September 20, 2012
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:38:32 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> I prefer to communicate in
> complete sentences rather than point-n-grunt.

That's great :)

I like both CLI and GUI, depending on what I'm doing, but that's really good.

September 20, 2012
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 01:15:32AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:38:32 -0700
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> 
> > I prefer to communicate in complete sentences rather than point-n-grunt.
> 
> That's great :)
> 
> I like both CLI and GUI, depending on what I'm doing, but that's really good.

Well, I was being a bit over the top. :-P  GUIs do have their place, such as when you're dealing with, say, 3D CADs or inherently graphical tasks. But IMNSHO, GUIs are overused for tasks that they aren't necessarily the best interface for. I cringe everytime I have to construct an expression (boolean or otherwise) using a hilariously convoluted GUI dialogue with all manner of drop boxes and other assorted widgets---or worse, a deeply-nested set of menus that you have to wade through for every single term in the expression---when I could've just typed out the expression on the keyboard in less than 1/10 of the time it takes to point-n-grunt it out.

Makes me feel like trying to write D code in K&R C, or worse, PHP. :-P (There goes my feeble attempt at bringing this back on topic.)


T

-- 
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners... -- Slashdotter
September 20, 2012
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:05:35 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:11:50 -0400
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I cannot argue that Apple's audio volume isn't too simplistic for its
>> own good.  AIUI, they have two "volumes", one for the ringer, and one
>> for playing audio, games, videos, etc.
>>
>
> There's also a separate one for alarms/alerts:
> http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/12/01/13/user.unaware.that.alarm.going.off.was.his/

This makes sense.  Why would you ever want your alarm clock to "alarm silently"  How would you wake up?  This is another case of someone using the wrong tool for the job (for reminders, use the new reminder feature, or use an appointment with an alert, those obey the silent switch).

And the volume is set by the ringer, it's not a separate volume.  It's just that it doesn't obey the silent switch.  If it did I'd be pissed, because I frequently turn my phone to silent at night, but expect the alarm to wake me up.

> Apple actually thought that was a good idea.

Because it is.

> Plus, my understanding is that one of Apple's explicit design principles
> is that if an user-prompted action is something that's "expected" to
> make a sound (by whatever *Apple* decides is "expected", naturally),
> then to hell with the user's volume setting, it should make a sound
> anyway.

I don't know any examples of sounds that disobey the silent switch except for the "find my iPhone" alert, and the alarm clock, both of which would be quite foolish to have make no sounds.

Really, when you take the silent switch into account, the sound system works adequately for most people.

> It's just unbelievably convoluted, over-engineered, and as far from
> "simple" as could possibly be imagined. Basically, you have "volume up"
> and "volume down", but there's so much damn modality (something Apple
> *loves*, but it almost universally bad for UI design) that they
> work pretty much randomly.

I think you exaggerate.  Just a bit.

>> I think if they simply made the volume buttons control the ringer
>> while locked and not playing music, it would solve the problem.
>>
>
> I very much disagree. Then when you take it out to use it, everything
> will *still* be surprisingly too loud (or quiet). Just not when a call
> comes in...

The ringer volume affects almost all the incidental sounds, the click for keyboard typing, the lock/unlock sounds, alert sounds, alarm volume, etc.  The audio volume affects basically music, video, and game sounds.

>> BTW, a cool feature I didn't know for a long time is if you double
>> tap the home button, your audio controls appear on the lock screen
>> (play/pause, next previous song, and audio volume).  But I think you
>> have to unlock to access ringer volume.
>>
>
> That's good to know (I didn't know).
>
> Unfortunately, it still only eliminates one, maybe two, swipes from an
> already-complex procedure, that on any sensible device would have been
> one step: Reach down into the pocket to adjust the volume.

Well, for music/video, the volume buttons *do* work in locked mode.

>
>>
>> It's more moving parts to break.  I wouldn't like it.  Just my
>> opinion.
>>
>
> How often has anyone ever had a volume POT go bad? I don't think I've
> *ever* even had it happen. It's a solid, well-established technology.

I have had several sound systems where the volume knob started misbehaving, due to corrosion, dust, whatever.  You can hear it mostly when you turn the knob, and it has a scratchy sound coming from the speakers.

>> If you want to develop for only jailbroken phones, you basically
>> alienate most users of iPhone.  It's not a viable business model
>> IMO.  Yes, it sucks to have to jump through apple's hoops, but having
>> access to millions of users is very much worth it.
>>
>
> No, no, no, I'd jailbreak it for *testing*. Like I said, I'd
> begrudgingly still pay Apple's ransom for publishing, because what
> other realistic option is there?

I wouldn't do that if it were me.  You might find yourself adding features that aren't allowed or available in non-jailbroken phones, and then go to publish, find out your whole design is not feasible.

>> Oh, when you develop apps, it's quite easy to install on the phone,
>> you just click "run" from xcode, selecting your device, you don't
>> ever have to start itunes (though itunes will auto-start every time
>> you plug in the phone, but you can disable this in itunes, more
>> annoying is that iPhoto *always* starts, I can't figure out how to
>> stop that).  From then on, the app is installed.  The issue is
>> setting up all the certificates via xcode and their web portal to get
>> that to work (should only have to do this once).  I think the process
>> has streamlined a bit, you used to have to create an app id for each
>> app and select which devices were authorized to install it.  Now I
>> think you get a wildcard app id, but you still have to register each
>> device.
>>
>
> I don't use a mac, and I never will again. I spent about a year or two
> with OSX last decade and I'll never go back for *any* reason. Liked it
> at first, but the more I used it the more I hated it.

It's a required thing for iOS development :)  I have recently experienced the exact opposite.  I love my mac, and I would never go back to Windows.  Mac + VMWare fusion for running XP and Linux is fucking awesome.

> Fortunately, I'm developing with Marmalade, so I don't have to even
> have a mac at all (not only that, I don't need to touch any Objective-C,
> either). Now that I've actually had some sleep, ;), I remember now that
> since Marmalade's deployment tool can code-sign (assuming you paid the
> ransom for Apple's dev cert) and install direct to the device, so
> you're right, I don't need iTunes after all.

I recently learned objective C, and I'd hate to use it without xcode, which is a fantastic IDE.  Obj-C is extremely verbose, so without auto-complete, it would be torturous.

>> 3gs (released june 2009) was still being sold last month, and it is
>> getting ios 6 upgrade.  I still have mine and develop with it.
>>
>
> That's fairly uncharacteristic for Apple though. And it's still only 3
> years, that's not much anyway. Yea, for phones it's *considered* a lot,
> but that's coming from a world where people *expect* you to go throwing
> away your "old" expensive devices the moment your lock-in contract
> is up (after only a year or two) so you can immediately jump back into
> more lock-in, which is insane.

I think that model is here to stay, because they have now gone to a model where the two prior generations are available, the previous at half price, and the one two generations back for free (subsidized of course).  Given that the release cycle is about once per year, this also means that the one 3 generations back will be supported for at least a year (it would be shit if you got a 3gs, and then when the 5 comes out 2 months later, it's not supported).  This is why iOS 6 is on 3gs, but not on the iPad 1 (which was released more recently, but has not been sold for a while).

>> My wife and I have been very careful with ours, but I do see a lot
>> with cracked screens.  Interesting thing is they still seem to work!
>> I don't think a cracked/broken screen would ever work with a
>> palm-style touch screen.
>>
>
> Palm screens were better protected anyway, in various ways. And I never
> saw a busted one (though I don't doubt they existed).

The *screen* wasn't broken, it's just the plastic starts deteriorating.  Jobs famously had an early iPhone prototype with a plastic screen and pulled it out at a designer meeting and yelled at them saying "this fucking thing is in with my keys, it's getting all scratched up!  we need something better."  That's when they started thinking about using the glass screens.

Hate him if you want, but he definitely has revolutionized mobile technology.

> Although I did have a scare on my Palm once, when I noticed the
> touchscreen and all buttons were unresponsive. After a special
> trip home from work to get it on the charger (and hopefully sync it), I
> realized what had happened: Turned out that when I had been playing
> with the screen protector earlier, I'd managed to wedge the corner in
> between the screen and the casing, so it was registering that as one
> loooong tap. That was kinda embarrassing :)

hehe :)

My kids often say the iPad isn't working, and then I have to point out they are holding it with their thumb on the screen.  At least those problems are easy to fix :)

-Steve
September 20, 2012
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:46:00 -0400
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:05:35 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:11:50 -0400
> > "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I cannot argue that Apple's audio volume isn't too simplistic for its own good.  AIUI, they have two "volumes", one for the ringer, and one for playing audio, games, videos, etc.
> >>
> >
> > There's also a separate one for alarms/alerts: http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/12/01/13/user.unaware.that.alarm.going.off.was.his/
> 
> This makes sense.  Why would you ever want your alarm clock to "alarm silently"

I don't carry around my alarm clock everywhere I go.

Aside from that, if it happens to be set wrong, I damn sure don't want it going off in a library, in a meeting, at the front row of a show, etc.

> How would you wake up?

By using a real alarm clock?

Besides, we can trivially both have our own ways thanks to the simple invention of "options". Unfortunately, Apple apparently seems to think somebody's got that patented or something.

> This is another case of
> someone using the wrong tool for the job

Apparently so ;)

> 
> I don't know any examples of sounds that disobey the silent switch

There is no silent switch. The switch only affects *some* sounds, and I'm not interested in memorizing which ones just so I can try to avoid the others.

The only "silent switch" is the one I use: Just leave the fucking thing in the car.

> except for the "find my iPhone" alert,

That's about the only one that actually does make any sense at all.

> > It's just unbelievably convoluted, over-engineered, and as far from "simple" as could possibly be imagined. Basically, you have "volume up" and "volume down", but there's so much damn modality (something Apple *loves*, but it almost universally bad for UI design) that they work pretty much randomly.
> 
> I think you exaggerate.  Just a bit.
> 

Not really (and note I said "pretty much randomly" not "truly
randomly").

Try listing out all the different volume rules (that you're *aware* of - who knows what other hidden quirks there might be), all together, and I think you may be surprised just how much complexity there is.

Then compare that to, for example, a walkman or other portable music player (iTouch doesn't count, it's a PDA) which is 100% predictable and trivially simple right from day one. You never even have to think about it, the volume **just works**, period. The fact that the ijunk has various other uses besides music is immaterial: It could have been simple and easy and worked well, and they instead chose to make it complex.

Not only that, but it would have been trivial to just offer an *option* to turn that "smart" junk off. But then allowing a user to configure their own property to their own liking just wouldn't be very "Apple", now would it?

> >> BTW, a cool feature I didn't know for a long time is if you double tap the home button, your audio controls appear on the lock screen (play/pause, next previous song, and audio volume).  But I think you have to unlock to access ringer volume.
> >>
> >
> > That's good to know (I didn't know).
> >
> > Unfortunately, it still only eliminates one, maybe two, swipes from an already-complex procedure, that on any sensible device would have been one step: Reach down into the pocket to adjust the volume.
> 
> Well, for music/video, the volume buttons *do* work in locked mode.
> 

More complexity and modality! Great.

> >
> > How often has anyone ever had a volume POT go bad? I don't think I've *ever* even had it happen. It's a solid, well-established technology.
> 
> I have had several sound systems where the volume knob started misbehaving, due to corrosion, dust, whatever.  You can hear it mostly when you turn the knob, and it has a scratchy sound coming from the speakers.
> 

Was that before or after the "three year old" mark?

> >
> > I don't use a mac, and I never will again. I spent about a year or two with OSX last decade and I'll never go back for *any* reason. Liked it at first, but the more I used it the more I hated it.
> 
> It's a required thing for iOS development :)

Uhh, like I said, it *isn't*. I've *already* built an iOS package on my Win machine (again, using Marmalade, although I'd guess Corona and Unity are likely the same story), which a co-worker has *already* successfully run on his jailbroken iTouches and iPhone.

And the *only* reason they needed to be jailbroken is because we haven't yet paid Apple's ransom for a signing certificate. Once we have that, I can sign the .ipa right here on Win with Marmalade's deployment tool.

The *only* thing unfortunately missing without a mac is submission to the Big Brother store.

> I have recently
> experienced the exact opposite.  I love my mac, and I would never go
> back to Windows.

Not trying to "convert" you, just FWIW:

You might like Win7. It's very Mac-like out-of-the-box which is exactly why I hate it ;)

> Mac + VMWare fusion for running XP and Linux is
> fucking awesome.
> 

Virtualization is indeed awesome :) Personally I prefer VirtualBox
though. (Although I worry about it now being under the roof of Oracle.)

> 
> I recently learned objective C, and I'd hate to use it without xcode, which is a fantastic IDE.  Obj-C is extremely verbose, so without auto-complete, it would be torturous.
> 

Hmm, I'm glad I don't have to deal with Obj-C then. Sounds like the Java development philosophy. Not that C++ is all that great either, but at least I already know it :/

> 
> The *screen* wasn't broken, it's just the plastic starts deteriorating. Jobs famously had an early iPhone prototype with a plastic screen and pulled it out at a designer meeting and yelled at them saying "this fucking thing is in with my keys, it's getting all scratched up!  we need something better."  That's when they started thinking about using the glass screens.
> 

Yea, he never did grow up, did he? Still throwing tantrums all the way up to, what was he, like 60?

And he never did learn about such things as "covers", did he?

> Hate him if you want, but he definitely has revolutionized mobile technology.
> 

Eh, "revolutionize" is definitely not the word I would use...

> 
> My kids often say the iPad isn't working, and then I have to point out they are holding it with their thumb on the screen.  At least those problems are easy to fix :)
> 

Heh :)

September 20, 2012
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:29:11 -0700
Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
> I tend to snicker at companies that insist they only hire the top 1%. It seems that about 90% of the engineers out there must be in that top 1% <g>.
> 

I bet that's marketing-speak for "Our applicant-to-hire ratio is 100:1, and naturally we pick the one we like best instead of the one we like least."

(Either that or it's just a claim pulled right out of their ass.)

September 21, 2012
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:16:14 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:46:00 -0400
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:05:35 -0400, Nick Sabalausky
>> <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
>>
>> > There's also a separate one for alarms/alerts:
>> >  
>> http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/12/01/13/user.unaware.that.alarm.going.off.was.his/
>>
>> This makes sense.  Why would you ever want your alarm clock to
>> "alarm silently"
>
> I don't carry around my alarm clock everywhere I go.

You don't have to use it as an alarm clock.  An alarm clock is for waking you up.  Why would you set it to wake you up in a music performance?

> Aside from that, if it happens to be set wrong, I damn sure don't want
> it going off in a library, in a meeting, at the front row of a show,
> etc.

Can't help you there :)  It's *really* hard to set it wrong (just try it).

Besides, it doesn't sound like that person was using the right tool for the job.  If he's awake at that time, he's using it as a reminder, for which the reminders app is better suited.

>
>> How would you wake up?
>
> By using a real alarm clock?

What if you don't have one?  You are camping, sleeping on the couch at a friends house, etc.

> Besides, we can trivially both have our own ways thanks to the simple
> invention of "options". Unfortunately, Apple apparently seems to think
> somebody's got that patented or something.

Huh?  Just don't use it as an alarm clock?  Why do you need an option to prevent you from doing that?

>> I don't know any examples of sounds that disobey the silent switch
>
> There is no silent switch. The switch only affects *some* sounds, and
> I'm not interested in memorizing which ones just so I can try to avoid
> the others.

s/some/nearly all

Again, I gave you the *two* incidental sounds it doesn't affect.  Sorry you can't be bothered to learn them.

> The only "silent switch" is the one I use: Just leave the fucking thing
> in the car.

That works too, but doesn't warrant rants about how you haven't learned how to use the fucking thing :)

>> > It's just unbelievably convoluted, over-engineered, and as far from
>> > "simple" as could possibly be imagined. Basically, you have "volume
>> > up" and "volume down", but there's so much damn modality (something
>> > Apple *loves*, but it almost universally bad for UI design) that
>> > they work pretty much randomly.
>>
>> I think you exaggerate.  Just a bit.
>>
>
> Not really (and note I said "pretty much randomly" not "truly
> randomly").
>
> Try listing out all the different volume rules (that you're *aware* of -
> who knows what other hidden quirks there might be), all together, and I
> think you may be surprised just how much complexity there is.

1. ringer volume affects all sounds except for music/video/games
2. Silent switch will ringer volume to 0 for all sounds except for find-my-iphone and alarm clock
3. If playing a game/video/music, the volume buttons affect that volume, otherwise, they affect ringer volume.

Wow, you are right, three whole rules.  That's way more than 1.  I stand corrected :)

> Then compare that to, for example, a walkman or other portable music
> player (iTouch doesn't count, it's a PDA) which is 100% predictable and
> trivially simple right from day one. You never even have to think about
> it, the volume **just works**, period. The fact that the ijunk has
> various other uses besides music is immaterial: It could have been
> simple and easy and worked well, and they instead chose to make it
> complex.
>
> Not only that, but it would have been trivial to just offer an *option*
> to turn that "smart" junk off. But then allowing a user to configure
> their own property to their own liking just wouldn't be very "Apple",
> now would it?

I detect a possible prejudice against Apple here :)

>> Well, for music/video, the volume buttons *do* work in locked mode.
>>
>
> More complexity and modality! Great.

This is the one thing I agree with you on -- the volume buttons should just work in locked mode, following the rules of when the phone is not locked.  I can't envision how the volume buttons would accidentally get pressed.

>> > How often has anyone ever had a volume POT go bad? I don't think
>> > I've *ever* even had it happen. It's a solid, well-established
>> > technology.
>>
>> I have had several sound systems where the volume knob started
>> misbehaving, due to corrosion, dust, whatever.  You can hear it
>> mostly when you turn the knob, and it has a scratchy sound coming
>> from the speakers.
>>
>
> Was that before or after the "three year old" mark?

Not sure.  I don't have any of these things anymore :)  POTs aren't used very much any more.

>
> The *only* thing unfortunately missing without a mac is submission to
> the Big Brother store.
>
>> I have recently
>> experienced the exact opposite.  I love my mac, and I would never go
>> back to Windows.
>
> Not trying to "convert" you, just FWIW:
>
> You might like Win7. It's very Mac-like out-of-the-box which is exactly
> why I hate it ;)

No, it's nowhere near the same level.  I have Win 7, had it from the day of its release, and while it's WAY better than XP, I'd drop it in a heartbeat if it wasn't so damn expensive to buy an iMac.

For instance, when I want to turn my Mac off, I press the power button, shut down, and when it comes back up, all the applications I was running return in exactly the same state they were in.  This is not hibernation, it's a complete shutdown.  Every app has built in it, the ability to restore its state.  This is because it's one of the things Mac users expect.

You can't do that with Windows or even Linux.  Ubuntu has tried to make their UI more mac like, but because the applications are not built to handle the features, it doesn't quite work right.

>> Mac + VMWare fusion for running XP and Linux is
>> fucking awesome.
>>
>
> Virtualization is indeed awesome :) Personally I prefer VirtualBox
> though. (Although I worry about it now being under the roof of Oracle.)

VMWare fusion was $50, and runs XP apps just like they were native ones (even gives you a searchable start menu).

I actually was forced to use VMWare fusion, because a development project I'm working on includes a VMWare Linux image with the correct SDK/cross compiler.  So I didn't really shop around for other VM solutions.

>> I recently learned objective C, and I'd hate to use it without
>> xcode, which is a fantastic IDE.  Obj-C is extremely verbose, so
>> without auto-complete, it would be torturous.
>>
>
> Hmm, I'm glad I don't have to deal with Obj-C then. Sounds like the Java
> development philosophy. Not that C++ is all that great either, but at
> least I already know it :/

Objective C isn't actually terrible, I much prefer it to C++.  But if I had to develop it without an IDE, I would hate it.  And xcode is very very good at helping you develop with it.

I haven't used xcode for anything else, so I'm not sure how good an IDE it is for other languages.

It's git integration is very good too, especially for viewing differences.

>> The *screen* wasn't broken, it's just the plastic starts
>> deteriorating. Jobs famously had an early iPhone prototype with a
>> plastic screen and pulled it out at a designer meeting and yelled at
>> them saying "this fucking thing is in with my keys, it's getting all
>> scratched up!  we need something better."  That's when they started
>> thinking about using the glass screens.
>>
>
> Yea, he never did grow up, did he? Still throwing tantrums all the way
> up to, what was he, like 60?
>
> And he never did learn about such things as "covers", did he?

Interesting that's what you see as the defining point of that story :)  Especially considering your calm, controlled statements about Apple products...

-Steve
September 21, 2012
On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 21:15:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:46:00 -0400
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:05:35 -0400, Nick Sabalausky  <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:11:50 -0400
>> > "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I cannot argue that Apple's audio volume isn't too simplistic for
>> >> its own good.  AIUI, they have two "volumes", one for the ringer,
>> >> and one for playing audio, games, videos, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There's also a separate one for alarms/alerts:
>> > http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/12/01/13/user.unaware.that.alarm.going.off.was.his/
>> 
>> This makes sense.  Why would you ever want your alarm clock to
>> "alarm silently"
>
> I don't carry around my alarm clock everywhere I go.
>
> Aside from that, if it happens to be set wrong, I damn sure don't want
> it going off in a library, in a meeting, at the front row of a show,
> etc.
>
>> How would you wake up?
>
> By using a real alarm clock?
>
> Besides, we can trivially both have our own ways thanks to the simple
> invention of "options". Unfortunately, Apple apparently seems to think
> somebody's got that patented or something.
>
>> This is another case of
>> someone using the wrong tool for the job
>
> Apparently so ;)
>
>> 
>> I don't know any examples of sounds that disobey the silent switch
>
> There is no silent switch. The switch only affects *some* sounds, and
> I'm not interested in memorizing which ones just so I can try to avoid
> the others.
>
> The only "silent switch" is the one I use: Just leave the fucking thing
> in the car.
>
>> except for the "find my iPhone" alert,
>
> That's about the only one that actually does make any sense at all.
>
>> > It's just unbelievably convoluted, over-engineered, and as far from
>> > "simple" as could possibly be imagined. Basically, you have "volume
>> > up" and "volume down", but there's so much damn modality (something
>> > Apple *loves*, but it almost universally bad for UI design) that
>> > they work pretty much randomly.
>> 
>> I think you exaggerate.  Just a bit.
>> 
>
> Not really (and note I said "pretty much randomly" not "truly
> randomly").
>
> Try listing out all the different volume rules (that you're *aware* of -
> who knows what other hidden quirks there might be), all together, and I
> think you may be surprised just how much complexity there is.
>
> Then compare that to, for example, a walkman or other portable music
> player (iTouch doesn't count, it's a PDA) which is 100% predictable and
> trivially simple right from day one. You never even have to think about
> it, the volume **just works**, period. The fact that the ijunk has
> various other uses besides music is immaterial: It could have been
> simple and easy and worked well, and they instead chose to make it
> complex.
>
> Not only that, but it would have been trivial to just offer an *option*
> to turn that "smart" junk off. But then allowing a user to configure
> their own property to their own liking just wouldn't be very "Apple",
> now would it?
>
>> >> BTW, a cool feature I didn't know for a long time is if you double
>> >> tap the home button, your audio controls appear on the lock screen
>> >> (play/pause, next previous song, and audio volume).  But I think
>> >> you have to unlock to access ringer volume.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That's good to know (I didn't know).
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, it still only eliminates one, maybe two, swipes from
>> > an already-complex procedure, that on any sensible device would
>> > have been one step: Reach down into the pocket to adjust the volume.
>> 
>> Well, for music/video, the volume buttons *do* work in locked mode.
>> 
>
> More complexity and modality! Great.
>
>> >
>> > How often has anyone ever had a volume POT go bad? I don't think
>> > I've *ever* even had it happen. It's a solid, well-established
>> > technology.
>> 
>> I have had several sound systems where the volume knob started
>>  misbehaving, due to corrosion, dust, whatever.  You can hear it
>> mostly when you turn the knob, and it has a scratchy sound coming
>> from the speakers.
>> 
>
> Was that before or after the "three year old" mark?
>
>> >
>> > I don't use a mac, and I never will again. I spent about a year or
>> > two with OSX last decade and I'll never go back for *any* reason.
>> > Liked it at first, but the more I used it the more I hated it.
>> 
>> It's a required thing for iOS development :)
>
> Uhh, like I said, it *isn't*. I've *already* built an iOS package on my
> Win machine (again, using Marmalade, although I'd guess Corona and
> Unity are likely the same story), which a co-worker has *already*
> successfully run on his jailbroken iTouches and iPhone.
>
> And the *only* reason they needed to be jailbroken is because we
> haven't yet paid Apple's ransom for a signing certificate. Once we have
> that, I can sign the .ipa right here on Win with Marmalade's deployment
> tool.
>
> The *only* thing unfortunately missing without a mac is submission to
> the Big Brother store.
>
>> I have recently
>> experienced the exact opposite.  I love my mac, and I would never go
>> back to Windows.
>
> Not trying to "convert" you, just FWIW:
>
> You might like Win7. It's very Mac-like out-of-the-box which is exactly
> why I hate it ;)
>
>> Mac + VMWare fusion for running XP and Linux is
>> fucking awesome.
>> 
>
> Virtualization is indeed awesome :) Personally I prefer VirtualBox
> though. (Although I worry about it now being under the roof of Oracle.)
>
>> 
>> I recently learned objective C, and I'd hate to use it without
>> xcode, which is a fantastic IDE.  Obj-C is extremely verbose, so
>> without auto-complete, it would be torturous.
>> 
>
> Hmm, I'm glad I don't have to deal with Obj-C then. Sounds like the Java
> development philosophy. Not that C++ is all that great either, but at
> least I already know it :/


Sorry if this is duplicate, somehow my reply was lost it seems.

In big corporations you spend more time taking care of existing projects in big teams, than developing stuff from scratch.

In these type of environments you learn to appreciate the verbosity of certain programming languages, and keep away from cute hacks.

Specially when you take into consideration the quality of work that many programming drones are capable of.

--
Paulo


September 21, 2012
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:54:21PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote: [...]
> In big corporations you spend more time taking care of existing projects in big teams, than developing stuff from scratch.
> 
> In these type of environments you learn to appreciate the verbosity of certain programming languages, and keep away from cute hacks.

I have to say, this is very true. When I first got my current job, I was appalled at the verbosity of the C code that I had to work with. C code!! Not Java or any of that stuff. My manager told me to try to conform to the (very verbose) style of the code. So I thought, well they're paying me to do this, so I'll shut up and cope.

After a few years, I started to like the verbosity (which is saying a lot from a person like me -- I used to code with 2-space indents), because it makes it so darned easy to read, to search, and to spot stupid bugs. Identifier names are predictable, so you could just guess the correct name and you'd be right most of the time. Makes it easy to search for identifier usage in the ~2 million line codebase, because the predictable pattern excludes (almost) all false positives.

However:


> Specially when you take into consideration the quality of work that many programming drones are capable of.
[...]

Yeah, even the verbosity / consistent style of the code didn't prevent people from doing stupid things with the code. Utterly stupid things. My favorite example is a particular case of checking for IPv6 subnets by converting the subnet and IP address to strings and then using string prefix comparison. Another example is a bunch of static functions with identical names and identical contents, copy-n-pasted across like 30 modules (or worse, some copies are imperfect buggy versions).  It makes you wonder if the guy who wrote it even understands what code factorization means. Or "bug fixes" that consists of a whole bunch of useless redundant code to "fix" a problem, that adds all sorts of spurious buggy corner cases to the code and *doesn't actually address the cause of the bug at all*. It boggles the mind how something like that made it through code review.

The saddest thing is that people are paying big bucks for this kind of "enterprise" code. It's one of those things that make me never want to pay for *any* kind of software... why waste the money when you can download the OSS version for free? Yeah a lot of OSS code is crap, but it's not like it's any worse than the crap you pay for.

Sigh.


T

-- 
Маленькие детки - маленькие бедки.
September 21, 2012
On Friday, 21 September 2012 at 19:09:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:54:21PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> [...]
>> In big corporations you spend more time taking care of existing
>> projects in big teams, than developing stuff from scratch.
>> 
>> In these type of environments you learn to appreciate the verbosity
>> of certain programming languages, and keep away from cute hacks.
>
> I have to say, this is very true. When I first got my current job, I was
> appalled at the verbosity of the C code that I had to work with. C
> code!! Not Java or any of that stuff. My manager told me to try to
> conform to the (very verbose) style of the code. So I thought, well
> they're paying me to do this, so I'll shut up and cope.
>
> After a few years, I started to like the verbosity (which is saying a
> lot from a person like me -- I used to code with 2-space indents),
> because it makes it so darned easy to read, to search, and to spot
> stupid bugs. Identifier names are predictable, so you could just guess
> the correct name and you'd be right most of the time. Makes it easy to
> search for identifier usage in the ~2 million line codebase, because the
> predictable pattern excludes (almost) all false positives.
>
> However:
>
>
>> Specially when you take into consideration the quality of work that
>> many programming drones are capable of.
> [...]
>
> Yeah, even the verbosity / consistent style of the code didn't prevent
> people from doing stupid things with the code. Utterly stupid things.
> My favorite example is a particular case of checking for IPv6 subnets by
> converting the subnet and IP address to strings and then using string
> prefix comparison. Another example is a bunch of static functions with
> identical names and identical contents, copy-n-pasted across like 30
> modules (or worse, some copies are imperfect buggy versions).  It makes
> you wonder if the guy who wrote it even understands what code
> factorization means. Or "bug fixes" that consists of a whole bunch of
> useless redundant code to "fix" a problem, that adds all sorts of
> spurious buggy corner cases to the code and *doesn't actually address
> the cause of the bug at all*. It boggles the mind how something like
> that made it through code review.
>
> The saddest thing is that people are paying big bucks for this kind of
> "enterprise" code. It's one of those things that make me never want to
> pay for *any* kind of software... why waste the money when you can
> download the OSS version for free? Yeah a lot of OSS code is crap, but
> it's not like it's any worse than the crap you pay for.
>
> Sigh.
>
>
> T

Welcome to my world. As a Fortune 500 outsourcing consulting company
employee, I see this type of code everyday.

--
Paulo

September 21, 2012
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:24:07 -0400
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> That works too, but doesn't warrant rants about how you haven't learned how to use the fucking thing :)
> 

It's *volume* controls, there doesn't need to be *anything* to learn.

> >
> > Try listing out all the different volume rules (that you're *aware* of - who knows what other hidden quirks there might be), all together, and I think you may be surprised just how much complexity there is.
> 
> 1. ringer volume affects all sounds except for music/video/games
> 2. Silent switch will ringer volume to 0 for all sounds except for
> find-my-iphone and alarm clock
> 3. If playing a game/video/music, the volume buttons affect that
> volume, otherwise, they affect ringer volume.
> 
> Wow, you are right, three whole rules.

And each one with exceptions, the rules as a whole aren't particularly intuitive.

And then there's the question of what rules you forgot. I can think of one right now:

4. If you're in the camera app then the volume button takes a picture instead of adjusting volume.


> That's way more than 1.  I stand corrected :)
> 

Now compare that to a normal device:

1. The volume control adjusts the volume.

Gee, how horrible to have one trivially intuitive rule and no exceptions.

Bottom line, they took something trivial, complicated it, and people hail them as genius visionaries.

> > Then compare that to, for example, a walkman or other portable music player (iTouch doesn't count, it's a PDA) which is 100% predictable and trivially simple right from day one. You never even have to think about it, the volume **just works**, period. The fact that the ijunk has various other uses besides music is immaterial: It could have been simple and easy and worked well, and they instead chose to make it complex.
> >
> > Not only that, but it would have been trivial to just offer an *option* to turn that "smart" junk off. But then allowing a user to configure their own property to their own liking just wouldn't be very "Apple", now would it?
> 
> I detect a possible prejudice against Apple here :)
> 

Heh :) But yea, I *do* take a lot a issue with Apple, partly
because as a business they make MS look like the EFF, but also largely
because I've dealt with their products, and I really *do* find them to
be awful overall.

> >
> > Not trying to "convert" you, just FWIW:
> >
> > You might like Win7. It's very Mac-like out-of-the-box which is exactly why I hate it ;)
> 
> No, it's nowhere near the same level.  I have Win 7, had it from the day of its release, and while it's WAY better than XP,

Heh, yea I had a feeling. Like I said, Win7 is very Mac-like as far as windows goes. I find it interesting that while I absolutely can't stand Win7 (at least without *heavy* non-standard configuring and some hacks), Mac people OTOH tend to see it as a big improvement over XP. It's Microsoft OSX.


> For instance, when I want to turn my Mac off, I press the power button, shut down, and when it comes back up, all the applications I was running return in exactly the same state they were in.  This is not hibernation, it's a complete shutdown.  Every app has built in it, the ability to restore its state.  This is because it's one of the things Mac users expect.
> 
> You can't do that with Windows or even Linux.  Ubuntu has tried to make their UI more mac like, but because the applications are not built to handle the features, it doesn't quite work right.
> 

Well, we can make any OS look good by picking one nice feature.

And personally, I actually like that shutdown serves as a "close all".
There's a number of programs that do have settings for roughly "when
starting, resume wherever I left off last time". I always end up
turning that off because it just means I usually have to close whatever
it auto-opened anyway. When I close/exit/etc something, it's generally
because I'm done with that task. So auto-resumes just get in
my way. OS is the same thing: If it auto-resumed everything, then I
would just have to go closing most of it myself. Makes more work for
me in it's quest to be "helpful".

> >> The *screen* wasn't broken, it's just the plastic starts deteriorating. Jobs famously had an early iPhone prototype with a plastic screen and pulled it out at a designer meeting and yelled at them saying "this fucking thing is in with my keys, it's getting all scratched up!  we need something better."  That's when they started thinking about using the glass screens.
> >>
> >
> > Yea, he never did grow up, did he? Still throwing tantrums all the way up to, what was he, like 60?
> >
> > And he never did learn about such things as "covers", did he?
> 
> Interesting that's what you see as the defining point of that story :)

It's a story that always did stike me as odd: Here we have a grown
man (one who was *well known* to be unstable, asinine, drug-soaked and
frankly, borderline megalomaniacal) that's going around throwing
tantrums, and largely because he doesn't understand "cover" or "case"
or what obviously happens to plastic when you bash keys against it, and
it gets interpreted by millions as "Wow, look how great he was!" I don't
get it.

> Especially considering your calm, controlled statements about Apple products...
> 

Heh, well, like I said my hatred for Apple and Apple products comes from having used them and been around them. I actually *liked* my OSX machine when I first got it. And then it, and the whole Jobs culture, and the way Apple runs their business, successfully turned me against Apple. And now I have this iPhone which, while having even been *useful* when out-of-town when I first got it - due to it essentially being a wirelessly internet-connected PDA - everything else about it just makes me want to smash it into a concrete wall nearly every time I use it. And I've never had that temptation from *any* other device before (hard as that may be to believe ;) )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home