Snazzy Java IP-address dialog.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Absolutely.  I use keyboard navigation more than a scroll wheel, but I never use the fucking scrollbars.

    Well, I never use scroll wheels: I absolutely loathe them, nearly as much as I loathe mice. That's why I use a trackball. Easier to clean, more precise, less RSI, and no sodding SCROLL WHEELS to move/click unintentionally.



  • Also, if you don't know that, in Windows, a Shift-click on a scrollbar does bring the slider instantly there.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    At this point in history, after 15 years of Java, I think we just need to admit that anybody who chooses to write a GUI app in Java hates their users. Sorry, but it's true... you knew going in that Java can't make a good UI, you've had 15 years of experiencing shitty Java UIs, there's really no other explanation.

     

     

    What's the alternative?  I do .NET programming for Windows, but I wouldn't even know how to write a .NET application that ran on all platforms.



  • @tharpa said:

    What's the alternative?  I do .NET programming for Windows, but I wouldn't even know how to write a .NET application that ran on all platforms.
     

    Well, nothing runs on *all* platforms, Java itself doesn't run on all platforms, so sooner or later you're going to need to cull down the list a bit.

    If you're interested in desktop platforms, like in a corporate environment, take a look at RealBasic, which is a modernized Visual Basic-like environment that cross-compiles to Windows, Mac and Linux-- those are the three platforms that really matter. It talks to most, if not all, major database back-ends. And RealBasic UIs actually look and work natively. I wouldn't recommend RealBasic for anything that you're planning to sell 20 million copies of, but if you're writing RAD-type internal corporate applications it's great.

    There's also Filemaker, if you're writing Access-like database front-ends. It definitely runs on Windows and Mac, but I'm not sure about Linux.

    And Runtime Revolution, although I really have no experience with it. It also does Windows, Mac, Linux.

    If you're talking about mobile platforms, then you're kind of sunk at the moment. There's no way Apple's going to open theirs up to anything but Obj-C from a Mac, and Android phones don't run Mono so you can't port your C# apps to them. At the moment, your best choice in mobile is *probably* Java, but even then it won't run on an iPhone.

    (Insert obligatory rant about people complaining about lack of alternatives who apparently never bothered to look for any.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There's also Filemaker, if you're writing Access-like database front-ends.

    TRWTF - actually wanting anything to be like Access.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @tharpa said:

    What's the alternative?  I do .NET programming for Windows, but I wouldn't even know how to write a .NET application that ran on all platforms.
     

    Well, nothing runs on *all* platforms, Java itself doesn't run on all platforms, so sooner or later you're going to need to cull down the list a bit.

    If you're interested in desktop platforms, like in a corporate environment, take a look at RealBasic, which is a modernized Visual Basic-like environment that cross-compiles to Windows, Mac and Linux-- those are the three platforms that really matter. It talks to most, if not all, major database back-ends. And RealBasic UIs actually look and work natively. I wouldn't recommend RealBasic for anything that you're planning to sell 20 million copies of, but if you're writing RAD-type internal corporate applications it's great.

    There's also Filemaker, if you're writing Access-like database front-ends. It definitely runs on Windows and Mac, but I'm not sure about Linux.

    And Runtime Revolution, although I really have no experience with it. It also does Windows, Mac, Linux.

    If you're talking about mobile platforms, then you're kind of sunk at the moment. There's no way Apple's going to open theirs up to anything but Obj-C from a Mac, and Android phones don't run Mono so you can't port your C# apps to them. At the moment, your best choice in mobile is *probably* Java, but even then it won't run on an iPhone.

    (Insert obligatory rant about people complaining about lack of alternatives who apparently never bothered to look for any.)

    There are plenty of C/C++ toolkits for writing cross-platform GUI apps.  Really, I'd imagine most people want to work on Windows and Mac (Linux people can just run it in wine or a VM, screw 'em).  That's really not that hard and certainly doesn't require something hideous like Java.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    There are plenty of C/C++ toolkits for writing cross-platform GUI apps.  Really, I'd imagine most people want to work on Windows and Mac (Linux people can just run it in wine or a VM, screw 'em).
    Agreed.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    That's really not that hard and certainly doesn't require something hideous like Java.
    To be fair, while Java may be a piece of donkey crap, the JVM is fairly decent*.  It makes a nice target for other languages.

     

    *except on Macs, because Apple insists on writing their own JVM, and doing a shitty, behind-the-times job of it.   So much for using it as a cross-platform target, then, I guess.



  • [url]http://wxnet.sourceforge.net/screenshots/[/url]

    Disclaimer: haven't used. Just giving a pointer for the sake of giving a pointer. Well, that and seeing if I can't post, since I don't seem be able to post in another (unlocked) thread.



  • @joemck said:

    TRWTF is Java's look-and-feel stuff. I've made Japa apps that look perfect on Mac but are practically unusable on Windows or Linux, or vise-versa.

    Quoted for truth.

    My university uses a Java interface to a 3270 mainframe for class registration. The class table is quite readable under Windows and Linux. It shows up in dark blue on medium blue on a Mac.

    Edited to add: Oh, yes, and it's in Courier New, which shows up as so ridiculously thin that the strokes aren't even a single pixel wide under OS X.

    (And yes, the Java UI for a 3270 mainframe is a WTF in itself. It's honestly easier to just log in via a TN3270 client.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @tharpa said:

    What's the alternative?  I do .NET programming for Windows, but I wouldn't even know how to write a .NET application that ran on all platforms.
     

    Well, nothing runs on *all* platforms, Java itself doesn't run on all platforms, so sooner or later you're going to need to cull down the list a bit.

    If you're interested in desktop platforms, like in a corporate environment, take a look at RealBasic, which is a modernized Visual Basic-like environment that cross-compiles to Windows, Mac and Linux-- those are the three platforms that really matter. It talks to most, if not all, major database back-ends. And RealBasic UIs actually look and work natively. I wouldn't recommend RealBasic for anything that you're planning to sell 20 million copies of, but if you're writing RAD-type internal corporate applications it's great.

    There's also Filemaker, if you're writing Access-like database front-ends. It definitely runs on Windows and Mac, but I'm not sure about Linux.

    And Runtime Revolution, although I really have no experience with it. It also does Windows, Mac, Linux.

    If you're talking about mobile platforms, then you're kind of sunk at the moment. There's no way Apple's going to open theirs up to anything but Obj-C from a Mac, and Android phones don't run Mono so you can't port your C# apps to them. At the moment, your best choice in mobile is *probably* Java, but even then it won't run on an iPhone.

    (Insert obligatory rant about people complaining about lack of alternatives who apparently never bothered to look for any.)

     

     

    Thanks for the info, Blakey.  Sounds like I asked in the right place.  However, regarding your omitted rant, I think my question (not a complaint) was still quite legitimate,  the alternatives you mentioned are fringey, not mainstream like Java. So it still seems odd for folks to diss Java, when there's no mainstream alternative for easy multiple-platform development.  I actually like fringey, so I'm certainly not rejecting your suggestions, especially since I don't have any experience with them.  I may try them out if I get the chance. 

    Mozilla products run maybe not on all platforms, but they run on a boatload of platforms.  One major problem, of course, is that they don't run on IE.  

    On the subject of Mozilla, I'm reminded of how the WTF community is always dissing JavaScript.  Mozilla products (like Firefox) are written mostly in JavaScript/EcmaScript!   There's C++ at the core, but most of the codebase is JavaScript.



  • @Zecc said:

    Just giving a pointer for the sake of giving a pointer.
    I also like giving pointers.  Here are a couple:

    int * foo = NULL;
    void * bar = &foo;



  • @rad131304 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    There's also Filemaker, if you're writing Access-like database front-ends.

    TRWTF - actually wanting anything to be like Access.

    Access is fine as a database front-end, it's just shitty as a database server. You can certainly write non-WTF apps in Access, so long as they talk to a real DB server.



  • Writing on an iPhone, sorry if this gets garbled.

    Where to start... First of all, cross-platform development isn't easy in Java unless you don't care that you UI is completely wrong. It's significantly easier in, say, RealBasic because RB has native controls and a very well-done UI layout tool.

    I don't judge my world based on "fringey", so I can't imagine how you think that that's even a factor. Since Sun bought their non-fringe status with a huge marketing budget and shoving their logo on everything, I'm guessing it doesn't really matter.

    People diss Java because it produces shitty GUI apps, that's all. I have nothing against Java as a lnguage, or running a server.

    Web-based Mozilla products run fine on IE. Unless your complaining that Firefox doesn't run in IE somehow, I don't see your point there.

    No right-minded person is dissing Javascript. It has quirks, like everything, but for the role it was designed for, it's excellent. Arguably the web is "outgrowing" Jabascript, but that isn't Jabascripts fault. As fat as embedded goes, you have JS, VBA, and Lua. Which would you prefer?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Jabascripts
     

    lol jabbascript

     @blakeyrat said:

    Arguably the web is "outgrowing" Jabascript

    As I understand it, Chrome has a bytecode compiler for JS, similar to the JVM, which gives it the fucking fastest JS engine there is.* Also, a few years ago Mozilla thought up some really nice updates to the Javascript language... that nobody bothered to implement.

     

    *) but do have to say that if your JS webpaeg is so damn heavy that it requires a specialised next-gen hyperlightning engine, I think your paeg has too much fucking javascript.



  • @tharpa said:

    On the subject of Mozilla, I'm reminded of how the WTF community is always dissing JavaScript.  Mozilla products (like Firefox) are written mostly in JavaScript/EcmaScript!   There's C++ at the core, but most of the codebase is JavaScript.
    We diss JavaScript not because it's a bad language -- it's not, really -- but because of how the collective JavaScript experience exists at present.  The schism between different browsers and the plethura of bad code floating around has made it an ugly minefield.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @rad131304 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    There's also Filemaker, if you're writing Access-like database front-ends.

    TRWTF - actually wanting anything to be like Access.

    Access is fine as a database front-end, it's just shitty as a database server. You can certainly write non-WTF apps in Access, so long as they talk to a real DB server.

     

    But if you're not using Access as your backend, then why would you use Access as your front end?  These days, it's incredibly easy to write a simple front end in whatever language you prefer, especially if you're using .NET, which has built-in controls for just about anything you'd want to do in Access. 

     The only purpose Access has in life is for writing trivial database apps that don't warrant a full-blown DB Server.  IMHO, if you've spent more than an hour designing your data model, you need to be using something else. Before my current job in the private sector (thank God), I had spent 3 years in the consulting industry.  During my time there I saw consultants trying to cram Access into so many gawd-awful situations that it made me want to vomit. 

     I have 100 other consult-related rants, but I'll leave the soapbox in the closet for the time being. 



  • @bstorer said:

    We diss JavaScript not because it's a bad language -- it's not, really -- but because of how the collective JavaScript experience exists at present.  The schism between different browsers and the plethura of bad code floating around has made it an ugly minefield.
    What bstorer said.

     

    I personally have an irrational love for JavaScript.

    Don't ask me to explain it, it's irrational. Even with the whole to-set-the-prototype-put-it-as-a-property-of-the-constructor model.

    Lua seems to have made a similar, yet better object model with their explicit metatables.

     

    Just last night I was reminiscing about one of my first projects which involved JavaScript, when I was still in college.

    We didn't know JavaScript had the concept of objects, so we structured our data using something like this:

     

    function getValue(container, obj, valueName){
    return eval(container + '_' + obj + '_' + valueName);
    }
    function setValue(container, obj, valueName, value){
    return eval(container + '_' + obj + '_' + valueName + ' = ' + value);
    }
    We had one of the highest grades, on that project, 17 (out of 20)


  • @Zecc said:

    @bstorer said:
    We diss JavaScript not because it's a bad language -- it's not, really -- but because of how the collective JavaScript experience exists at present.  The schism between different browsers and the plethura of bad code floating around has made it an ugly minefield.
    What bstorer said.
    So you agree that "plethora" should be misspelled, too?



  • @Stubb063 said:

    These days, it's incredibly easy to write a simple front end in whatever language you prefer, especially if you're using .NET, which has built-in controls for just about anything you'd want to do in Access. 
     

    That's true, but it also doesn't change the fact that Access is also good at that.

    @Stubb063 said:

    The only purpose Access has in life is for writing trivial database apps that don't warrant a full-blown DB Server.

    There's no such thing as a multi-user database application that doesn't warrant a full-blown DB server. You can install MySQL or SQL Server Express on some junk hardware you have sitting around for free.

    The only time I'd recommend using the internal Access DB is if you're building a single-user application. But even then, single-user applications have a tendancy to grow into multi-user applications over time, so I'd still probably not recommend that.

    Filemaker, on the other hand, is much more robust.



  • @dhromed said:

    lol jabbascript
     

    Wow. Not only does the iPhone dictionary not include "javascript", but I managed to typo that in the exact same way multiple times. Awesome.

    @dhromed said:

    Also, a few years ago Mozilla thought up some really nice updates to the Javascript language... that nobody bothered to implement.

    Mark me down as a Javascript fan, but frankly, all I think it really needs is a namespace system and a sensible way to include files to become a stand-alone language. Obviously, it's lacking libraries, but it would be pretty trivial to write interfaces to the C# or Java libraries.

    But the real point is that Javascript's designed to be an embeddable scripting language, like Lua or VBScript. For some reason people give Lua a pass on the same issues they criticize Javascript for, because there's this weird perception somehow that Javascript is supposed to be as complete as C++. It's not, it never was.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Zecc said:

    @bstorer said:
    We diss JavaScript not because it's a bad language -- it's not, really -- but because of how the collective JavaScript experience exists at present.  The schism between different browsers and the plethura of bad code floating around has made it an ugly minefield.
    What bstorer said.
    So you agree that "plethora" should be misspelled, too?

    Look at that! I didn't finish my sentence. Let me fix that:@Zecc said:
    What bstorer said has a typo.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There's no such thing as a multi-user database application that doesn't warrant a full-blown DB server. You can install MySQL or SQL Server Express on some junk hardware you have sitting around for free.
    Bullshit.  Most, if not all, applications should use Excel and ODBC.  Anything more is just a waste!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Mark me down as a Javascript fan, but frankly, all I think it really needs is a namespace system and a sensible way to include files to become a stand-alone language. Obviously, it's lacking libraries, but it would be pretty trivial to write interfaces to the C# or Java libraries.
    I'm hoping (!== expecting) for the CommonJS project to actually attain some results and/or for a LLVM-based implementation to come up (just because).



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I have nothing against Java as a lnguage, or running a server.

    I do.  Java is a creaky, inflexible, anal-retentive language that is a fucking pain in the ass to work with.

     

    @blakeyrat said:

    No right-minded person is dissing Javascript. It has quirks, like everything, but for the role it was designed for, it's excellent. Arguably the web is "outgrowing" Jabascript, but that isn't Jabascripts fault. As fat as embedded goes, you have JS, VBA, and Lua. Which would you prefer?

    I love Javascript as a language, but I hate using it to make web apps.  DOM is just a fucking mess.  And, really, the core concept of building applications in styled markup is retarded.



  • @dhromed said:

    As I understand it, Chrome has a bytecode compiler for JS, similar to the JVM, which gives it the fucking fastest JS engine there is.*

    Yes, but Mozilla has one too.  And it's technically a JIT compiler, although I think at least Mozilla's is a tracing JIT compiler which would make me hard because it is super rad.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Yes, but Mozilla has one too.  And it's technically a JIT compiler, although I think at least Mozilla's is a tracing JIT compiler which would make me hard because it is super rad.
    The current version is a tracing JIT engine, yes; the next version of the Mozilla JavaScript engine (JaegerMonkey) combines that with method-based JIT too, which is what V8 and Nitro use.



  • @snover said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Yes, but Mozilla has one too.  And it's technically a JIT compiler, although I think at least Mozilla's is a tracing JIT compiler which would make me hard because it is super rad.
    The current version is a tracing JIT engine, yes; the next version of the Mozilla JavaScript engine (JaegerMonkey) combines that with method-based JIT too, which is what V8 and Nitro use.

    Ah, I didn't know TraceMonkey was tracing-only.  Yeah, but I was pretty sure it had been released, I'd just heard about it for so long and haven't kept up on Javascript engines lately so I wasn't 100% sure.  Plus, I'm way too lazy to Google it.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @dhromed said:
    lol jabbascript
    Wow. Not only does the iPhone dictionary not include "javascript", but I
    managed to typo that in the exact same way multiple times. Awesome.
    Perhaps the thesaurus on there has attained AI capabilities and doesn't spellcheck the obvious candidates?



  • @dhromed said:

    A few years back I also tried this editor called "jEdit".
    Is this a "worst Java IDE" contest now, because I submit to you, BlueJ.  Back when I used it for one night, I could only edit one file at a time, and it only gave me the first compile error.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @tharpa said:

    What's the alternative?  I do .NET programming for Windows, but I wouldn't even know how to write a .NET application that ran on all platforms.
     

    Well, nothing runs on *all* platforms, Java itself doesn't run on all platforms, so sooner or later you're going to need to cull down the list a bit.

    If you're interested in desktop platforms, like in a corporate environment, take a look at RealBasic, which is a modernized Visual Basic-like environment that cross-compiles to Windows, Mac and Linux-- those are the three platforms that really matter. It talks to most, if not all, major database back-ends. And RealBasic UIs actually look and work natively. I wouldn't recommend RealBasic for anything that you're planning to sell 20 million copies of, but if you're writing RAD-type internal corporate applications it's great.

    There's also Filemaker, if you're writing Access-like database front-ends. It definitely runs on Windows and Mac, but I'm not sure about Linux.

    And Runtime Revolution, although I really have no experience with it. It also does Windows, Mac, Linux.

    If you're talking about mobile platforms, then you're kind of sunk at the moment. There's no way Apple's going to open theirs up to anything but Obj-C from a Mac, and Android phones don't run Mono so you can't port your C# apps to them. At the moment, your best choice in mobile is *probably* Java, but even then it won't run on an iPhone.

    (Insert obligatory rant about people complaining about lack of alternatives who apparently never bothered to look for any.)

    There are plenty of C/C++ toolkits for writing cross-platform GUI apps.  Really, I'd imagine most people want to work on Windows and Mac (Linux people can just run it in wine or a VM, screw 'em).  That's really not that hard and certainly doesn't require something hideous like Java.

    Qt is one of 'em. You can do most of the GUI stuff with that, and well C/C++ is pretty much portable; of course you need to use different system calls when porting to Windows. (Mac OS X is really BSD under the hood.)

    On mobile phones, Java is the only solution for multi-platform apps. The iPhone doesn't support Java because of Jobs' love for locked-in iPhones, and supporting Java would mean that you would be able to have Java apps downloaded from some place other than the App Store. But every other phone other than the iPhone supports MIDP, so it can be safely assumed that Java is available in 99% of the mobile models.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    Really, I'd imagine most people want to work on Windows and Mac (Linux people
    can just run it in wine or a VM, screw 'em).
    From my (admittedly little, on cow-orker's machines) experience, isn't the latest FruitOS simply Linux under the hood? (+/- a few licen[s|c]es)


    And on the subject of VM's - for the few bits and pieces that I absolutely need GameOS for at work (mainly Visio,) VirtualBox suffices. I tried VMWare but gave up on it for some reason I'm failing to remember - I know when I started the job I wouldn't use anything but VMWare but can't remember why I switched. <shrug>



  • @PJH said:

    From my (admittedly little, on cow-orker's machines) experience, isn't the latest FruitOS simply Linux under the hood? (+/- a few licen[s|c]es)

    That was me, btw, not danix.  And, nope.  Both are Unix, but OS X uses a heavily-modified Mach kernel with heavily-modified BSD stack on top.  Linux uses the Linux kernel with GNU stack (usually).  The biggest difference is the GUI.  OS X uses a home-grown GUI with all sorts of fanciness, Linux usually comes with X and some crap like KDE or GNOME on top of that.  For CLI apps, if you code to POSIX standards most stuff can be compiled to work on either OS X or Linux.  For GUI, X and OS X have completely different APIs, libraries, etc..



  • @PJH said:

    FruitOS
     

    hu wha?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    ]@dhromed said:

    @PJH said:

    FruitOS
     

    hu wha?

    You not seen that before?



  • @PJH said:

    You not seen that before?
     

    I haven't.



  •  @bstorer said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @PSWorx said:

    Well, there are positive examples, like Eclipse (at least after it dragged itself to finally finish loading). I agree however, you have to try really hard to produce a non-shitty UI with java.
     

    I have to admit I'm pretty ignorant of Eclipse. Mostly because I refuse to install Java on my computer after it got a virus from the Java plug-in a few months ago. It might be great, I dunno.

    Eclipse has a pretty solid UI, other than the hellishly awful configuration dialog.  Still, it makes my head hurt just thinking about trying to create such something like Eclipse in Java.  I'm not sure why Sun programmed Java's layout managers to feel hate, but I can only assume it's part of their vast plan to punish Java developers.

    On a related note, why does Netbeans look vaguely like a children's toy?

    The reason Eclipse looks so good is because it uses the SWT library for the UI.  Azerus uses SWT as well.  As far as programming, SWT is generally as easy to work with as Swing, if not easier.

    handlesBut, more importantly than SWT, is the Eclipse RCP framework.  This is the framework that handles everything from menus, dialogs, toolbars, views, editors, and progress panels all the way to file management, resource loading, plugin support, task queuing, and a lot more.  This framework is extremely easy to work with and make creating good Java UI's very painless.



  • @bstorer said:

    On a related note, why does Netbeans look vaguely like a children's toy?

    Looks like a pretty bad-ass children's toy to me.



  • @uberfoo said:

    The reason Eclipse looks so good is because it uses the SWT library for the UI.  Azerus uses SWT as well.  As far as programming, SWT is generally as easy to work with as Swing, if not easier.
     

    Nobody cares about how easy it is to program, what people care about is whether the program works natively or not. The fact that you're arguing "each to work with" in this thread as if it were relevant says... well... it says a lot about the kind of people who choose Java to make GUI apps. (Either they simply do not care about the quality of the interface, or they're literally unable to tell a quality interface from a lousy one.)

    Sorry I'm still not bashing Eclipse specifically (although I could bash the shit out of Azureus, I've used that pile of steaming shit before), just commenting on the judgement of UI frameworks by the "easy to work with" criteria.

    @uberfoo said:

    But, more importantly than SWT, is the Eclipse RCP framework.  This is the framework that handles everything from menus, dialogs, toolbars, views, editors, and progress panels all the way to file management, resource loading, plugin support, task queuing, and a lot more.  This framework is extremely easy to work with and make creating good Java UI's very painless.

    How much are they paying you?

    Also, if it makes "good Java UIs" (assuming for a moment that such a beast exists), and Azureus uses it, then how come Azureus' UI sucked so much shit?

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    how come Azureus' UI sucked so much shit
     

    Please qualify and quantify.

    I used XP classic shell when I used Azureus, and it all looked perfectly proper to me.

    I didn't care much for the graphical look of the tabs, but that's all.



  • @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    how come Azureus' UI sucked so much shit
     

    Please qualify and quantify.

    I used XP classic shell when I used Azureus, and it all looked perfectly proper to me.

    I didn't care much for the graphical look of the tabs, but that's all.

     

    Azureus was the only application I ever ran that somehow actually managed to disrupt my display driver.  I'm not kidding - the minute I fired it up, my screen would randomly start going completely black, maybe for just a couple of seconds, maybe for 10 or 20 seconds.  And this would happen at random but steady intervals - again, maybe once every hour or so, maybe several times a minute.

    Originally suspecting a worm, I actually went through all the trouble of reformatting the machine, and of course everything ran fine until I installed and ran Azureus again, at which point the same idiotic behaviour immediately started up again.

    I have no idea what crazy crappy code the developers added to that app but needless to say I didn't use it for very long.



  • @Aaron said:

    Azureus was the only application I ever ran that somehow actually managed to disrupt my display driver.
     

    I'm sorry for your pain.

    I never had any such trouble.

    Would like to have a Guinness?



  • @rad131304 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    There's also Filemaker, if you're writing Access-like database front-ends.

    TRWTF - actually wanting anything to be like Access.

     

    I found FileMaker to be WTFy, but only from a user side. Slow and clunky, non-standard UI, and annoying. Our project management software was in FileMaker, now we switched to a web based service.



  • @Zemm said:

    @rad131304 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    There's also Filemaker, if you're writing Access-like database front-ends.

    TRWTF - actually wanting anything to be like Access.

     

    I found FileMaker to be WTFy, but only from a user side. Slow and clunky, non-standard UI, and annoying. Our project management software was in FileMaker, now we switched to a web based service.

    Like the time I took the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe so I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. Give me five bees for a quarter you'd say. Now where were we, oh ya. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because if the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones....


Log in to reply