Really folks?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I don't understand your objection, though. It seems to rely on the misconception that it's impossible to make a single program that can be used both by "software developers" (whatever your definition of that is) and average joes at the same time. But you've never demonstrated why a single program can't work for both parties. So... why can't it?


    Because the things that make the program useful for average joes are simplicity and a restricted set of functions that do specific things in a specific and well defined way.This is good for Average Joe because he doesn't have to craft anything custom to get his work done, he simply selects from a list of already existing code that's labelled clearly to fit his problem and either uses it straight, or puts it together with a very few other functions. And anything that would act in a strange or hard to understand manner is stricken from the tool so as not to confuse or mislead Joe. If Joe's problem can't be solved by the functions available, that's fine because most of his problems will be.

    That same set of restricted functions poses a real problem for Software Developer Steve on the other hand. His entire existence revolves around solving the problems that haven't already been solved. So every time he sits down to use his tool, it's very likely that his problem won't be one of the functions available. And then he's fucked. Or (more likely) he has to do some very ugly and hacky workaround that makes his job harder by abusing some unforseen loophole in the straightjacket that the tool's creators built to keep Joe from screwing up.

    And, more importantly, if the tool is built for Steve, why the hell does Joe need to use it? There is no gain from spending time making sure that it's nice and safe and easy for Joe. And a great deal lost if that's done instead of spending time adding more features and functionality for Steve.

    The reason I know all this is true is because what you are suggesting has been tried before. Many many times. And it always, always run into the fundamental incompatibility of making something restricted so it's simple enough for an untrained amateur while also having it be open enough to solve the unique problems that a professional needs to solve to do his job.



  • @Snooder said:

    Because the things that make the program useful for average joes are simplicity and a restricted set of functions that do specific things in a specific and well defined way.

    Everything but the word "restricted" I agree with.

    Why "restricted"?

    @Snooder said:

    And anything that would act in a strange or hard to understand manner is stricken from the tool so as not to confuse or mislead Joe.

    Right. But why is the "software developer" immune?

    @Snooder said:

    If Joe's problem can't be solved by the functions available, that's fine because most of his problems will be.

    If he can't solve his problem, there's not enough functions available.

    @Snooder said:

    That same set of restricted functions poses a real problem for Software Developer Steve on the other hand. His entire existence revolves around solving the problems that haven't already been solved. So every time he sits down to use his tool, it's very likely that his problem won't be one of the functions available.

    If he can't solve his problem, there's not enough functions available.

    @Snooder said:

    And, more importantly, if the tool is built for Steve, why the hell does Joe need to use it?

    I want to see tools built for everybody.

    @Snooder said:

    There is no gain from spending time making sure that it's nice and safe and easy for Joe. And a great deal lost if that's done instead of spending time adding more features and functionality for Steve.

    Removing the things that confuse Joe are very likely to also enhance the experience for Steve. Confusing things are bad.

    @Snooder said:

    The reason I know all this is true is because what you are suggesting has been tried before.

    When?

    HyperCard tried it, and was super-successful for years. Talking about databases specifically, both Access and Filemaker tried it, and both did pretty well. (And that despite Access' being designed for 1994 computer capabilities, and Filemaker's difficult corporate stewardship.)

    @Snooder said:

    Many many times. And it always, always run into the fundamental incompatibility of making something restricted so it's simple enough for an untrained amateur while also having it be open enough to solve the unique problems that a professional needs to solve to do his job.

    Then you should have no problem coming up with an example.



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @Buttembly Coder said:
    @Snooder said:
    To someone who doesn't know Python, Python is damn arcane.

    Exactly. The programming tools currently available are not, say it with me, "usable".

    To someone who doesn't know INSERT_ANY_LANGUAGE_OF_ANY_KIND, INSERT_ANY_LANGUAGE_OF_ANY_KIND is damn arcane.

    That's a fact of languages, not programming languages. That's like saying male humans are smelly when you really meant all humans are smelly.

    To someone who doesn't know American English, British English is hardly "arcane". To someone who knows Portuguese, Spanish is hardly "arcane". To someone who knows Javascript, Perl is... well, anyways. To someone who knows Java, C# is hardly arcane. There are a number of languages that are similar enough in terms of rules to what people already know to be simple to learn. There have already been natural language processors that attempt to generate programs from English-language descriptions. But, really, it's pointlessly restrictive to assume that "making a program" has to be "writing code". Especially as a number of people already use Visual tools to make parts of them.

    The point is that you can make "developing a program" easy enough that no "arcane" knowledge is required, only general knowledge.

    By the same token, should we make "conversing with Lindsey Graham" easy enough that no "human language" knowledge is required, only general knowledge?


  • @Ben L. said:

    @Buttembly Coder said:
    @Ben L. said:
    @Buttembly Coder said:
    @Snooder said:
    To someone who doesn't know Python, Python is damn arcane.

    Exactly. The programming tools currently available are not, say it with me, "usable".

    To someone who doesn't know INSERT_ANY_LANGUAGE_OF_ANY_KIND, INSERT_ANY_LANGUAGE_OF_ANY_KIND is damn arcane.

    That's a fact of languages, not programming languages. That's like saying male humans are smelly when you really meant all humans are smelly.

    To someone who doesn't know American English, British English is hardly "arcane". To someone who knows Portuguese, Spanish is hardly "arcane". To someone who knows Javascript, Perl is... well, anyways. To someone who knows Java, C# is hardly arcane. There are a number of languages that are similar enough in terms of rules to what people already know to be simple to learn. There have already been natural language processors that attempt to generate programs from English-language descriptions. But, really, it's pointlessly restrictive to assume that "making a program" has to be "writing code". Especially as a number of people already use Visual tools to make parts of them.

    The point is that you can make "developing a program" easy enough that no "arcane" knowledge is required, only general knowledge.

    By the same token, should we make "conversing with Lindsey Graham" easy enough that no "human language" knowledge is required, only general knowledge?

    Are you suggesting we legalize rape?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Why "restricted"?

    Because the set of functions that solve problems that can be put into a physical product is, by definition, finite. While on the other hand, the complete set of problems that someone might need to solve is infinite. It's not possible to create something that both has a well defined solution set, and also has an infinite solution set.

    @blakeyrat said:
    If he can't solve his problem, there's not enough functions available.

    It is not possible for a production to have enough functions for every single problem. Which is ok for Joe, since if he runs into something he can't solve, he goes to Steve and pays him to solve it. I think you see why that solution doesn't work for Steve.

    @blakeyrat said:

    HyperCard tried it, and was super-successful for years. Talking about databases specifically, both Access and Filemaker tried it, and both did pretty well. (And that despite Access' being designed for 1994 computer capabilities, and Filemaker's difficult corporate stewardship.)


    Successful for whom? A tool that is a raging success for an amateur programmer or a non-technical business person can be the same exact tool that is hated and derided by professionals. Let's take Access for example. If you ask around here and browse through many of the WTFs, you'll see several examples of code written on top of Access that's broken as fuck simply because Access was never designed to handle a large and complex database. Which is fine if you are just making a small database to handle say, user names and passwords for a small website. But if you are building the backend database for Amazon, doing it in Access is fucking retarded.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Then you should have no problem coming up with an example.


    Don't need to. You already mentioned Access.

     



  • @Snooder said:

    Don't need to. You already mentioned Access.

    Access is a successful software product by any definition of the word "successful."



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Snooder said:
    Don't need to. You already mentioned Access.

    Access is a successful software product by any definition of the word "successful."

    I define successful as "has alternatives that don't do the job as well"


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation says that the number of man-years spent developing software so far exceeds the year-age of the human race,

    What does this mean? What is the "year-age of the human race?" I can't come up with a definition that makes sense that could come close to this being true.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Buttembly Coder said:
    A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation says that the number of man-years spent developing software so far exceeds the year-age of the human race,

    What does this mean? What is the "year-age of the human race?" I can't come up with a definition that makes sense that could come close to this being true.

    The equation would be something like Average_Time_Programming × Number_of_Programmers ≥ Time_Since_Homo_Sapiens_First_Existed


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Ben L. said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @Buttembly Coder said:
    A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation says that the number of man-years spent developing software so far exceeds the year-age of the human race,

    What does this mean? What is the "year-age of the human race?" I can't come up with a definition that makes sense that could come close to this being true.

    The equation would be something like Average_Time_Programming × Number_of_Programmers ≥ Time_Since_Homo_Sapiens_First_Existed

    Ah. I guess that makes sense. As a definition. But it's not a very persuasive argument. Usability pissing contests like this always come down to, "I'll know it when I see it!"

    It's annoying to have scolds like blakey (and I guess now Buttembly, too) trying to make us feel bad about doing useful things with imperfect tools. It's like yelling at someone for picking up trash along the highway instead of curing cancer. But there's also something that reminds me a bit of the SF story (Clarke? Heinlein? Asimov?) where one side in an interstellar war kept coming up with bigger and more awesome ships and technology and the other side just pushed ahead with what they had and won the war with inferior technology.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @boomzilla said:
    @Buttembly Coder said:
    A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation says that the number of man-years spent developing software so far exceeds the year-age of the human race,

    What does this mean? What is the "year-age of the human race?" I can't come up with a definition that makes sense that could come close to this being true.

    The equation would be something like Average_Time_Programming × Number_of_Programmers ≥ Time_Since_Homo_Sapiens_First_Existed

    Ah. I guess that makes sense. As a definition. But it's not a very persuasive argument. Usability pissing contests like this always come down to, "I'll know it when I see it!"

    It's annoying to have scolds like blakey (and I guess now Buttembly, too) trying to make us feel bad about doing useful things with imperfect tools. It's like yelling at someone for picking up trash along the highway instead of curing cancer. But there's also something that reminds me a bit of the SF story (Clarke? Heinlein? Asimov?) where one side in an interstellar war kept coming up with bigger and more awesome ships and technology and the other side just pushed ahead with what they had and won the war with inferior technology.

    I didn't really have any intent on making it personal. I'm just very disillusioned with the "community" of software devs at the moment. While I don't really care about your feelings (internet), the point was not to hurt them, just to point out that I'm very dissatisfied with Things.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    I didn't really have any intent on making it personal. I'm just very disillusioned with the "community" of software devs at the moment. While I don't really care about your feelings (internet), the point was not to hurt them, just to point out that I'm very dissatisfied with Things.

    I didn't mean to make it sound like I took it personally. I can support being dissatisfied with Things, and am dissatisfied with many Things myself, including many you wrote about in this thread. My point was more about making the good the enemy of the perfect, and not recognizing that in general there aren't solutions but trade offs. I can get behind even blakey's ideals as ideals, but he gets carried away and alienates people with his hardcore stances.

    It makes people go even farther the other way, if only to make Internet Drama. His goal to get to the point where anyone can use and or develop software to solve a complex and / or novel problem is laudable but ridiculous (at least pre-singularity). Most people are pretty stupid, and getting the little details right for even relatively simple problems can be a lot harder than we think they are (otherwise this site would be very quiet).



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Snooder said:
    Don't need to. You already mentioned Access.

    Access is a successful software product by any definition of the word "successful."



    And I never said it wasn't successful. It is very successful at what it is (a lightweight database), but it's not robust enough for heavy professional use. Which is my point. That when we are talking about tools for professionals, having the ability to handle very tough and demanding use cases is more important than the ability to be easy to pick up for non-professionals. If we can do both, sure that's great. But most of the time we can't, and we should most certainly not sacrifice the usefulness to professionals in order to appeal to non-professionals in a tool designed for professionals. And Access is a good example of that trade-off in action.



  • @Snooder said:

    And I never said it wasn't successful. It is very successful at what it is (a lightweight database), but it's not robust enough for heavy professional use.

    Sure it is, if you hook it up to SQL Server and not its internal DB engine.

    Access' problems are:
    1) It was built on 1993 technology and never much progressed past that
    2) It's sold by a company that has incentive to *not* make it powerful, because if they did it could affect sales of a more profitable product

    There's no technical reason point 1) couldn't be solved, if Microsoft cared. And point 2) doesn't apply to most companies.

    @Snooder said:

    That when we are talking about tools for professionals, having the ability to handle very tough and demanding use cases is more important than the ability to be easy to pick up for non-professionals.

    Oh, so now both parties can use it? It's just "more important" to cater to professionals? What changed between yesterday (when it was impossible for "professionals" to use the same product as normal people for some reason you never bothered to elaborate on), and this new reality today?

    @Snooder said:

    If we can do both, sure that's great.

    You certainly can't, if you don't try! Which seems to be exactly what you're arguing: that it's pointless to even try.

    @Snooder said:

    But most of the time we can't, and we should most certainly not sacrifice the usefulness to professionals in order to appeal to non-professionals in a tool designed for professionals. And Access is a good example of that trade-off in action.

    Why not?

    What makes "professionals" (and again, I have no idea what definitions you're using here) more important than non-professionals? What about the fact that non-professionals make up more of the population and therefore you have more potential customers if you appeal to them? You just ignore that? What about the fact that the things *you yourself* stated should be done for non-professionals (like making functions less confusing) also increase productivity for professionals? Another thing you brought up and then have been ignoring since.


  • BINNED

    Why stop there? Everyone should be able to do heart surgery! Let's improve the tools to make that happen!



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    Why stop there? Everyone should be able to do heart surgery! Let's improve the tools to make that happen!

    Welcome to 8 fucking years ago. Seriously, I love that you picked what you thought was a ridiculous exmaple, and it's something that is, in fact, now trivial; heart surgery can be done with the push of a button.



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    Why stop there? Everyone should be able to do heart surgery! Let's improve the tools to make that happen!

    Welcome to 8 fucking years ago. Seriously, I love that you picked what you thought was a ridiculous exmaple, and it's something that is, in fact, now trivial; heart surgery can be done with the push of a button.

    That is not heart surgery at the push of a button. It requires a real live surgeon to be controlling it in real-time, either in person or from a remote location. Controlling the machine requires training and experience and is not in the least bit "trivial".

    Ever read about one of the early chess-playing machines with a small person cleverly hidden inside? Same thing, only the person isn't inside it. It's still brainless. It does only what its human operator tells it to do.



  • @anotherusername said:

    @Buttembly Coder said:
    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    Why stop there? Everyone should be able to do heart surgery! Let's improve the tools to make that happen!

    Welcome to 8 fucking years ago. Seriously, I love that you picked what you thought was a ridiculous exmaple, and it's something that is, in fact, now trivial; heart surgery can be done with the push of a button.

    That is not heart surgery at the push of a button. It requires a real live surgeon to be controlling it in real-time, either in person or from a remote location. Controlling the machine requires training and experience and is not in the least bit "trivial".

    Ever read about one of the early chess-playing machines with a small person cleverly hidden inside? Same thing, only the person isn't inside it. It's still brainless. It does only what its human operator tells it to do.

    In May 2006 the first artificial intelligence doctor-conducted unassisted robotic surgery on a 34 year old male to correct heart arythmia.

    The article states that the surgery was conducted by an artificial intelligence doctor, unassisted. It then describes, in brief, the database of surgeries the AI doctor had. I don't see how that's even ambiguous.

    Additional information

    Here's the article linked from the wiki page. It states that the surgeon "initiated and monitored" the surgery. In other words, he pushed a button and watched what happened

    And another with the even simpler wording of "For the first time, a robot surgeon in Italy has carried out a long-distance heart operation by itself.



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    In May 2006 the first artificial intelligence doctor-conducted unassisted robotic surgery on a 34 year old male to correct heart arythmia.

    The article states that the surgery was conducted by an artificial intelligence doctor, unassisted. It then describes, in brief, the database of surgeries the AI doctor had. I don't see how that's even ambiguous.

    You really can't link to a twelve-page* article and expect me (or anyone else) to find a couple of sentences buried halfway down. You especially can't when the entire beginning section gave message that conflicts with it. If you want me to see the correct part, link to the correct part and quote it to make sure I'll see it.

    Anyway, design isn't at all like heart surgery. Design is highly subjective and requires a lot of creativity combined with knowledge of what works well and what doesn't. There's almost no creativity involved in heart surgery. It is a strict procedure that is virtually identical every time. The human heart is actually a very simple device: A few chambers, a few valves, and a bunch of electronics to make everything run smoothly. The mechanical bits are simple enough to be repaired or replaced (the primary difficulty is getting to them without killing the patient, and working on them while it's running); if the electronics are fucked up there isn't really much we can do apart from zap it occasionally to force it to do what we want. Fortunately, zapping it occasionally is sufficient to get it to pump blood, and that'll at least keep you alive.

    *printed on 8.5"x11" in portrait with 0.5" margins



  • @anotherusername said:

    You really can't link to a twelve-page article and expect me (or anyone else) to find a couple of sentences buried halfway down. You especially can't when the entire beginning section gave message that conflicts with it. If you want me to see the correct part, link to the correct part and quote it to make sure I'll see it.

    Anyway, design isn't at all like heart surgery. Design is highly subjective and requires a lot of creativity combined with knowledge of what works well and what doesn't. There's almost no creativity involved in heart surgery. It is a strict procedure that is virtually identical every time. The human heart is actually a very simple device: A few chambers, a few valves, and a bunch of electronics to make everything run smoothly. The mechanical bits are simple enough to be repaired or replaced (the primary difficulty is getting to them without killing the patient, and working on them while it's running); if the electronics are fucked up there isn't really much we can do apart from zap it occasionally to force it to do what we want. Fortunately, zapping it occasionally is sufficient to get it to pump blood, and that'll at least keep you alive.

    I said nothing in this case about design. I was pointing out the hilarious hubris demonstrated by him and now you.

    1. He made one point he thought was cute.
    2. He was strictly and factually wrong.
    3. I pointed out him being wrong.
    4. You denied this.
    5. I demonstrated that you were both wrong.
    6. You are now trying to shift the subject to something you feel will grant you a hypothetical victory to make up for your failing at a factual one.

    I realize that this whole thing was a digression, but I don't really care.

    And since you're being a pedant, it was a quarter of the way down, not half.

    Addendum

    Also, your entire stance at this point seems to be that it was my fault for you being wrong. I link to show that proof exists, and provide more information for the interested. You believing that information to be false is strictly your own failing, just as myself being wrong would have been my own.


  • BINNED

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    Why stop there? Everyone should be able to do heart surgery! Let's improve the tools to make that happen!

    Welcome to 8 fucking years ago. Seriously, I love that you picked what you thought was a ridiculous exmaple, and it's something that is, in fact, now trivial; heart surgery can be done with the push of a button.

    Unless you're also claiming that this means we don't need heart surgeons any more because anyone can press a button, you've missed my point.

  • BINNED

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    Trollin Trollin Trollin
    IHBT



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Snooder said:
    And I never said it wasn't successful. It is very successful at what it is (a lightweight database), but it's not robust enough for heavy professional use.

    Sure it is, if you hook it up to SQL Server and not its internal DB engine.

    Access' problems are:
    1) It was built on 1993 technology and never much progressed past that
    2) It's sold by a company that has incentive to *not* make it powerful, because if they did it could affect sales of a more profitable product





    I find it interesting that you see the same trends and effects, but you jump to a conspiracist cause instead of the obvious one. Microsoft isn't hampering Access because it'll hurt the sales of another product. That's dumb when they could just replace that other product with Access and sell it for the same price with a large install base. Instead, what's happening is that they have two different markets for two different products. One market is amateurs, tinkerers and other non-professionals. The other market is professionals. Access is made for the non-professionals, so it's easy to use and cheaper, but not very robust.

    @blakeyrat said:
    @Snooder said:
    But most of the time we can't, and we should most certainly not sacrifice the usefulness to professionals in order to appeal to non-professionals in a tool designed for professionals. And Access is a good example of that trade-off in action.

    Why not?

    What makes "professionals" (and again, I have no idea what definitions you're using here) more important than non-professionals? What about the fact that non-professionals make up more of the population and therefore you have more potential customers if you appeal to them? You just ignore that? What about the fact that the things *you yourself* stated should be done for non-professionals (like making functions less confusing) also increase productivity for professionals? Another thing you brought up and then have been ignoring since.



    What makes them more important is highlighted in the part I bolded and italicized. That we've been talking this entire time about tols for professionals. Yeah, usability is great for a hobby program, or a tool written to introduce 10 year olds to the wonders of writing code. Or for a tool that's meant to let a business user perform a simple function. But that's not the sort of tools we talking about here. We're talking about the sort of tools that trained professional programmers, software architects, DBAs, e.t.c. use to build enterprise systems and complex software solutions.

     



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    I pointed out him being wrong.
    Posting a link to a lengthy Wikipedia article with a "nu-huh" comment was hardly the slam dunk you seem to consider it. Posting either of your followup links with a "nu-huh" comment would have been.@Buttembly Coder said:
    Also, your entire stance at this point seems to be that it was my fault for you being wrong.
    shrug I don't have the time or energy to read every huge Wikipedia article linked by some random dude on the internet. Sorry. I read enough of it to see that it clearly said that a human was required. It's not my fault that it contradicted itself further down, and since you were providing the link, the burden of proof was on you to ensure that your link proved what you seemed to think it did. If that meant directing my attention to the part that you wanted me to read, well, then you should've done that.



  • @anotherusername said:

    @Buttembly Coder said:
    I pointed out him being wrong.
    Posting a link to a lengthy Wikipedia article with a "nu-huh" comment was hardly the slam dunk you seem to consider it. Posting either of your followup links with a "nu-huh" comment would have been.@Buttembly Coder said:
    Also, your entire stance at this point seems to be that it was my fault for you being wrong.
    shrug I don't have the time or energy to read every huge Wikipedia article linked by some random dude on the internet. Sorry. I read enough of it to see that it clearly said that a human was required. It's not my fault that it contradicted itself further down, and since you were providing the link, the burden of proof was on you to ensure that your link proved what you seemed to think it did. If that meant directing my attention to the part that you wanted me to read, well, then you should've done that.

    You are free to flail, squirm, and try to move your goalpost all you want. The facts have been settled, and your ignorance was neither my fault nor my problem. If you believe my link mislead you, then I'll agree that I could have pointed out the specifics, as I did in my reply, from the start, but I really wasn't expecting some know-it-all to jump in and claim victory. And, honestly, given your initial brashness and arrogance, and your continued attempting to reconcile your factual failing by changing the focus, I think we both know what happened.

    In short, yes, I could have quoted the specific text, but you never needed to jump in just to be wrong and loud.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    I think we both know what happened.

    Hey, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    @anotherusername said:
    @Buttembly Coder said:
    I pointed out him being wrong.
    Posting a link to a lengthy Wikipedia article with a "nu-huh" comment was hardly the slam dunk you seem to consider it. Posting either of your followup links with a "nu-huh" comment would have been.@Buttembly Coder said:
    Also, your entire stance at this point seems to be that it was my fault for you being wrong.
    shrug I don't have the time or energy to read every huge Wikipedia article linked by some random dude on the internet. Sorry. I read enough of it to see that it clearly said that a human was required. It's not my fault that it contradicted itself further down, and since you were providing the link, the burden of proof was on you to ensure that your link proved what you seemed to think it did. If that meant directing my attention to the part that you wanted me to read, well, then you should've done that.

    You are free to flail, squirm, and try to move your goalpost all you want. The facts have been settled, and your ignorance was neither my fault nor my problem. If you believe my link mislead you, then I'll agree that I could have pointed out the specifics, as I did in my reply, from the start, but I really wasn't expecting some know-it-all to jump in and claim victory. And, honestly, given your initial brashness and arrogance, and your continued attempting to reconcile your factual failing by changing the focus, I think we both know what happened.

    In short, yes, I could have quoted the specific text, but you never needed to jump in just to be wrong and loud.

    My opinions, like anyone elses, are occasionally loud and based on incomplete information. If you have information that I'm not aware of, feel free to share it. My initial brashness and arrogance was in response to your initial brashness and arrogance, so go look in a mirror if that bothers you.


  • @anotherusername said:

    My opinions, like anyone else's, are occasionally loud and based on incomplete information. If you have information that I'm not aware of, feel free to share it. My initial brashness and arrogance was in response to your initial brashness and arrogance, so go look in a mirror if that bothers you.

    For future reference: looking in a mirror always bothers me, both for being ugly and for having strange problems telling right from left when doing so. The up-down axis is not affected, even when viewing a ceiling or floor mirror.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    a ceiling mirror
     

    ............... [joke here]



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    a ceiling mirror
     

    ............... [joke here]

    Filed under: WTF is a FLOOR mirror?



  • @Blakeyrat said:

    You would be surprised to learn:

    1. How (relatively) easy DBMSes are to use (MS SQL Server being the best, but the others aren't really too far behind), and
    2. How much full of shit most full-time DBAs are.


      Or, if you're fond of thinking of me as an idiot, put it this way: "if Blakeyrat can figure out replication in SQL Server, anybody can."


      Most DBAs make things look harder than they really are because, back in 1988 when the job position started, things were hard. And because they're trying to save their own salaries. In reality, most of them now either spend all their time doing endless change request paperwork, or pointlessly tweaking with the DBMS and doing as much harm as good. Most. Not all.

    Speaking as a full-time DBA:

    I agree that MS SQL Server is pretty easy to use but I would argue that this makes a DBA's life easier rather than making everyone a DBA. Sure, anyone can start up replication or schedule a backup or create a one table database but this is hardly the meat and drink of a production DBA.

    At the place I work we have over 50 production and 50 non-production instances and many hundreds of databases, some of which are a several terabytes in size. Are you suggesting that each application team (or Dave from reception) should decide how and when the backups should be taken and retained? Would that take into consideration the impact on the network? Or storage? How often should indexes be maintained? Or the stats? Is it the same for Sharepoint, SAP and the data warehouse?

    Yes, a lot of this is initially configured and does not need to be changed much but who set it up in the first place? Is it realistic to think that a version of SQL Server could be written that would take in the whole of the current environment and configure itself optimally in terms of locations of databases, database files, log files, backups, standard maintenance tasks, etc? Or would the SQL Server developers be better served making the database engine (for example) faster and more robust?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    @Buttembly Coder said:
    I think we both know what happened.

    Hey, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    Just ask Monica...



  • @RTapeLoadingError said:

    @Blakeyrat said:
    You would be surprised to learn:
    1) How (relatively) easy DBMSes are to use (MS SQL Server being the best, but the others aren't really too far behind), and
    2) How much full of shit most full-time DBAs are.

    Or, if you're fond of thinking of me as an idiot, put it this way: "if Blakeyrat can figure out replication in SQL Server, anybody can."

    Most DBAs make things look harder than they really are because, back in 1988 when the job position started, things *were* hard. And because they're trying to save their own salaries. In reality, most of them now either spend all their time doing endless change request paperwork, or pointlessly tweaking with the DBMS and doing as much harm as good. Most. Not all.

    Speaking as a full-time DBA:

    I agree that MS SQL Server is pretty easy to use but I would argue that this makes a DBA's life easier rather than making everyone a DBA. Sure, anyone can start up replication or schedule a backup or create a one table database but this is hardly the meat and drink of a production DBA.

    At the place I work we have over 50 production and 50 non-production instances and many hundreds of databases, some of which are a several terabytes in size. Are you suggesting that each application team (or Dave from reception) should decide how and when the backups should be taken and retained? Would that take into consideration the impact on the network? Or storage? How often should indexes be maintained? Or the stats? Is it the same for Sharepoint, SAP and the data warehouse?

    Yes, a lot of this is initially configured and does not need to be changed much but who set it up in the first place? Is it realistic to think that a version of SQL Server could be written that would take in the whole of the current environment and configure itself optimally in terms of locations of databases, database files, log files, backups, standard maintenance tasks, etc? Or would the SQL Server developers be better served making the database engine (for example) faster and more robust?



    The problem, I think, is that blakeyrat is approaching this from the perspective of "If this simple task that happens every day is easy, everyone can do it, and we don't need trained professionals any more." Which is true, to a point. But what he's forgetting is that not every task is simple. Yes, the difficult and unique tasks don't happen every day. But they do happen. And they are the reason for the professionals to exist. It's like doctors. You don't need a doctor to tell you to take your cold medicine when you get the sniffles, or take an aspirin when you get a headache. And that's what most medical complaints are, minor illnesses that are easily treated with existing medication and obvious treatment plans. But you DO need a doctor to tell you what to do when you get something rare but serious like cancer. Or get something that nobody has seen before. Or have multiple problems at the same time with conflicting treatments.

    And no matter how easy to use the tools are at making simple tasks easier, they can't substitute for the training required to handle the special cases. Worse, making the simple tasks easier often requires cutting out features that are needed to handle those special cases.

    Going back to the medical analogy, it's like the difference between having a pharmacy with ready and clearly labelled treatment packages and having a pharmacology set that lets you create you own treatments on the fly. Sure, the clearly labelled treatment packages are more "usable." They're easy to use, hard to fuck up and work for most things. But when you get cancer and need a weird combination of radiotherapy drugs, steroids and some new experimental serum made from monkey piss, well you're just out of fucking luck. You'll either end up having to rip open a few dozen packages, and try to purify the drugs into their components to cobble together some approximation of what you need, or you'll  die from no treatment.

     



  • @Snooder said:

    Worse, making the simple tasks easier often requires cutting out features that are needed to handle those special cases.

    You need to either back-up this stupid-ass wrong point you've made about a dozen times with SOME form of rational thought, or shut your fucking mouth about it.

    You've said it again and again. Again and again, I've asked: "why is that the case?" Answer the fucking question or it's off the table. I'm not fucking messing around, you are now pissing me off.

    @Snooder said:

    Going back to the medical analogy, it's like the difference between having a pharmacy with ready and clearly labelled treatment packages and having a pharmacology set that lets you create you own treatments on the fly. Sure, the clearly labelled treatment packages are more "usable." They're easy to use, hard to fuck up and work for most things. But when you get cancer and need a weird combination of radiotherapy drugs, steroids and some new experimental serum made from monkey piss, well you're just out of fucking luck. You'll either end up having to rip open a few dozen packages, and try to purify the drugs into their components to cobble together some approximation of what you need, or you'll  die from no treatment.

    Right; I'm not saying the current world is like this. I'm saying, if we examine our priorities, we can build a world where any random person can treat any illness.

    Do you watch TV? Movies? Read novels? Do you understand the concept of, "people can talk about things that don't actually exist"? Goddamned. Who was it I was debating with a few years ago, and we discovered he literally didn't know what the word "ideal" meant, and it turns out my entire debate was a huge fucking waste of everybody's time? TheCPUWizard I think? Goddamned, it's that all over again.

    LOOK YOU FUCKING DUMBSHIT: I'm not making statements about how the world is, I'm making statements about how the world should be. Please account for that when you reply to my points.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You've said it again and again. Again and again, I've asked: "why is that the case?" Answer the fucking question or it's off the table. I'm not fucking messing around, you are now pissing me off.
    If you're, like, actually losing sleep over this, maybe you should just, like, unsubscribe from this thread and stop coming back. Your blood pressure would probably thank you.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    @Snooder said:
    Worse, making the simple tasks easier often requires cutting out features that are needed to handle those special cases.

    You need to either back-up this stupid-ass wrong point you've made about a dozen times with SOME form of rational thought, or shut your fucking mouth about it.

    You've said it again and again. Again and again, I've asked: "why is that the case?" Answer the fucking question or it's off the table. I'm not fucking messing around, you are now pissing me off.

    @blakeyrat said:

    LOOK YOU FUCKING DUMBSHIT: I'm not making statements about how the world is, I'm making statements about how the world should be. Please account for that when you reply to my points.

    I believe your ideal implies that we have something indistinguishable from actual human intelligence and problem solving skills in a computer. If SF has taught me nothing else, it's that AI leads to our destruction, either by outright war or an unhealthy dependence on it. It's not bad to strive to make things better, but it's important to realize the difference between dreaming about what you'll do when you sell your WTF laden app to Facebook and making decisions about your personal budget. Your dreams are tiresome because they're so unrealistic and unhinged from today's reality, especially when you beat us over the head about how awful we are because we refuse to drink your koolaid. Actual engineering requires trade offs, and some people are more interested in making useful stuff than imagining totally awesome stuff.

    In closing: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REAL WORLD YOU IDIOT! WE REFUSE TO BE DRAWN INTO YOUR SICK FANTASIES ABOUT FLYING PONIES AND THEIR DATABASE APPS.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    LOOK YOU FUCKING DUMBSHIT: I'm not making statements about how the world is, I'm making statements about how the world should be. Please account for that when you reply to my points.

    Guess what, when you complain about an existing tool, that exists in the real world, you can't complain about it based on some impossible utopia. Complaining about it, even from some theoretical ideal, implies that the ideal is actually possible. And would be attained if your complaints are addressed. And no, what you envision is not possible; at least until a point far enough in the future that making decisions right now based on what might happen then is retarded.

    Look, when you say stuff like "software should be usable, and all the existing tools are shit because they aren't. Look at HyperCard, that shit was hella usable." You are implying fairly strongly that it is possible right now, with the way the world is right now, to make the software that you are talking about. And it's just not. Nor would the people creating software be served with bullshit pie-in-sky ideals for some utopian future instead of creating software in the here-and-now for the audience they have right now, that has needs right now.

    If you don't have a useful suggestion, criticism or complaint about existing software that takes into account practical realities and the world we live in right now, SHUT THE FUCK UP. You aren't advancing anything, just ranting like a dumbass about shit you barely understand.

    Edit: Also, if we do get to the point that you envision where the computer has enough intelligence to basically be equivalent to a human, why the fuck do you think they won't demand a paycheck? And how exactly does "Average Joe can't code so he pays Developer Dan to do it" any different from "Average Joe can't code so he pays DeveloperBot5000 to do it?" Unless you are advocating the reintroduction of slavery for Homo Sapiens Electronesis?

     



  • @anotherusername said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    You've said it again and again. Again and again, I've asked: "why is that the case?" Answer the fucking question or it's off the table. I'm not fucking messing around, you are now pissing me off.
    If you're, like, actually losing sleep over this, maybe you should just, like, unsubscribe from this thread and stop coming back. Your blood pressure would probably thank you.

    Shush, don't ruin our entertainment.



  • @boomzilla said:

    If SF has taught me nothing else, it's that AI leads to our destruction, either by outright war or an unhealthy dependence on it.


    Heh, I knew you'd say something racist eventually if I waited long enough. What you do you have against AI anyway, man? They're people like everyone else. I for one cannot wait until the day that sexbots get created. If only to laugh when one of them divorces her fat neckbeard "husband" like a Russian mail-order-bride after her citizenship goes through.

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    If SF has taught me nothing else, it's that AI leads to our destruction, either by outright war or an unhealthy dependence on it.

    I presume you haven't read Iain M. Banks' Culture novels then.

    @Snooder said:

    Also, if we do get to the point that you envision where the computer has enough intelligence to basically be equivalent to a human, why the fuck do you think they won't demand a paycheck? And how exactly does "Average Joe can't code so he pays Developer Dan to do it" any different from "Average Joe can't code so he pays DeveloperBot5000 to do it?" Unless you are advocating the reintroduction of slavery for Homo Sapiens Electronesis?

    If we haven't managed to evolve to a post-scarcity, post-currency society by the time we invent true AI, then we've fucking failed as a species and deserve to get murdered/enslaved by said AI.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You've said it again and again. Again and again, I've asked: "why is that the case?" Answer the fucking question or it's off the table. I'm not fucking messing around, you are now pissing me off.


    And I've answered you every fucking time.

    The reason this is the case is because right now, the way to make something easier for untrained people to use something is to simplify it. This simplification happens by creating a set of well-defined complex actions and coding them in as a single "action" so that the user doesn't have to know or understand the complexities of what goes under the hood, but can trigger it easily and simply.

    With me so far? Usability happens by making a complex thing simple right?

    Well the corrollary to this is that in order to get that simple action, the complex actions have to be coded in. Which means that anything not coded in won't be there. It's IMPOSSIBLE to code every single complex action. Why? Because it is physically impossible for a coder to create an infinite set.

    Thus, to get a simple system and keep it simple, you have to accept that some complex actions just won't be possible. Since they haven't been thought up and built in by the original designer.

    The way to get around that problem is to let the user put simple actions together into complex actions. But that defeats your original point of trying to make it "usable" because the process of collecting simple actions into complex ones is the thing that requires training. Once you force the user to having to make up his own complex actions, you make it less usable.

    In addition to that, you have the question of safety. A "usable" system of the type you are referring to always includes the idea of preventing the user from fucking himself. A trained professional knows how to manage the risk, but the simple user won't. Which means that certain complex actions will be prevented because they are dangerous.

    Thus, the system, by being safe, is more restrictive in what you can do.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @The_Assimilator said:

    @boomzilla said:
    If SF has taught me nothing else, it's that AI leads to our destruction, either by outright war or an unhealthy dependence on it.

    I presume you haven't read Iain M. Banks' Culture novels then.

    I have not. I'm sure there are other counter examples (assuming that's what it is).


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Snooder said:

    @boomzilla said:
    If SF has taught me nothing else, it's that AI leads to our destruction, either by outright war or an unhealthy dependence on it.

    Heh, I knew you'd say something racist eventually if I waited long enough. What you do you have against AI anyway, man? They're people like everyone else. I for one cannot wait until the day that sexbots get created. If only to laugh when one of them divorces her fat neckbeard "husband" like a Russian mail-order-bride after her citizenship goes through.

    Some of my best friends are robots. But I wouldn't let my daughter marry one.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    If we haven't managed to evolve to a post-scarcity, post-currency society by the time we invent true AI, then we've fucking failed as a species and deserve to get murdered/enslaved by said AI.

    "post-scarcity" Hah. The point at which the human race evolves past scarcity is the point at which we've basically killed ourselves and are just waiting for the next species to gain sapiens and eat our lunch. Competition is good for progress.

     


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @boomzilla said:

    Some of my best friends are robots. But I wouldn't let my daughter marry one.
     

    It ain't "marrying" them robots doing with your daughter.



  • @Snooder said:

    @The_Assimilator said:

    If we haven't managed to evolve to a post-scarcity, post-currency society ...

    "post-scarcity" Hah.

    "Hah ha!" even.  It sounds so nice, but how are you going to get there?

    The only technology that would allow it is the "replicator" - the Star Trek kind, not the 3D printer stuff - that can take any matter and convert it into other matter via its energy phase.  Then, even if you had such technology, you'd have to get past all the social hurdles... even if you created enough of them all at once to prevent hoarding, how would you get past the people that just kill each other out of spite or due to sociopathy?

     



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    The only technology that would allow it is the "replicator" - the Star Trek kind, not the 3D printer stuff - that can take any matter and convert it into other matter via its energy phase.  Then, even if you had such technology, you'd have to get past all the social hurdles... even if you created enough of them all at once to prevent hoarding, how would you get past the people that just kill each other out of spite or due to sociopathy?


    There's a rather fascinating series of books that's kind of about that topic. Basically at some we get both nano machines and benevolent AI that can pretty much give anyone anything they need. Nobody needs to work, and everyone has all the food, shelter, etc they need.

    Then some asshole ruins it all because he thinks people are "too lazy" and he's worried about the declining birth rate.

    You should check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Council_Wars.

     



  • @Snooder said:

    Nobody needs to work, and everyone has all the food, shelter, etc they need.

    Actually I'm fairly certain that humans do have an innate "need" to work - which is part of the conundrum about the idea of "post-scarcity" society.
    @Snooder said:
    Then some asshole ruins it all because he thinks people are "too lazy" and he's worried about the declining birth rate.

    I don't even think it has to be someone ruining things for a grandiose cause: some people would want to ruin others' days just because they get off on ruining people's days. No amount of technology is going to "fix" that unless you believe that all such things are an "illness" and forcibly preventing people from behaving in some way is acceptable behavior - but we have lots of books on that topic, too.


Log in to reply