Slashdot Mirror
How Microsoft Dropped the Ball With Developers
cremou writes "As part of an Ars Technica series on how one developer migrated from Windows to OS X (and why), this second article concentrates on how Microsoft bungled the transition from XP to Vista. The author looks at some unfortunate decisions Microsoft made that have made Windows an unpleasant development platform. 'So Windows is just a disaster to write programs for. It's miserable. It's quite nice if you want to use the same techniques you learned 15 years ago and not bother to change how you do, well, anything, but for anyone else it's all pain... And it's not just third parties who suffer. It causes trouble for Microsoft, too. The code isn't just inconsistent and ugly on the outside; it's that way on the inside, too. There's a lot of software for Windows, a lot of business-critical software, that's not maintained any more. And that software is usually buggy. It passes bad parameters to API calls, uses memory that it has released, assumes that files live in particular hard-coded locations, all sorts of things that it shouldn't do.'"
Read the article.
Short answer?
Windows!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"It passes bad parameters to API calls, uses memory that it has released, assumes that files live in particular hard-coded locations, all sorts of things that it shouldn't do."
Those are basically programming errors, not problems with the API. Don't get me wrong, I find Win32 to be a pain in the ass sometimes, but this article just reeks of flamebait.
Ad?
What is this "ad" of which you speak? Your words are strange to us, visitor.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The culture of DOS programming was corrupted from the beginning and you can partly blame IBM for a crappy BIOS. Were it not for the crappy BIOS, programmers wouldn't have had to resort to writing directly to hardware to get an acceptable speed on the screen. And it just kept going on from there. And now when a developer wants more "something" from the OS than they can get naturally, they write VxDs to help gain an advantage.
The culture is all about writing code to get past deficiencies and shortcomings in DOS/Windows.
Windows programmers don't respect the rules... and if they do, they write what appears to be crappy software.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
and this has exactly what to do with MS? the coding habits of programmers has NOTHING to do with MS.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I am 'this' close to jumping ship. I use Ubuntu on machines at home and find it fast and clean, even on older hardware.
.Net developer. I don't know that it is that much better on the other side of the fence frankly, at least as far of the coding environments go. But I KNOW for a fact that I prefer linux to Windows.
I have access to all MS software as our MSDN and Gold Certified Partner plan administrator. I have tried Vista on a couple machines. Even on a brand new Dell dual core laptop with 2 gigs of ram, it was sluggish and still could not use the full aero interface. Yet I installed Ubuntu on a 4 year old 600m with 512MB ram and got a full interface with snappy performance.
I don't need aero to develop code. The features I was most interested in all got cut from Vista... most notably the filesystem upgrades. Now add frequent updates to the framework that require $1200 software packages to use to the fullest extent. Then add the insane cost of a legit SQL Server license on which to deploy it. Plus as a domain admin, I find the administration to be a drag. And I still don't trust them for a second on security. It all adds up to a monumental drag.
I am a frustrated
It's quite nice if you want to use the same techniques you learned 15 years ago and not bother to change how you do, well, anything
Apparently the author never heard of vi and gcc on Linux...
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Microsoft has dropped the ball in a number of areas, particularly with regard to user-interface APIs which this article focuses mostly on, but in other ways it is far and away the easiest platform to develop for - mainly because of the quality of their development tools. Having done lots of development across Windows, Mac, and Linux with all kinds of editors, IDEs and debuggers, nothing comes close to Visual Studio in terms of functionality, quality, and just being solid. It's not perfect, but it's way better than anything else out there. For that reason alone Microsoft deserves some kudos from developers.
"how one developer migrated from Windows to OS X"
.NET
That pretty much says it all: "one developer"
The argument about old krufty code in Windows and the Win32 API has been around since.... the Win16 API! It didn't really seem to slow down Win32.
On the flip side is the argument that the need for backwards compatibility is holding back Windows - yet developers complain about the migration from XP to Vista?
All smells like we-will-find-anyway-to-condemn-Windows to me. Note: I do all of my development on LINUX, so I'm not a Windows booster. I think lots about Windows just stinks but there is an issue of credibility here.
If you want a clean new coherent API and you want to develop on Windows Microsoft has provided an option:
Using "Common Sense" is being either to arrogant or to ignorant to ask people who know more about something than you.
The False God of Backward Compatibility has Microsoft by the short hairs. Even new programming environments like .Net have Win32, Win16, and DOS lurking right around the corner. There's no fresh start anywhere in the Microsoft environment, everything reeks of DOS.
Which would have been find if DOS (Win16, Win32, etc..) were a multi-platform, extensible OS to begin with -- but it wasn't. It was a quick hack that lives on and on.
I'm a developer that works primarily in Windows, with 15 years of heavy-hitting Unix programming experience behind me.
Get off my lawn.
When articles claim Microsoft dropped the ball I think it's more wishful thinking than anything, because Windows programmers are in their Enterprise glory days right now, no longer restricted to VB and half-assed object models. Not anymore. We now have full OO features and much much more, and Java is playing cathup feature-wise. It's nice for a change.
I don't care how messy Microsoft's underlying code is, as long as they've tested it and ensure it works enough for me to program against it. The Microsoft security updates help a lot too. They're very frequent which means there are a lot of security flaws but they take care of them quickly (I'm sure I will get numerous examples where they didn't take care of security quickly but if you're on Windows update you see them coming thought all the time).
*dhut* *dhut* *dhut* The System is Down! The System is Down! The System is Down"! *dhut* *dhut* *dhut*
I want to second this concept. Back in 1998, when I started a company of my own, I insisted that my partners and I purchase a $500 MSDN license so we could do current development on Microsoft platforms.
In 2004, when I joined a company that was well funded by venture capitalists, they required that I cost-justify the $2000 MSDN license cost. I argued that we were developing consumer applications and we needed the license.
In 2007, I can no longer justify $3500ish for MSDN. It just doesn't work anymore. They offer reduced versions of MSDN, each of which eliminates all the reasons why a person would subscribe to MSDN. They offer only 10 application installs for your $3500. They offer only a few OS installs. After you've installed a few, they stop letting you install more development copies and insist that you call them for more authorization. It just doesn't work anymore, and I'm sad because I really liked being able to develop code without artificial roadblocks in my path.
No concept of what .NET really is, misleading users.
.NET/WPF is easy, transparent and has clear and easy paths for migration. (Let alone OS X is still a hybrid 64bit OS, using 32bit code throughout the OS, unlike Vista x64)
No mention or acknowledgement of WPF/WCF or the new APIs that are and 'set' to replace Win32/Win64
Completely misleads users about API concepts and features of OS X compared to Windows, for example XAML/XPS concepts compared to Display Postscript is a massive difference in display technologies that are part of the new Windows API sets, that Carbon or Cocoa cannot provide to developers. (Go to Channel 10 and watch videos on why XAML/XPS was created and how it trumps every aspect of other display/print technologies. - Let alone how it is an integrated aspect of the video API system in Vista, making programming freaky simple for advanced features and new UI platforms like 3D.)
The author then jumps into UI consistency with dialog wording, and doesn't mention OS Xs lack of keyboard support, consistency of delete/backspace or 100 other things more important than dialog wording which is also NOT PART of Win32 inherently.
Author doesn't realize Microsoft and IBM wrote most of the GUI and UI guidelines that OS X even uses today.
Office 2007 is a new direction in GUI paradigms, and is WELL accepted in the business world. Not something to make fun of when OS X is still using old MENU (textual word lists) concepts. Menus were a hack to make features available in a GUI context, but are a draw back to non-graphical UIs. Vista and Office 2007 moving away from word lists (MENUS) is the right direction, too bad Apple isn't innovating on UI and just keeps throwing the same UI slop at users and telling them it is good. (And don't even mention multi-touch UI, go watch the freaking TED conferences Apple ripped the ideas off from several years ago, let alone the MS multi-touch work that also preceded the TED conference. MS Research has and is doing more with UI than any other think tank in the world.)
Author also totally ignores Adobe not providing any 64bit support for OS X because Apple dropped the ball on Carbon x64bit support that has been promised forever from Apple. In contrast 64bit development on Windows in both Win32/Win64 and
So for 'real developers' like Adobe (OS X) is a failure, and has failed paths. Which means if you want a 64bit version of Adobe products, you will have to move to Windows for the peformance and benefits. Oh, how brilliant Apple and OS X is...
This brings up the horrid Carbon/Cocoa platforms and migration paths, and even then not even touching on the development tool constrast between the two platforms.
I challenge Mr. Bright to a real debate on the topics covered, maybe he can try to justify some of his misleading and outrageous claims.
Back before my current gig, I was a software developer for companies that hired me to do their work and for several packages I wrote for my own profit. This story comes from the programs I developed for my own profit.
Because the software I wrote was also licensed for source code if the user wanted it, I picked Visual Basic as the platform to use. I wanted to use Visual C, but you could more easly find programmers that could get by in Visual Basic than VC. I should have picked VC rather than VB for a lot of reasons, the main one being that if you had experience in VC, you were at least likely not to be a total idiot. Not so with VB. I found that VB programmers were idiots at the approximate rate of 7:10, while VC programmers were likely to be idiots at an estimated 1:10 ratio... which isn't to say that all VB programmers were idiots, only that they were cheaper labor, and therefore less likely to have a solid background in programming logic.
That said, we'll focus only on my own development problems, just so we are dealing with only one (possible) idiot... me. I started out with VB 2.x. The upgrade to 3.x went fine, with very few problems. When 4.0 came out, I found I had to rewrite about 20% of my code. Sure, there were conversion programs, but they didn't quite fit in with exactly what I wanted the program to do. It'd get it about 90% right, but then I'd have to slog through the rest of the automated code to correct that last 10%. It was faster to discard that code and re-write it.
Then 5.x came out. Only about 50% of my code still worked. And again, the automated process to "ease" transisition left something to be desired. When Visual Studio 6.0 came out, it was a nightmare. only 20% of the code ported. At that point, I sent the 5.x code out to all the people that bought the program (with source or not), and told them that the code was now moribund, I would not be maintaining it, and that I was releaseing the source code to the public domain (5 floppies included). As I recall, that was about 1998-1999 or so.
As late as March 2008, I've been contacted about the code. Of course, it's morphed far past anything I'd written, and I could only help with the general business case logic involved, not the actual code. But having to deal once again with Microsoft development tools, one would have to offer me far, far more money than it would be worth. No, I'm done with Microsoft "development" games. I'm done with school yard bullies trying to take my lunch money. I'm done, PERIOD, with closed source, whenever I have a choice.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
One of the nice things from this article was actually this nice screenshot of a selection of current versions of MS software running on Vista. The thing to notice is that not a single one of those applications has a GUI the same as any of the others. There are different toolkits, completely different look and feel, some have menus, some don't; it's a horrible, horrible mess. And yet despite that, we still get people complaining about GNOME vs. KDE and the clash of different toolkits and how that's what is holding Linux back. You can run GNOME and KDE apps side by side and, while they'll have differences, they'll sit together far more elegantly than the mishmash that is Windows. I think I'll have bookmark that screenshot so I can bring it up the next time a Windows fanboy starts decrying the excessive number of GUI toolkits on Linux.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I'm not big on the M$ love. I'm a mac/linux proponent. However, I think that M$'s current problem with a really horrible API (I'm saying this having programmed for win32, GTK, QT, WX, and Cocoa) isn't an easy to solve problem.
They could pull an Apple, and completely redo their windowing system. Apple benefited from using NeXT's system, which was well thought out, uses a language well suited to windowing systems (objective-c), and could be altered based on previous user experience.
However, in doing so they would lose all compatibility they current have. Keeping compatibility, even if it creates a developer's nightmare, is in the end what keeps them on top of the market.
That is not to say it's not impossible for them to do so. Apple did provide a virtual machine to run old OS9 software with the first releases of OS X. However, since both Mac and Linux machines also have the same options (currently running Parallels on my machine), it would still take the clear advantage M$ has in the market away.
It's not clear whether their bad API spells the eventual doom of the company. The more pragmatic developers will still value making products that more people can use over writing nice looking code. Additionally, wrapper libraries, such as WxWidgets or Qt can help hide much of the ugliness.
So, you problem is that programmers make use of undocumented API calls. While "undocumented" does not always equal "unsupported", using them is just plain stupid. Whether it is Windows, Linux, MS-DOS, DR-DOS, OSux using the system in an undocumented/unsupported way is well, U N S U P P O R T E D. Don't blame the OS or the those that coded it, blame those that wrote against the API in an unsupported way.
RTFA turns out to be a effort in slogging through another of the author's attempts to explain why anyone on Windows is just benighted. He blames HIS short comings on the OS.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Because programmers are, you know, just leaving the Windows platform in droves! Because it's annoying to develop on!
(sarcasm off)
Windows has always been annoying to develop on; when you've got the lions share of the market, and the customers want "windows," that where most programmers are, annoying or not.
So maybe they "dropped the ball," I say they never had the ball to drop, and they don't give a crap because if you want to make money, you work on Windows.
Now... how is this different than last year, or the year before, or ten years ago?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"When you use undocumented API calls you're in the wrong".
... well, if you can. There are a few API calls documented which will allow you to write a few cute Windows programs but they will invariably be unable to compete with programs developed by MS. Why? Because you have no access to API calls. API functions that make your programs faster, or easier to use, or simply allow you to do something at all. Especially graphics and network code was notorious for being impossible to implement sensibly without resorting to functions that were available only when you dug through disassembled DLLs and guessed what was expected from you.
So far, so right. In theory.
In practice, though, let's look back into the world of Windows at its beginning. We're in the middle of the 90s, Win95 is fresh out the door and you're supposed to write for it... erh
So programmers faced the choice: Either write programs that cannot compete with programs written by MS (or companies that somehow got a hold of that information), or use calls where a few parameters are described as "set to NULL" or "unknown function".
MS has a history of releasing information about formats or calling parameters at trickling speed, at best. Anyone who ever wanted to get a hold on, say, the Office container format can vouch for that. It's not really a lot better for API documentation. Usually, you get it for a lot of money, if you are deemed "worthy" first of all.
Programmers don't let a company do that to them, though. They start figuring things out, reverse libraries and even existing program code to get the information they need. Of course, this results in the occasional mistake.
Jump into the present. The companies that created software back then don't exist anymore, blown up in the dot.com bubble. Their software, though, still exists. And companies now rely on this software. So MS has to maintain those "buggy" APIs, else companies running buggy software will refuse to upgrade.
Who is to blame? Basically, whoever decided that it's a smart idea to withhold the API documentation.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You could call the BIOS interrupt function.
You could call the MSDOS Interrupt function.
You could detect the hardware and write directly to the hardware address.
Both the BIOS and DOS mechanisms were slow and broken and did not follow the conventions of any programming language. For example terminating strings with the $ symbol, FFS.
All commercial programs (and most hobbiest ones) wrote directly to hardware for speed.
DOS was not really an OS at all. It did very rudimentary memory management. About the only thing you'd really use DOS for was disk access and application launching, otherwise DOS applications were basically "bare metal" applications that managed just about everything (screen, keyboard, serial ports, mouse,...) internally.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
" They don't give a crap because if you want to make money, you work on Windows"
I learned to live without money instead. It was less painfull.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
"He trumpets Apple for overhauling their platform and releasing a rapid succession of new OSes in order to advance the platform, which retaining absolutely no backwards compatibility."
This is a false statement. Or at best misleading. Yes, Apple did finally ditch OS 9 after many years of offering backwards compatibility. Their succession of OSes, or OS X as some of us call it, are all backward compatible. Unless I'm mistaking your definition of backward compatible.
Apple's decision to make a break with their old OS was a good one, and I'm sure just about anyone would agree with that. I liken it to when the camera manufacturer Canon abandoned their old twist-lock lens mounts in favor of the electro-mechanical mount. That allowed them to develop the best autofocus lenses on the market and to finally overtake Nikon in a big way, whom they'd been playing second fiddle to since forever.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
I agree, $3500 is insane for MSDN (I cap its value at $2,000), and I think the Premium Uber MSDN with Team System costs like $11,000. And the Express editions of Studio just don't cut it for a lot of people; no source control or unit testing, etc. Still, there's a middle ground:
Microsoft Certified Partners are entitled to a certain number of MSDN subscriptions and/or Visual Studio copies, depending on their partner level. Even as just a Registered Partner (anyone can get this simply by signing up for free), there's something called an Action Pack, I think, that includes enough licenses to get a small business running - server OS, SQL Server, etc. The Action Pack costs either $200 or $400, and I'm too lazy to verify that but here's the link if you're still interested:
http://partner.microsoft.com/
Getting Certified Partner status isn't a big hurdle; get some customer references and prove certain technologies are within your scope and you're well on your way.
To make it more amusing those third party APIs slog through the win32 API hell so you don't have to.
I think that's why Microsoft is afraid of breaking the old APIs. Once you have to go through the pain of porting to a new API why not just go cross platform?
Programmers were forced to take advantage of undocumented API calls in order to compete with the applications MS produced which used those. Also, a lot of API calls were not documented well enough such that the behavior was not questioned by the programmer and so the broken behavior was relied upon to make the application work.
Twinstiq, game news
As someone who had to learn C++/CLI and writes code to allow legacy code to interop with C# at work, I have this to say.
.NET:
If you are going to learn a new platform for a "modern" app or OS, then let it be one that allows you to target more than one platform. Seriously. Lets take a look at
- Everything in the library is new.
- You can only officially target one platform. (Mono not withstanding)
- You have to learn a new language to use it effectively.
Now look at Qt:
- New library
- Build onto same C++ compiler you've always used
- No messy COM, COM wrappers needed for introspection
- You can target any platform with a modern C++ compiler (VS6 and higher on win32, gcc on all platforms)
- Ground up C++, clean consistent API.
- Active development with binary compatibility within major releases.
- Python, ECMA scripting, (some C# support too!)
- Java version
- Meta-object compiler adds introspection. (no need to deal with COM)
- ActiveX interop in the commercial version (You can use Qt widgets in Winforms and vice-versa)
I don't know as much about GNOME, but it shares a lot with Qt, so should not be excluded.
About the only thing you miss out on is the automatic garbage collector. Qt emulates this to some degree by allowing every QObject to have a parent. Then the only thing missing is the ability to defragment memory in the heap. I've only heard about this being caused by lots of small memory allocations, but Qt block allocates so this isn't a problem. Also, many types are implicitly shared, meaning they are more like handles to the objects, meaning that 1) they can cross thread boundaries 2) they are references until they are modified.
All in all I see you only lose out on the memory defrag. But you don't need to learn C++/CLI or C#. (My opinion of C# is that if you're going to go that far, you might as well take the goals of the language to completion, in which case you end up with Python, oh yeah, there is a Python wrapper for Qt too)
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I too have "been there, done that" on a lot of platforms.
The term you are looking for is "enabler" - Microsoft is an Enabler for other applications to engage in bad practices, for users to engage in bad security.
As you say it makes a lot of people happy now, but look what else it has given us - lots of decrepit systems, and hundreds of thousands of zombies that make our lives miserable in other ways.
Sometimes even a business can't just be about making people happy, it has to be about moving the market as a whole to dry land when they see the flood coming.
Just like the Spiderman quote tells us.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
According to the article there are three types of developers: (I) the ones who bang Excel macros and Access databases together with VB (not very many), (II) in-house developers for large companies who program in whatever language is in demand (the vast majority), and (III) craftsmen-programmers who look for clean orthogonal programming tools and also program in their spare time (a few).
The article goes on to argue that Microsoft catered very well for categories (I) and (II), and not at all for category (III.)
Since I believe that the programmers who make stand-alone third-party applications mostly belong to category (II) I absolutely don't see how or why Microsoft supposedly "dropped the ball" for any developers except category (III). The article points to the messy API's of Win32 and the shadows that projects unto the .NET framework. Ok, fair enough, but who cares?
Not the end-users and not the managers. And they're the ones who determine where the money, and hence the bulk of the development effort goes. That means that what end-users actually see and care about, their _applications_ will continue to be in plentiful supply for MS-Windows.
Sorry, but the author will have to do a lot better to convince me that Microsoft shot itself in the foot as regards development effort. It's not the smartest thing that Microsoft could have done to alienate the craftsmen-programmers but I don't see how that puts a dent in their business.
I really should leave this one alone, but I just can't. This article is so unbelievably biased, it is truly amazing that a site like ars allows a series like these to exist. The person who's written this series has obviously no real programming knowledge on any platform.
.NET lightyears ahead of the competition right now. Writing these little misinformed articles is not going to change that.
Moreover the way he drops in his little falsehoods borders on intent. Each and every paragraph contains one or more blatant falsehoods. Going through all of them would take way to much time.
Apparantly this Peter Bright's tried to build some winforms stuff (and failed) and he's tried to open a file (and failed somehow). These are his two major arguments against the platform.
Let's try to introduce some facts. First of all the winforms library is indeed not multithreaded. This goes for most windowing libraries. Swing is an example that springs to mind but there are many more. Making it totally thread safe would introduce a lot of overhead, making everything much slower than it needs to be. If you need to use additional threads, there are well documented ways to do this. Maybe Pater should try it... Second of all the winforms library is a very very small part of the total api. Just saying there's lot of little other things, without going into any detail is a cheap way of making a bad point. No API is perfect but I would say given the alternatives out there it's easily one of the cleanest and well thought out api's I've used in the last 6 years. Furthermore, it the author could get his head out of his nether regions he might look in to WPF, WCF, C# 3.0 etc etc. All technologies that put
This person comes across as a total beginner. You know the type, probably programmed some stuff in c++ and now thinks he's a guru on everything. In reality he's an armchair programmer, writing knee yerk articles because he coulnd't get his file to open. A lot of programmers (myself included) go through a phase like this, most move on and start seeing the bigger picture. I guess some don't and just write articles about it.
I know the average slashdotter probably won't care about an anti-microsoft hit-piece but if you're confident about using linux or mac-osx (both of which I think are perfect alternatives btw) ask yourself, why would you need lies and falsehood's to attack the 'competition'.