Taken a trip to Wikipedia I see. Yes, that'll certainly mean you suddenly know what you're talking about.
Hardly.
A perfect example is the iPhone whose sleak design includes a fragile screen that easily breaks and requires entirely disassembling the unit what with its myriad of screws, tabs, and adhesives in order to replace it.
It doesn't "easily break", it's made of Gorilla glass
Spare me the marketing hype please. And comparing it to even crummier products is faint praise indeed.
your observation on replacing of the glass is not one related to form following function at all.
Riiiiiight... Durability and maintainability have nothing to do with industrial design. It is you who is showing his ignorance, fanboi.
"Design language or overall synthesis in essence" indeed.
It's actually "form ever follows function" you unlettered oaf and BTW it has inspired such much heralded design fripperies as streamlined toasters.
I'm glad you brought up the counter factual argument because I can easily accept the argument that design for cosmetic sake certainly doesn't make a difference as long as the machine works. A perfect example is the iPhone whose sleak design includes a fragile screen that easily breaks and requires entirely disassembling the unit what with its myriad of screws, tabs, and adhesives in order to replace it.
If Apple considers this a triumph of "design language" (more artsy gibberish again) it should have made it:
1) more robust
2) easier to fix.
Not only are the Tivoli speakers and sub a great sounding nearfield system but they are cosmetically beat up and hand me downs. Enjoy your "synthesis in essence" whatever the fuck that absurd gibberish is actually supposed to mean.
That form is not an end in itself is certainly not what the original article supports and WTF do you know about what I do or do not understand about design.?
That form follows function and is not an end in itself. And fuck Apple. Instead of concentrating on cases for their equipment they need to stop the downward slide of OSX whose interface has become increasingly cluttered and whose functioning has been less reliable with each release since Tiger.
of Mac Mini, NEC monitor, Logitech bluetooth mouse, Kensington USB keyboard, and Tivoli Audio sound system has absolutely no "design language or overall synthesis in essence" and yet works just fine.
Nonsense. It doesn't even meet Ted Codd's original 12 rules. Postgres is the open source choice although I must admit MSSQL is really easy to set up and use (and this is is coming from an M$ hater.)
by Eric Frank Russell written in 1941 pre-sages self-replicating mechanical automata. As Bill Joy has noted, one can see clearly now that this could lead to the entire planet being completely covered by a seething dust of all-consuming mindless nanobots.
Most programmers are most decidedly not competent in the relational model
See, that's you problem. Most programmers around you aren't qualified to write enterprize* software. That may be a fault of management, or just a simptom of low priority of IT at your company.
I've worked exclusively at Fortune 500 companies for over thirty years and regrettably this was true at *every* single one of them.
Naw. Any decent DBMS flags any SPs that *might* have to be changed. Merely adding a column may not even affect any App code if the app doesn't use it. Most applications are a mares nest of unmaintainable spaghetti mishmash of overly complex templates of silly controller methods. Especially if agile methodologies have been used. Better to restrict reads/writes to a database access layer where they can be easily maintained.
Most application developers are held in well deserved contempt by the rest of the enterprise for a reason. Sometimes the correct answer is actually no.
You would still have to "visit" code embedded god knows where in scattered application code too. QBE belongs to static reporting databases with a view interface. It's totally insane to allow QBE on live production data.
I disagree, especially for inserts and updates. There should be no raw SQL embedded in programs. Most programmers are most decidedly not competent in the relational model (the very existence of numerous NoSQL fanbois is a testament to this fact.) Indeed, even many DBA's aren't either as the job is rife with far too many sys admin types rather than people that are concerned that they do a properly normalized logical model as a mandatory first step before physical implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
No defense of the Kensington I see.
On the contrary, it's held up fine for well over a decade. I just cry myself to sleep every night because it's not color co-ordinated though.
Taken a trip to Wikipedia I see. Yes, that'll certainly mean you suddenly know what you're talking about.
Hardly.
A perfect example is the iPhone whose sleak design includes a fragile screen that easily breaks and requires entirely disassembling the unit what with its myriad of screws, tabs, and adhesives in order to replace it.
It doesn't "easily break", it's made of Gorilla glass
Spare me the marketing hype please. And comparing it to even crummier products is faint praise indeed.
your observation on replacing of the glass is not one related to form following function at all.
Riiiiiight... Durability and maintainability have nothing to do with industrial design. It is you who is showing his ignorance, fanboi.
"Design language or overall synthesis in essence" indeed.
You're claiming Apple's recent products aren't functional. Without a single word of justification. Do you thing everyone is as stupid as you?
Read my critique of the iPhone in the above thread; not to mention certain iPods whose tracks could only be accessed sequentially.
It's actually "form ever follows function" you unlettered oaf and BTW it has inspired such much heralded design fripperies as streamlined toasters. I'm glad you brought up the counter factual argument because I can easily accept the argument that design for cosmetic sake certainly doesn't make a difference as long as the machine works. A perfect example is the iPhone whose sleak design includes a fragile screen that easily breaks and requires entirely disassembling the unit what with its myriad of screws, tabs, and adhesives in order to replace it. If Apple considers this a triumph of "design language" (more artsy gibberish again) it should have made it: 1) more robust 2) easier to fix.
Not only are the Tivoli speakers and sub a great sounding nearfield system but they are cosmetically beat up and hand me downs. Enjoy your "synthesis in essence" whatever the fuck that absurd gibberish is actually supposed to mean.
That form is not an end in itself is certainly not what the original article supports and WTF do you know about what I do or do not understand about design.?
That form follows function and is not an end in itself. And fuck Apple. Instead of concentrating on cases for their equipment they need to stop the downward slide of OSX whose interface has become increasingly cluttered and whose functioning has been less reliable with each release since Tiger.
You sound like a fanboi and girlymon who color co-ordinates his socks and sweaters.
of Mac Mini, NEC monitor, Logitech bluetooth mouse, Kensington USB keyboard, and Tivoli Audio sound system has absolutely no "design language or overall synthesis in essence" and yet works just fine.
Nonsense. It doesn't even meet Ted Codd's original 12 rules. Postgres is the open source choice although I must admit MSSQL is really easy to set up and use (and this is is coming from an M$ hater.)
relational database
Typical Slashdot sloppiness. But what else can you expect. Slashdot headline writers are a bunch of pig ignorant programmers (at best) not scientists.
you aren't shit.
then get OpenBSD.
to a 7 inch wi-fi tablet and I'd buy one immediately. With bluetooth earphones/microphone I'd be all set.
by Eric Frank Russell written in 1941 pre-sages self-replicating mechanical automata. As Bill Joy has noted, one can see clearly now that this could lead to the entire planet being completely covered by a seething dust of all-consuming mindless nanobots.
Yes!
Watch M$ stock tank with the failure of its tablet and Windoze 8.
M$ has been chasing Apple design-wise for decades.
"within ten years." ;-)
See, that's you problem. Most programmers around you aren't qualified to write enterprize* software. That may be a fault of management, or just a simptom of low priority of IT at your company.
I've worked exclusively at Fortune 500 companies for over thirty years and regrettably this was true at *every* single one of them.
Naw. Any decent DBMS flags any SPs that *might* have to be changed. Merely adding a column may not even affect any App code if the app doesn't use it. Most applications are a mares nest of unmaintainable spaghetti mishmash of overly complex templates of silly controller methods. Especially if agile methodologies have been used. Better to restrict reads/writes to a database access layer where they can be easily maintained. Most application developers are held in well deserved contempt by the rest of the enterprise for a reason. Sometimes the correct answer is actually no.
You would still have to "visit" code embedded god knows where in scattered application code too. QBE belongs to static reporting databases with a view interface. It's totally insane to allow QBE on live production data.
I disagree, especially for inserts and updates. There should be no raw SQL embedded in programs. Most programmers are most decidedly not competent in the relational model (the very existence of numerous NoSQL fanbois is a testament to this fact.) Indeed, even many DBA's aren't either as the job is rife with far too many sys admin types rather than people that are concerned that they do a properly normalized logical model as a mandatory first step before physical implementation.
All database access should be done through stored procedures written by people competent in the relational model.