case when you're doing something non-standard, which is always) you will DEFINITELY be using code views to debug it.
I would argue that this is only true because Microsoft has left their WinForms editor stagnant for too many years, and it's gradually accumulated bugs. For example, if you remove a handler function, the WinForms editor isn't smart enough to remove the handler itself from the control, and so you're forced to go into the auto-generated code to fix it. This is a really, really simple bug to fix-- Microsoft just hasn't bothered, because they've been spending all their resources on their XAML shit.
Other visual GUI layout tools I've used do not have similar issues.
@eViLegion said:
you're the cleverest guy in the world, that no-one else could ever hope to understand all the excellent stuff in your unfathomably awesome mind. Yes, lets all do that.
QFT.
-
@joe.edwards said:
If Blakey could program entirely without the use of a keyboard, he would. And he'd tell you how shitty the tools you're using are if they don't work the same way.
Of course; that's basic accessibility. Just because a person can't use a keyboard, doesn't mean they should be excluded from the world of software development.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@joe.edwards said:
If Blakey could program entirely without the use of a keyboard, he would. And he'd tell you how shitty the tools you're using are if they don't work the same way.
Of course; that's basic accessibility. Just because a person can't use a keyboard, doesn't mean they should be excluded from the world of software development.
I know just the computer for you.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@blakeyrat said:
@joe.edwards said:
If Blakey could program entirely without the use of a keyboard, he would. And he'd tell you how shitty the tools you're using are if they don't work the same way.
Of course; that's basic accessibility. Just because a person can't use a keyboard, doesn't mean they should be excluded from the world of software development.
I know just the computer for you.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I know just the computer for you.
Haha it's funny because disabled people are subhuman monsters!
-
Blakey it's pretty astonishing how you manage to simultaneously be so serious, yet exaggerate so excessively. Ignoring the fact that it's entirely reasonable to hold an opinion about a tool that is different from yours without being stupid... Stupidest thing you've ever heard? If you posted that in all seriousness, then you should probably get out and about more. Or maybe just re-read one of your previous posts. Either way you need a bit of life experience to divorce you from the large number of obviously deep-seated character flaws that everyone here has been attempting to politely ignore.
-
@eViLegion said:
Blakey it's pretty astonishing how you manage to simultaneously be so serious, yet exaggerate so excessively. Ignoring the fact that it's entirely reasonable to hold an opinion about a tool that is different from yours without being stupid... Stupidest thing you've ever heard? If you posted that in all seriousness, then you should probably get out and about more. Or maybe just re-read one of your previous posts. Either way you need a bit of life experience to divorce you from the large number of obviously deep-seated character flaws that everyone here has been attempting to politely ignore.
You're talking to a person whose forum avatar is a rat screaming in rage.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@blakeyrat said:
@joe.edwards said:
If Blakey could program entirely without the use of a keyboard, he would. And he'd tell you how shitty the tools you're using are if they don't work the same way.
Of course; that's basic accessibility. Just because a person can't use a keyboard, doesn't mean they should be excluded from the world of software development.
I know just the computer for you.In all seriousness, programmers who don't want to or can't use the keyboard do exist, for say, health reasons. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/350348/can-i-write-sql-using-speech-recognition from a few years ago. I don't know how practical it would be to do a regular dev job this way though.
-
@eViLegion said:
Ignoring the fact that it's entirely reasonable to hold an opinion about a tool that is different from yours without being stupid...
Not a stupid opinion.
@eViLegion said:
Stupidest thing you've ever heard? If you posted that in all seriousness, then you should probably get out and about more.
It's called "hyperbole." Look it up. Big word, I know.
-
@Arnavion said:
You're talking to a person whose forum avatar is a rat screaming in rage.
It's totally a panther.
-
@Arnavion said:
In all seriousness, programmers who don't want to or can't use the keyboard do exist, for say, health reasons. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/350348/can-i-write-sql-using-speech-recognition from a few years ago. I don't know how practical it would be to do a regular dev job this way though.
I don't get the attitude of programmers, "you can't use a keyboard? then fuck you, you can't write software!" What? It's crazy. Are these people just as hostile towards wheelchair ramps, or large print books, or any of the million other devices we use in daily life to assist the physically disabled?
-
I think it's just the absurdity of trying to dictate "int main paren int arg c comma char asterisk arg v bracket close-bracket close-paren brace".
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Arnavion said:In all seriousness, programmers who don't want to or can't use the keyboard do exist, for say, health reasons. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/350348/can-i-write-sql-using-speech-recognition from a few years ago. I don't know how practical it would be to do a regular dev job this way though.
I don't get the attitude of programmers, "you can't use a keyboard? then fuck you, you can't write software!" What? It's crazy. Are these people just as hostile towards wheelchair ramps, or large print books, or any of the million other devices we use in daily life to assist the physically disabled?Based on reactions seen around here to other things? Yes. You seem to have the mistaken oppinion that most programmers aren't in the profession due to being a terrible excuse for a human being.
-
Is it horrible that people without hands can't play piano, or that those without legs can't tap dance? Well, yes it is horrible, but they are prevented by intrinsic limitations in the specific activities they want to engage in, not by discrimination.
Maybe there is some way to write code without uh... writing? But I can't think of any good ones.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I think it's just the absurdity of trying to dictate "int main paren int arg c comma char asterisk arg v bracket close-bracket close-paren brace".
That's more of a statement of C being a stupid language
-
@joe.edwards said:
I think it's just the absurdity of trying to dictate "int main paren int arg c comma char asterisk arg v bracket close-bracket close-paren brace".
So don't do it in C. HyperTalk is a good example of a programming language that can be easily spoken.
Goddamned, do you have exactly zero imagination?
-
Hyperbole is neither big nor clever, but I suppose it does complement other aspects of your tedious debating style, so fair enough. Let's discuss something more interesting; why do you think that rat looks like a panther?
-
-
The comic book I got the image from says it's a panther.
-
@locallunatic said:
Eugh, filthy.@eViLegion said:
why do you think that rat looks like a panther?
Look at the teeth.
-
@joe.edwards said:
Uh, yes... indeed you're right.Is it horrible that people without hands can't play piano, or that those without legs can't tap dance? Well, yes it is horrible, but they are prevented by intrinsic limitations in the specific activities they want to engage in, not by discrimination.
Maybe there is some way to write code without uh... writing? But I can't think of any good ones.
It might be more difficult for them to do those things (having someone with a prosthetic leg in my tae-kwon-do class, I would say it certainly is), but that's no reason to exclude them entirely. Make your software accessible to people without a mouse, or without a keyboard, or in a different language, or with a screen reader. Most of these things can be done super-easy with API calls or just setting some attributes somewhere. So not doing them is giving a big middle finger to the disabled.
-
@Sutherlands said:
It might be more difficult for them to do those things (having someone with a prosthetic leg in my tae-kwon-do class, I would say it certainly is), but that's no reason to exclude them entirely. Make your software accessible to people without a mouse, or without a keyboard, or in a different language, or with a screen reader. Most of these things can be done super-easy with API calls or just setting some attributes somewhere. So not doing them is giving a big middle finger to the disabled.
Luckily I'm building websites where it's pretty trivially easy to make things accessible, not designing drag-n-drop programming paradigms.
-
@blakeyrat said:
So don't do it in C. HyperTalk is a good example of a programming language that can be easily spoken.
HyperTalk is also a good example of a language that nobody gives a shit about. You're disabled? Then use this language from 1987Why not tell them to use Go. Or Brainfuck. That would make just as much sense.
-
I didn't say "HyperTalk is a solution to this problem"; I said "HyperTalk is a good example of a programming language that can be easily spoken."
Please don't respond to things I didn't say.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I didn't say "HyperTalk is a solution to this problem"; I said "HyperTalk is a good example of a programming language that can be easily spoken."
Sentence #1 one, you say: @blakeyrat said:Please don't respond to things I didn't say.
So don't do it in C.
Immediately followed by: @blakeyrat said:HyperTalk is a good example of a programming language that can be easily spoken.
First you tell them not to use CThen you mention another language.
In any universe, except your bizarro parallel universe, that is interpreted as suggesting HyperTalk as an alternative to C.
If you are not suggesting HyperTalk as an alternative to C then why mention it immediately after telling them not to use C? Other than just talking out of your ass.
-
@El_Heffe said:
If you are not suggesting HyperTalk as an alternative to C then why mention it immediately after telling them not to use C?
Different sentences frequently convey different thoughts.
-
There are these things called paragraphs.
-
Yeah? What are they for?
-
@El_Heffe said:
@blakeyrat said:
So don't do it in C. HyperTalk is a good example of a programming language that can be easily spoken.
HyperTalk is also a good example of a language that nobody gives a shit about. You're disabled? Then use this language from 1987So don't do it in Brainfuck. Go is a good example of a programming language that can be easily spoken.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@joe.edwards said:
I see what you mean Joe...If Blakey could program entirely without the use of a keyboard, he would. And he'd tell you how shitty the tools you're using are if they don't work the same way.
Of course; that's basic accessibility. Just because a person can't use a keyboard, doesn't mean they should be excluded from the world of software development.
-
@blakeyrat said:
You appear to have a strange definition of[1] either ["accurately" and "easily"], or ["idiot"]. And I'm not sure which it is. The bottom one certainly doesn't fit the former. (The fact it doesn't identify *which* are the foreign keys for starters.)Pop quiz: which of the following more quickly, accurately, and easily communicates the logical structure and intent of a database table:
Did you answer the top one? Congratulations, you're an idiot.
But then again I'm guessing you don't work seriously with databases, hence your understandable confusion in such matters, and why you think things such as the pretty (inaccurate and misleading) diagram is so much better than the text that actually defines the DB.
[1] or "database table" come to be pedantic about it. Both your diagrams represent parts of a database, not a single table within such an entity. But again, your confusion is understandable - you don't know what you're talking about and need Janet and John pictures to be able to pretend to understand it.
-
@PJH said:
You appear to have a strange definition of[1] either ["accurately" and "easily"], or ["idiot"]. And I'm not sure which it is. The bottom one certainly doesn't fit the former. (The fact it doesn't identify *which* are the foreign keys for starters.)
Are you defending the big mess of CREATE TABLE statements, or merely nitpicking the GUI for no reason other than to not give ground to someone you personally dislike?
-
@dhromed said:
or merely nitpicking the GUI for no reason other than to not give ground to someone you personally dislike?
The diagram is good for "at-a-glance" understanding, but lack of detail would drive me to the Big Mess for a more accurate picture.
Is there a way of flicking on additional information in the diagram? Like displaying the FKs, contraints, indexes, etc? I'm guessing that's SQL Ent Mgr.
-
@dhromed said:
Yes. Next question?@PJH said:
You appear to have a strange definition of[1] either ["accurately" and "easily"], or ["idiot"]. And I'm not sure which it is. The bottom one certainly doesn't fit the former. (The fact it doesn't identify which are the foreign keys for starters.)
Are you defending the big mess of CREATE TABLE statements, or merely nitpicking the GUI for no reason other than to not give ground to someone you personally dislike?
-
@PJH said:
Yes.
So you're saying the code communicates the diagram better than the diagram.
I'm trying to drill down to the core of the insanity here, Matrix Operator.
-
@dhromed said:
So you're saying the code communicates the diagram better than the diagram.
No, he's saying the code communicates the structure more accurately than the diagram.
@dhromed said:
I'm trying to drill down to the core of the insanity here, Matrix Operator.
No! Stop! Turn back! Save yourselves! Fleeeeeee!
-
@Cassidy said:
Is there a way of flicking on additional information in the diagram? Like displaying the FKs, contraints, indexes, etc?
Yes, of course. The other advantage of having a GUI is you can show different levels of detail. In this case, I didn't bother taking a screenshot of the "detail" pane on the right that tells you all that shit, because I momentarily forgot everybody here is a moron.
@Cassidy said:
I'm guessing that's SQL Ent Mgr.
No. Because it's not 2006. STEP AWAY FROM THE HIBERNATION POD. Please join the rest of us here in 2013. SQL Enterprise Manager has been discontinued since, what, 2004? Christ people.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Arnavion said:
Ah, yes, rattus panthera, the peruvian Panther Rat, you don't see many of them around anymore.You're talking to a person whose forum avatar is a rat screaming in rage.
It's totally a panther.
-
@blakeyrat said:
quickly, accurately,
You're expecting to get both of those at the same time? Really?
-
-
@dkf said:
@blakeyrat said:
quickly, accurately,
You're expecting to get both of those at the same time? Really?Blakey doesn't expect anything, having clearly never thought ahead about anything.
More seriously, I reckon he probably has aspergers, which would explain a lot.
Note, lack of perjorative in the previous sentence, so if you get offended by it (and you're not blakey), fuck you.
-
@dkf said:
@blakeyrat said:
quickly, accurately,
You're expecting to get both of those at the same time? Really?Sure why not?
Note I said "accurately" not "UTTERLY COMPLETELY IN A PEDANTIC DICKWEED FASHION I MUST KNOW EVERY TINY MICROSCOPIC DETAIL OF THIS DATABASE DESIGN FEED IT TO ME SEYMOUR FEED ME!"
-
@dhromed said:
@PJH said:
I think someone needs to brush up on their first-order logic...@dhromed said:
So you're saying the code communicates the diagram better than the diagram.Are you defending the big mess of CREATE TABLE statements, or merely nitpicking the GUI [...]?
Yes.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I didn't say "HyperTalk is a solution to this problem"; I said "HyperTalk is a good example of a programming language that can be easily spoken."
Please don't respond to things I didn't say.
The problem you are missing is that often the very things that make languages like HyperTalk "easily spoken" also makes them horrible to actually develop in. ANY language that would be similarly "easily spoken" would also not be a proper solution.
Which is fine for toy languages meant to teach children, or as a crutch for the disabled, but it's just indefensible to force someone who is neither a child nor disabled to have to deal with those same deficiencies.
-
@Snooder said:
it's just indefensible to force someone who is neither a child nor disabled to have to deal with those same deficiencies.
Exactly!
And nobody said that.
