VCL for PHP WTF



  • I couldn't stop thinking "WTF?" when reading the source code of this PHP "RAD" library.

    • Spaghetti code at its best - PHP, HTML, CSS, JS, all mixed up into one monstrous blob
    • heavy use of keyword global, HTTP_SERVER_VARS, while(list() = each())
    • almost no use of access specifiers
    • absolutely no use of class constants, everything is define()d instead

    And lot of touching comments like this:

    //Calls inherited constructor
    parent::__construct($aowner);

    Plus, sourceforge didn't even let me submit a negative review for this! I guess I have no choice but to play their corporate game, then.

    [IMG]http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8830/screencapturegg.png[/IMG]



  • Wow, I dont do much PHP work but even I know when to say WTF?!?!

    Was this some kind of school project or something because I know students who can write better code than this



  • Well, thats the best part :) This is a library that's being shipped with RadPHP XE - a 300$ PHP IDE by Embarcadero.

     http://www.embarcadero.com/products/radphp - frankly, I'm pretty quick to dismiss any web framework that tries to simulate a desktop environment and interaction model over a stateless protocol, but this is just ridiculous.

     EDIT: If anyone else wants to feast his eyes on this monstrosity, be my guest - http://www.qadram.com/vcl4php/vcldoc/index.html.



  • Two comments:

    1) Isn't VCL a furry porn site? Where's Indora?

    2) Any project that uses SourceForge as a repository is crap. If they can tolerate a website of that horrible quality, then you can guarantee the product you're downloading will be at least as ugly, buggy, and unusable as SourceForge itself.



  • @JakubLedl said:

    frankly, I'm pretty quick to dismiss any web framework that tries to simulate a desktop environment and interaction model over a stateless protocol


    So, any thoughts on ASP.NET Webforms?


  • @Shortjob said:

    @JakubLedl said:
    frankly, I'm pretty quick to dismiss any web framework that tries to simulate a desktop environment and interaction model over a stateless protocol

    So, any thoughts on ASP.NET Webforms?

    At least ASP.NET doesn't use crappy PHP.



  • @Shortjob said:

    @JakubLedl said:
    frankly, I'm pretty quick to dismiss any web framework that tries to simulate a desktop environment and interaction model over a stateless protocol


    So, any thoughts on ASP.NET Webforms?

    That's exactly the reason why I prefer ASP.NET MVC over WebForms.



  • @JakubLedl said:

    Well, thats the best part :) This is a library that's being shipped with RadPHP XE - a 300$ PHP IDE by <font size="7">Embarcadero</font>.

    TRWTF is highlighted in the above sentence. This is the company that thought buying Borland was a good idea, remember?

    @blakeyrat said:

    2) Any project that uses SourceForge as a repository is crap. If they can tolerate a website of that horrible quality, then you can guarantee the product you're downloading will be at least as ugly, buggy, and unusable as SourceForge itself.

    What about 7-Zip and TrueCrypt?



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    2) Any project that uses SourceForge as a repository is crap. If they can tolerate a website of that horrible quality, then you can guarantee the product you're downloading will be at least as ugly, buggy, and unusable as SourceForge itself.

    What about 7-Zip and TrueCrypt?

     

    As well as Audacity and god knows what other handy little tool we know and love.



  • @dhromed said:

    @The_Assimilator said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    2) Any project that uses SourceForge as a repository is crap. If they can tolerate a website of that horrible quality, then you can guarantee the product you're downloading will be at least as ugly, buggy, and unusable as SourceForge itself.

    What about 7-Zip and TrueCrypt?

     

    As well as Audacity and god knows what other handy little tool we know and love.

    You can also add PDFCreator and PortableApps to the mix of good projects.  However, agree that the bad/horrible greatly outweigh the good.  I will just put out there http://sourceforge.net/projects/specatateswamp/.  You all can decide which that is an example of.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    2) Any project that uses SourceForge as a repository is crap. If they can tolerate a website of that horrible quality, then you can guarantee the product you're downloading will be at least as ugly, buggy, and unusable as SourceForge itself.

    What about 7-Zip and TrueCrypt?

    Any program that uses anything other than plain-jane, supported-by-every-OS-out-of-the-box-ever, .zip... yes, those are also WTFy. Nothing's more of a pain than seeing some weird mutant .rar file on some site, then having to go waaay out of my way and download some piece of shitware just to get the actual files I wanted.

    Sure you saved, what, 2k over the .zip size? That's a whole 4 milliseconds on my broadband connection. Meanwhile you've wasted 15 minutes finding software, installing it, having it nag me about buying some shit I don't want, uninstalling it, making sure it didn't leave little rabbit droppings around my system etc.

    TrueCrypt I don't know anything about. But if you can't just double-click the file and open it, it's crap.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    TrueCrypt I don't know anything about. But if you can't just double-click the file and open it, it's crap.

    It being an encrypt/decrypt software that create a hidden partitions for transparent encryption I can see how double clicking for opening could be a problem.

    @blakeyrat said:
      Any program that uses anything other than plain-jane, supported-by-every-OS-out-of-the-box-ever, .zip... 

    It support plain zip, among other things but the advantage of the of 7z format is that it also support multi-threading so not only is smaller, is also faster.  There are other stuff that is better at but....



  • @blakeyrat said:

    supported-by-every-OS-out-of-the-box-ever, .zip... yes, those are also WTFy.Sure you saved, what, 2k over the .zip size?
     

    7-zip allows you to specify some advanced compression options that also work for zip.

    I managed to shave something like 20% off a large PSD, while retaining perfect interoperability.

    Also, 7zip is easier to install and use than nagware winzip, and windows doesn't support creating zips, AFAIK (I might be wrong).

    So yeah, there's really no reason not to download 7zip.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    TrueCrypt I don't know anything about. But if you can't just double-click the file and open it, it's crap.

    It being an encrypt/decrypt software that create a hidden partitions for transparent encryption I can see how double clicking for opening could be a problem.

    Are you talking about "tools people use for development?" (ala SourceForge)? Or are you talking about "specific projects that use SourceForge? I think I was confused on my previous reply.

    @serguey123 said:

    @blakeyrat said:
      Any program that uses anything other than plain-jane, supported-by-every-OS-out-of-the-box-ever, .zip... 

    It support plain zip, among other things but the advantage of the of 7z format is that it also support multi-threading so not only is smaller, is also faster.  There are other stuff that is better at but....

    Call me when it's installed on 100% of desktop computers, by default, out-of-the-box. Until then, it could resurrect Mother Theresa and cure cancer, and I'd still yell and curse when I came across a .7zip file that required me to download some piece of shit software to open it.



  • @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    supported-by-every-OS-out-of-the-box-ever, .zip... yes, those are also WTFy.Sure you saved, what, 2k over the .zip size?
     

    7-zip allows you to specify some advanced compression options that also work for zip.

    I managed to shave something like 20% off a large PSD, while retaining perfect interoperability.

    Also, 7zip is easier to install and use than nagware winzip, and windows doesn't support creating zips, AFAIK (I might be wrong).

    So yeah, there's really no reason not to download 7zip.

    I misread the original post; I thought he was talking about using 7zip as a development tool, like people use SourceForge as a development tool.

    In any case, I was talking about usability. Software can be functional, and unusable. (For example, Lotus Notes *does* actually transfer mail from time to time.) Also, software can be usable but non-functional. (For example, half the content of the App Store on iOS.)

    Whether 7zip is usable or not, I'd have to download and take a look. Which I won't do right now because I don't want little rabbit droppings all over my nice clean new OS install. (But I might try it on my laptop later.) But! Being hosted on SourceForge, it's almost certainly shit.

    I use a lot of hyperbole, so let me make it clear: there is almost certainly a few projects on SourceForge that actually give a shit about usability. Probably only because moving to a new service would break links and lose bug tracker items, and I wager the developers of those programs swear and curse every time they have to use that shit site.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    .............

    So I take that this a blanket statement that everything made using SoundForge is shit, regardless of the fact that there are some good apps made there which was the point of the other people posts.

    Hmm,  there are portable versions so they won't mess your pretty little system.

    Most people I know don't use zip nor most of the app that come with windows but to each its own.

    When you really want someone to open compressed file regardless of whatever he/she/it has installed you make it an exe or merge it into a big lump of file making it searchable by SSDS, the biggest, bestest app ever, also on SoundForge.



  • @dhromed said:

    windows doesn't support creating zips, AFAIK (I might be wrong).
     

    Select file(s), right-click --> send to --> compressed file.  At least that's how I do it in Win7.  I think it is different in XP (File --> Create New --> Compressed Folder).  It doesn't give you all the options that a zip utility does, but I rarely need to span multiple zip archives and the like.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    TrueCrypt I don't know anything about. But if you can't just double-click the file and open it, it's crap

    I'd love to get you in the same room as a Linux command-line junkie who thinks GUIs are for pussies and have you duke it out in a seedy underground fighting ring.



  • @toth said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    TrueCrypt I don't know anything about. But if you can't just double-click the file and open it, it's crap

    I'd love to get you in the same room as a Linux command-line junkie who thinks GUIs are for pussies and have you duke it out in a seedy underground fighting ring.

    I've had debates with those people on Slashdot, usually ending in them redefining everything as commandline. I had one tell me FireFox is a commandline app because it has a plugin that adds a script window.



  • @dhromed said:

    Also, 7zip is easier to install and use than nagware winzip, and windows doesn't support creating zips, AFAIK (I might be wrong).

     

    You are.  Ever since XP you can right-click on a direc... urr..  Folder, and select Send To -> Compressed (zipped) Folder.

    Still, that's beside the point.  The point is target audience.
    Something like 99.99% of all (potential) users out there can open standard .zip files, and you can create them just as easily, so why save the 20% if it's wasted in trying to open your file?
    I'd much rather spend several minutes more downloading the file than installing every odd compression/decompression tool people might suddenly want to use.

    That said, I do own a WinRAR license, and WinRAR handles pretty much everything (even .iso  O.o), but I'd never distribute anything but .zip (or .tar.gz for Linux-y stuff).
    Why?  Because it's STANDARD, and standards are good.

     

    [edit]  Dammit, got beat to it while I ranted :-P 



  • @lpope187 said:

    Select file(s), right-click --> send to --> compressed file
     

    will try, thx.



  • @Chewbacca said:

    WinRAR handles pretty much everything (even .iso  O.o)
     

    7z also handles pretty much everything.

    And I'm not sure why you're all O.o about iso, as iso is basically just .zip with 0% compression. If your archiver can't open .iso, then it is shit.



  • @dhromed said:

    And I'm not sure why you're all O.o about iso, as iso is basically just .zip with 0% compression.

    ...which makes it pretty much the same as .tar.



  • @dhromed said:

    7z also handles pretty much everything.

    Yes, but it's not a shareware, therefore it must be shit.

    Admittedly, I think the 7z file manager's UI is a medium fuckup. But I do NOT get people who reward Shareware developers for providing a tool that nags them about buying it while there are free alternatives that are better. I do not fucking get it.



  • @Quietust said:

    ...which makes it pretty much the same as .tar.

    I started to pack sets of already compressed files (like jpg, mp3 etc) with tar because 1) adding another layer of compression doesn't usually help much and 2) it seeds out the idiots who use crappy packer software.



  • @serguey123 said:

    When you really want someone to open compressed file regardless of whatever he/she/it has installed you make it an exe or merge it into a big lump of file making it searchable by SSDS, the biggest, bestest app ever, also on SoundForge.

    Wow, SoundForge sure has come a long way from being just an audio editor. If it can make cross-platform self-extracting executables, I'm really impressed.



  • @Faxmachinen said:

    @serguey123 said:

    When you really want someone to open compressed file regardless of whatever he/she/it has installed you make it an exe or merge it into a big lump of file making it searchable by SSDS, the biggest, bestest app ever, also on SoundForge.

    Wow, SoundForge sure has come a long way from being just an audio editor. If it can make cross-platform self-extracting executables, I'm really impressed.

    Lol, I did not see that, no matter, almost make sense, I was discussing 7zip which is on SourceForge as our forum best app SSDS.  Hmm could we convince SpectateSwamp to add audio editing and file compresing with ramdom ramdom?  Imagine, SSDS would use a ramdom algorithm with a ramdom password, the fact that you could open the file would be a miracle but that is what alien hunting people want.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    supported-by-every-OS-out-of-the-box-ever, .zip... yes, those are also WTFy.Sure you saved, what, 2k over the .zip size?
     

    7-zip allows you to specify some advanced compression options that also work for zip.

    I managed to shave something like 20% off a large PSD, while retaining perfect interoperability.

    Also, 7zip is easier to install and use than nagware winzip, and windows doesn't support creating zips, AFAIK (I might be wrong).

    So yeah, there's really no reason not to download 7zip.

    I misread the original post; I thought he was talking about using 7zip as a development tool, like people use SourceForge as a development tool.

    In any case, I was talking about usability. Software can be functional, and unusable. (For example, Lotus Notes *does* actually transfer mail from time to time.) Also, software can be usable but non-functional. (For example, half the content of the App Store on iOS.)

    Whether 7zip is usable or not, I'd have to download and take a look. Which I won't do right now because I don't want little rabbit droppings all over my nice clean new OS install. (But I might try it on my laptop later.) But! Being hosted on SourceForge, it's almost certainly shit.

    I use a lot of hyperbole, so let me make it clear: there is almost certainly a few projects on SourceForge that actually give a shit about usability. Probably only because moving to a new service would break links and lose bug tracker items, and I wager the developers of those programs swear and curse every time they have to use that shit site.

    You do 7-Zip a great disservice. Not only did Igor Pavlov create his own compression algorithm that beats most others in terms of compression ratio, he released said algorithm into the public domain so everyone can use it. Then he created a small, fast, simple WinForms app capable of using that algorithm. Then he made it able to handle pretty much every other archive format under the sun. Then he integrated it into the Windows shell so that you can right-click-compress anything, without prompting for filenames or anything else. And he has accomplished all of this on his own and without a cent of commercial support.

    7-Zip isn't perfect, but of all the archive utilities I've used over the years - WinZip, WinRAR, IZArc, etc. - it's by far the best. Don't you think you at least owe it to the guy to try his software? Nothing's stopping you from uninstalling if you don't like it.

    @Chewbacca said:

    Why?  Because it's STANDARD, and standards are good.

    There's no good reason to keep something as the standard if something better comes along. The ZIP file format has been around for over 2 decades and isn't going to get much better; 7Z is already better and will continue to improve.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    You do 7-Zip a great disservice. Not only did Igor Pavlov create his own compression algorithm that beats most others in terms of compression ratio, he released said algorithm into the public domain so everyone can use it. Then he created a small, fast, simple WinForms app capable of using that algorithm. Then he made it able to handle pretty much every other archive format under the sun. Then he integrated it into the Windows shell so that you can right-click-compress anything, without prompting for filenames or anything else. And he has accomplished all of this on his own and without a cent of commercial support.

    7-Zip isn't perfect, but of all the archive utilities I've used over the years - WinZip, WinRAR, IZArc, etc. - it's by far the best. Don't you think you at least owe it to the guy to try his software

    No.



  • @dhromed said:

    And I'm not sure why you're all O.o about iso, as iso is basically just .zip with 0% compression.

    Um, what. A ZIP file is an archive, and an ISO file is a filesystem image. IMHO, ISO support in archivers is feature creep.



  • @Spectre said:

    @dhromed said:
    And I'm not sure why you're all O.o about iso, as iso is basically just .zip with 0% compression.
    Um, what. A ZIP file is an archive, and an ISO file is a filesystem image. IMHO, ISO support in archivers is feature creep.

    But the users wanted and what the user want the user get and now you can view the inside of an iso file without tools like winiso,poweriso, magiciso and ssds future version



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Sure you saved, what, 2k over the .zip size?

    [url]http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20100130/enwiki-20100130-pages-meta-history.xml.bz2[/url] — 280.3 GB.
    [url]http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20100130/enwiki-20100130-pages-meta-history.xml.7z[/url] — 31.9 GB.

    Yeah, it's kind of a stretch, and the comparison isn't even against ZIP — but still, pretty impressive.







  • Link for those interested...



  • @lpope187 said:

    @dhromed said:

    windows doesn't support creating zips, AFAIK (I might be wrong).
     

    Select file(s), right-click --> send to --> compressed file.  At least that's how I do it in Win7.  I think it is different in XP (File --> Create New --> Compressed Folder).  It doesn't give you all the options that a zip utility does, but I rarely need to span multiple zip archives and the like.

     

    Also, zip creating in Windows (at least XP) is very very slow. We had to create a ~1.5GB zip file and near the end it was adding one file per about 15 minutes! While that was churning away I downloaded 7-zip (using some methods to get around a block on sourceforge on client's site), installed and zipped up the entire folder structure in the time it took Windows to add one 3KB XML file. This was even using zip format, so Windows could still extract it if required.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Zemm said:

    Also, zip creating in Windows (at least XP) is very very slow. We had to create a ~1.5GB zip file and near the end it was adding one file per about 15 minutes! While that was churning away I downloaded 7-zip (using some methods to get around a block on sourceforge on client's site), installed and zipped up the entire folder structure in the time it took Windows to add one 3KB XML file. This was even using zip format, so Windows could still extract it if required.
    This. The only zip engine worse than the Windows builtin one that I've met is IZArc - which took about 45 seconds to bother doing anything at all (like responding to an Explorer context menu choice). Irony of ironies it was installed alongside 7zip.



  • @Chewbacca said:

    I'd never distribute anything but .zip (or .tar.gz for Linux-y stuff).
    Why?  Because it's STANDARD, and standards are good.

    Zip is only 'standard' (FSVO standard) with small archives. Anything larger, the de facto standard appears to be rar.

    The other thing I was going to say is that for most uses, decompression time is more important than compression time - most archives are extracted multiple times, but only compressed once - but in fact that probably ties directly in to the popularity of rar, because it's not the fastest to build, but very quick to unpack.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    You do 7-Zip a great disservice. Not only did Igor Pavlov create his own compression algorithm that beats most others in terms of compression ratio, he released said algorithm into the public domain so everyone can use it. Then he created a small, fast, simple WinForms app capable of using that algorithm. Then he made it able to handle pretty much every other archive format under the sun. Then he integrated it into the Windows shell so that you can right-click-compress anything, without prompting for filenames or anything else. And he has accomplished all of this on his own and without a cent of commercial support.

    7-Zip isn't perfect, but of all the  standards are good.

    I have tried it in the past and I would have to say it's crap. If you want me to use your program, and you distribute it in something other than .ISO, .ZIP, .RAR, .MSI, .EXE then you're pretty much S.O.L. I pass over anything not in a normal format, and 7-Zip isnt a normal format IMO.

    Just my 2¢



  • 7-zip is awesome.



    Fact: you're going to have to open some shitty-ass RAR or something eventually.



    7-zip understands all formats and is extremely fast.



    I don't know how many times I've had to cancel the default Windows unzipper thingy after waiting for 5 minutes. Then try with 7-zip and it's done in 5 seconds.



    It's actually faster to go get, install, and use 7-zip than to wait for Windows to unzip large archives.



    So shut up.



  • @superjer said:

    So shut up.

    Touche.



  • @PsychoCoder said:

    I pass over anything not in a normal format, and 7-Zip isnt a normal format IMO.

    And that makes it crap?

    Way to have perspective.

     



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    7-Zip isn't perfect, but of all the archive utilities I've used over the years - WinZip, WinRAR, IZArc, etc. - it's by far the best. Don't you think you at least owe it to the guy to try his software? Nothing's stopping you from uninstalling if you don't like it.
    7-zip almost always creates smaller files than competition, and while even it's UI is decent, IMHO WinRAR is still more polished (also, WinRAR can extract .7z archives just fine).

    There's also more and more programs distributed in self-extracting .7z archives, from tiny freeware programs to expensive commercial applications. It helps that 7-zip comes with a SFX module that allows easy creation of such installers.@Spectre said:

    http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20100130/enwiki-20100130-pages-meta-history.xml.bz2 — 280.3 GB.

    http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20100130/enwiki-20100130-pages-meta-history.xml.7z — 31.9 GB.

    Yeah, it's kind of a stretch, and the comparison isn't even against ZIP — but still, pretty impressive.

    BZip2 is pretty terrible - it's bad enough that it started being displaced by XZ (which is based on the LZMA SDK) even before it came out of beta stage.


  • @blakeyrat said:

    @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    supported-by-every-OS-out-of-the-box-ever, .zip... yes, those are also WTFy.Sure you saved, what, 2k over the .zip size?
     

    7-zip allows you to specify some advanced compression options that also work for zip.

    I managed to shave something like 20% off a large PSD, while retaining perfect interoperability.

    Also, 7zip is easier to install and use than nagware winzip, and windows doesn't support creating zips, AFAIK (I might be wrong).

    So yeah, there's really no reason not to download 7zip.

    I misread the original post; I thought he was talking about using 7zip as a development tool, like people use SourceForge as a development tool.

    In any case, I was talking about usability. Software can be functional, and unusable. (For example, Lotus Notes *does* actually transfer mail from time to time.) Also, software can be usable but non-functional. (For example, half the content of the App Store on iOS.)

    Whether 7zip is usable or not, I'd have to download and take a look. Which I won't do right now because I don't want little rabbit droppings all over my nice clean new OS install. (But I might try it on my laptop later.) But! Being hosted on SourceForge, it's almost certainly shit.

    I use a lot of hyperbole, so let me make it clear: there is almost certainly a few projects on SourceForge that actually give a shit about usability. Probably only because moving to a new service would break links and lose bug tracker items, and I wager the developers of those programs swear and curse every time they have to use that shit site.

     

    From reading your postings I gather that if Microsoft doesn't ship it with Microsoft's own peculiar self-proclaimed intuitive interface, it must by definition be crap. In another thread you posted something to the effect that if you were a CS professor you would give what appears to be a perfectly usable, although not XP/Win2000/Vista/Windows 7 look-alike interface, then you'd give it a C-. I wondered, reading that if you are in fact a CS professor and this is the reason there is so much WTFery coming out of  fresh programmers graduating from the universities. Nowhere did you address functionality, nowhere did you address robustness, but by God they underline hot-keys and that's just WRONG.

    If the computing world spent more time on getting the application to work correftly and to have published interfaces allowing inter-operability instead of adding the sort of pointless glitz and freeping-creaturism that plagues the world today, that would be a good thing. I can live with a CLI interface and no GUI quite happily, because it works, it gets the job done, it's easily integrated into larger systems and it's almost invariably more robust that the latest 3D animated bits of silver paper aimed at people with the commons sense of magpies. 



  • @jes said:

     ....people with the commons sense of magpies. 

    That is like 99 % of the world population, so good luck with your market share



  • @jes said:

    From reading your postings I gather that if Microsoft doesn't ship it with Microsoft's own peculiar self-proclaimed intuitive interface, it must by definition be crap.

    Au contraire. I've often praised Firefox, for example, for getting the UI mostly right, and they don't use native controls at all.

    @jes said:

    In another thread you posted something to the effect that if you were a CS professor you would give what appears to be a perfectly usable, although not XP/Win2000/Vista/Windows 7 look-alike interface, then you'd give it a C-.

    If you're building software for Windows, you have to build it FOR Windows. That sounds like a tautology, but apparently it's not since there's people like you who don't get the concept. Your Windows software needs to:

    1) Support all the UI features of Windows, at least at the most basic level. If you use native widgets, you get this for free: handicap accessibility, voice support, touchscreen/tablet support, your UI will scale correctly to non-default DPIs, your widgets will adapt to the user's theme and colors, and you pre-emptively gain support for any future technologies Microsoft may decide to put in the native widgets. In addition, it'll save tons of their time, since it already works and is well-tested. It boggles my mind why anybody would *not* use the standard widgets.

    2) Support all the non-UI features of Windows. This means, sorry open source freaks, but you gotta use the registry. You have to work with Active Directory's Group Policies. You have to store your files in the correct location-- don't put cache files in the Roaming directories! You gotta include a manifest with your app, you gotta sign it with an SSL cert, etc. You aren't required to, but also *should* sign up for the feedback program so Microsoft can help you debug the app when it crashes. You should have a network-deployable MSI installer.

    Anything that doesn't at least make an effort to hit all those bases is no good. Firefox makes a genuine effort, although they still haven't figured out the Group Policy stuff yet, but they make a genuine effort and I praise them for it. GTK+ apps aren't even fucking trying.

    @jes said:

    I wondered, reading that if you are in fact a CS professor and this is the reason there is so much WTFery coming out of  fresh programmers graduating from the universities.

    Nope. In fact, I hate universities-- they are the anti-thesis to practical software development (most of the useless W3C standards came from universities), and they certainly didn't teach anything I found useful in my career. They didn't teach working in a team/soft skills, using source control, using a bug tracking system, they didn't teach usability in any way, shape or form.

    @jes said:

    Nowhere did you address functionality, nowhere did you address robustness, but by God they underline hot-keys and that's just WRONG.

    Functionality isn't enough on its own. Robustness isn't enough on its own. I'm sick and tired of dancing bear-ware, and I'll make every effort to combat it.

    @jes said:

    If the computing world spent more time on getting the application to work correftly and to have published interfaces allowing inter-operability instead of adding the sort of pointless glitz

    Sorry; what part of what I'm advocating is "pointless glitz?" Using native controls? Making the software work correctly on corporate networks? Perhaps signing binaries is "pointless glitz" to you?

    @jes said:

    I can live with a CLI interface and no GUI quite happily, because it works, it gets the job done, it's easily integrated into larger systems and it's almost invariably more robust that the latest 3D animated bits of silver paper aimed at people with the commons sense of magpies.

    For extremely limited definitions of "the job." I see you want to completely cut-off accountants, artists, designers (CAD/CAM), musicians, gamers, etc from the world of computers? I suppose you want to sit in the golden tower, the high priesthood of technology, while your followers beg and plead for you to please project the next 3 quarters of profit, and deliver onto them the green-and-white-striped 14" dot-matrix holy chart?

    The High Priesthood is extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion.

    Now go fuck off so we can get back to the task of writing good, usable software for human beings.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    your UI will scale correctly to non-default DPIs
    Thousands of programs that use native widgets that don't work properly with non-default DPI values disagree with you.@blakeyrat said:
    It boggles my mind why anybody would not use the standard widgets.
    Probably because the program won't work anywhere outside Windows then?@blakeyrat said:
    GTK+ apps aren't even fucking trying.
    Nope, they aren't trying at all - after all, ms-windows-engine (which brings the look of GTK+ applications as close as possible to the native widgets - within the constraints of GTK+) is just a part of my imagination.

    Then again, Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live Mail use the native Windows widgets, and don't stand out from other Windows programs at all, right?



  • @ender said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    It boggles my mind why anybody would not use the standard widgets.
    Probably because the program won't work anywhere outside Windows then?

    You use the native widgets for whatever OS you're running in. Again, I shouldn't have to say this, that wasn't totally fucking obvious to you? Duh?

    @ender said:

    Then again, Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live Mail use the native Windows widgets, and don't stand out from other Windows programs at all, right?

    What does standing out have to do with anything? I certainly never said anything about standing out.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    2) Support all the non-UI features of Windows. This means, sorry open source freaks, but you gotta use the registry. You have to work with Active Directory's Group Policies. You have to store your files in the correct location-- don't put cache files in the Roaming directories! You gotta include a manifest with your app, you gotta sign it with an SSL cert, etc. You aren't required to, but also should sign up for the feedback program so Microsoft can help you debug the app when it crashes. You should have a network-deployable MSI installer.

    Ah yes, group policy. The perfect way to make sure your app is only ever configurable on a large corporate domain and not in home systems* at all.

    I believe this is something Firefox does wrong by reading the "Internet Options" settings and superceeding their own with them. So suddenly, if I want to disable a feature in IE I can't do so without loosing Firefox's corresponding feature.

     

    Also, gamers get ready to flame, but this seems to mean that every game absolutely needs to integrate with Games for Windows Live, right?

     

    * In before "You don't use pirated copies of Win7 Ultimate on every one of your home PCs? ZOMFG!!!!1"



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    The perfect way to make sure your app is only ever configurable on a large corporate domain and not in home systems* at all.

    You're gonna have to explain that one.

    @MiffTheFox said:

    So suddenly, if I want to disable a feature in IE I can't do so without loosing Firefox's corresponding feature.

    Which feature are you talking about?

    @MiffTheFox said:

    Also, gamers get ready to flame, but this seems to mean that every game absolutely needs to integrate with Games for Windows Live, right?

    I'd prefer that, since at least the Games for Windows does QA and testing that most PC game developers utterly fail to do. At least if it has the GfW logo, I know it's not going to crash every 10 minutes.



  • I'm going to speak as one point of view on why those things blakeyrat wants aren't done.
    @blakeyrat said:

    Support all the UI features of Windows, at least at the most basic level. If you use native widgets, you get this for free: handicap accessibility, voice support, touchscreen/tablet support, your UI will scale correctly to non-default DPIs, your widgets will adapt to the user's theme and colors, and you pre-emptively gain support for any future technologies Microsoft may decide to put in the native widgets. In addition, it'll save tons of their time, since it already works and is well-tested. It boggles my mind why anybody would not use the standard widgets.
    Portability. Seriously, FOSS devs usually don't give a shit about Windows, it's either a second or third class OS on the list to port to. It's a bullet point, a simple hurdle to do once, confirm it works for basic things, then it's good to go.
    @blakeyrat said:
    This means, sorry open source freaks, but you gotta use the registry.
    There's very little benefit to doing that from the dev's point of view. That an actually dealing with what's in the registry could be less painful (there's no way to just copy paste a path to see what the value is) so debugging what's in there could require less steps (note: it's competing against double clicking a file and reading the contents, if it's more steps it's not getting done).
    @blakeyrat said:
    You have to work with Active Directory's Group Policies
    More effort than it's worth. What's a sane way to test this? Doing it on a single machine doesn't exactly mean that it'd work right in a domain.
    @blakeyrat said:
    You have to store your files in the correct location-- don't put cache files in the Roaming directories!
    Again a deviation from something simpler, that and MS seems to change those often enough (paths in XP are different from Vista) I don't know about what env-vars point to the correct directories but I do know that the general policy changed significantly enough. (Note: my memory of this is really old, details will be wrong). This is against the general Unix way of having everything the application needs for user settings in a hidden directory in the user's root.
    @blakeyrat said:
    You gotta include a manifest with your app, you gotta sign it with an SSL cert, etc.
    The're giving SSL certs away for free now?
    @blakeyrat said:
    You aren't required to, but also should sign up for the feedback program so Microsoft can help you debug the app when it crashes.
    This isn't something that's been made obvious to me, thus I am assuming it isn't obvious to others who would be porting FOSS applications originally made for *NIX OSen to Windows. Also, is this free?
    @blakeyrat said:
    You should have a network-deployable MSI installer.
    1) Last I heard making MSIs are a bitch, something about saving a complete list of all files and registry settings before hand, doing the install then running the snapshot thing again and comparing the differences. If it's still a bitch, guess what? It's too much effort. 2) How are they going to test network installs?



    I'll reiterate this again because it's important. Windows is a second or third class OS in terms of target for porting. Windows has a bad reputation with FOSS, devs aren't going to go jumping through hoops they don't have to. On top of that it isn't UNIX, which at this point every other target for porting is.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    [quote user="MiffTheFox"]The perfect way to make sure your app is only ever configurable on a large corporate domain and not in home systems* at all.

    You're gonna have to explain that one.
    [/quote]

    Windows (XP/Vista/7) Home (Premium) Edition doesn't have a group policy editor. The only way to change the settings is via directly editing them in the registry. @blakeyrat said:

    [quote user="MiffTheFox"]So suddenly, if I want to disable a feature in IE I can't do so without loosing Firefox's corresponding feature.

    Which feature are you talking about?
    [/quote]

    I seem to recall disabling IE from downloading files until Firefox wouldn't let me download either.

    I don't remember entirely because I upgraded to IE8 and the option seems to be missing.

    @blakeyrat said:

    [quote user="MiffTheFox"]Also, gamers get ready to flame, but this seems to mean that every game absolutely needs to integrate with Games for Windows Live, right?

    I'd prefer that, since at least the Games for Windows does QA and testing that most PC game developers utterly fail to do. At least if it has the GfW logo, I know it's not going to crash every 10 minutes.[/quote]

    Aren't you the same user who complained about having to install additional software to unzip files, but you're perfectly fine with installing the GfW client just to play a game that doesn't even have online multiplayer?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.