That's one way to look at it I guess. The other option would be to say that it's not "bad design" just "different to the way you want to do it".
Or how about "the same as the way that makes everybody constantly make mistakes and get frustrated". The case in question is clear: Apple did it wrong, and it users suffer. There is exactly one way to interpret this particular case as "different" rather than "wrong": reality distortion[tm]. Feel free, you're not me.
You mean, work around Apple's bad design by compensating. I suppose a true Apple fan would be willing to, but I use a different product instead, that works better.
Perhaps there are more anti-Apple articles because Apple's practices have become more despicable? And that more because of Jobs than because of his absence.
For most users the UNIX CLI backend is sort of like the pistol in your sock drawer.
It feels good to know it's there, but you hope you never have to use it.
More accurately, it's like a snow shovel, it's primary purpose is not to kill people. Or perhaps it is more like a key lock on your car: it allows you to enter your care even if the battery ran flat in the remote entry device. Or perhaps it is like the steering wheel: it is only meant to be used by somebody who knows what it is for.
And finally, I'm a bit confused about what tasks you think users hould be employing Word for where it is more suitable than LibreOffice.
There are only two classes of users left using Microsoft Office now: suckers and innocent victims.
Open/Libre Office provides everything a home user or business needs, for free. In my opinion, in the last few years it passed Microsoft Office in stability and is roughly a tie in terms of fringe features that one has and not the other. Also in my opinion, where Microsoft Office and Open/Libre Office differ in user interface I usually prefer the latter. Cut and paste in the spreadsheet for example. In Open/Libre office it works like cut and paste in any other program. In Microsoft's product it does something weird.
Wow, that word whine. It used to be Microsoft's favorite word when referring to the victims of their monopolistic practices. Now Apple fans (you) are using it, what should I read into that?
That is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that Apple makes UIs with missing functionality to the point of being unable to support my workflow in any reasonable way. Just one of countless examples from the iPad: new text entered into a browser search field does not select the entire previous contents of the field but instead just positions the cursor at the end. So I end up surprised to find my text glued onto the end of the previous search, which normally is not what I want. And this happens to every iPad user I have observed, it is not just me. Apple may call this simple but I call it broken.
When you show me one Android device that doesn't have OBVIOUS UI lag in scrolling, then... and ONLY then will I even consider the idea that Android may eventually one day be comparable to iOS.
Android kicks iOS around the block already. My Xoom is silky smooth. Sometimes I use an iPad and it drives me nuts. Browsing response is terrible compared to the Xoom on the same network, going to the same sites. The iOS UI is actually quite crappy when you strip away the fandom.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the almost complete lack of consumer interest in Android tablets.
Nice troll. So Dell jumping into Windows phone 7 indicates an acute sense of what consumers want rather than just the usual and well documented thuggery from Redmond?
Digging a little deeper moderates "doesn't work" to barely works.
If you get all the compiler/linker flags right everywhere, yeah.
And also, the FAQ item is not a statement, it is a question, to which the answer is "this is what you need to do to make RTTI work with shared libraries". So I do not think you have proved RTTI does not work.
This is also true of the MOC. It barely works. It twists up the build situation horribly and breaks the language.
What language? C++ is already broken beyond repair.
Sorry, that rhetoric is no argument for breaking the language.
The Qt-approved subset of it, though, works nicely with moc.
That does not sound like a ringing endorsement.
But you avoided the main point: what stops you from embedding a (const char *) string pointer in each QT object and using that for introspection?
The fact that it alone is not enough for useful introspection. Every QObject-derived class does point to a type featuring a class string, among many other things provided by moc.
So what else is needed for useful introspection? And why is the MOC the only way to embed a type string in a class?
As if commercial breaks and laugh tracks were not enough, we have old news, puerile humor, fixed scheduling, oppressive DRM, bias, censorship, prudishness and no interaction. In two words: old media.
Digging a little deeper moderates "doesn't work" to barely works. This is also true of the MOC. It barely works. It twists up the build situation horribly and breaks the language.
But you avoided the main point: what stops you from embedding a (const char *) string pointer in each QT object and using that for introspection?
Indeed, small stupid things like moving the reload button to an unreasonable place. But Chrome has got some pretty big stupidities too. Still no "save all bookmarks as tabs". What's up with that? And Chrome loves to litter my ~/Downloads directory with pdfs I needed to look at first before deciding whether to keep or not. For just these two reasons, I use Chrome only for "throwaway" browsing while Firefox is used for "serious" browsing like researching a topic where I do want to save a whole set of results in an organized way and do not want to litter my filesystem with garbage that I looked at and deemed irrelevant.
Technically, Mozilla foundation should wind down Gecko and move to Webkit. How that would impact the plugin API is a big question. Probably in a positive way. Plugins are Firefox's greatest strength.
Anyway, I do not believe that technical reasons are the prime reasons for the shift in market share. It is actually network effect. Google has effective means of pushing Chrome into the market by leveraging its other assets. Rather like Microsoft versus Netscape affair actually. Remember how that hostile market takeover was always explained away by Microsoft as being due to technical superiority of IE over Netscape. But in the end when it all came out at trial, it was proved that the dominant reason was Microsoft's illegal application of market power. So we have a similar situation now playing out with Google as the attacker. But of course, Google is not evil so it's all good this time. Right? Right?
moc is not just for signals! I hear this sort of thing repeated time and time again, and it's clear that every time, people do not do their homework.
I did my homework. I concluded that the MOC is disposable. Of the items you mention, only signals and slots are essential. Dynamic cast for example in no way justifies the clumsiness of the MOC. First, you can just use RTTI, I have no idea why this is such a scary thing for some folks. Or if you really really hate RTTI, adding your own simple type tags is trivial, works well, and can be retrofitted to QT objects thanks to multiple inheritance. With these tags you can introspect. Setting properties from Javascript... I don't care about it, but maybe somebody does. Surely this is not the tail that wags the entire dog.
I have already considered those links you supplied long ago. Lots of bogus arguments to support what on the face of it is a clearly bad design decision. Possibly one that could be justified at the time, but not today. Software design has advanced and so have compilers. But this one big fat wart does not for me negate the fact that QT is the best of class in the windowing library sweepstakes. Ijust wish MOC advocates would step back a bit and realize how unimportant the usual justifications are, compared to the major damage caused to build sanity and programming language orthogonality.
I like QT. It has become my GUI toolkit of choice. It does a lot to help you write rich interfaces with sensible defaults. It is no mean feat to reconcile those two. Recent versions have an awful lot of shiny gizmos under the hood, a full featured animation framework for example. Very few complaints. Except the MOC. Approaches like sigc++ or Boost signals are much better than the half baked preprocessor hackery. Given that QT breaks compatibility badly with each major release anyway, how about putting less effort into justifying that entrenched silliness and think about moving into the 21st century?
What would happen if the offensive code was simply commented out, allowing downloaders to easily add the offending code back in?
The technique is well known, I am sure there will be a patch. Actually, it would be a lot more interesting to shadow mapping added. I would not be surprised at all. Again the techniques are well known.
Copyright is a powerful tool in the hands of free software authors, and a force for the public good. Obviously is used for evil as well, and current copyright duration is just offensive.
Thats not true, free software would be much better without copyright. Disband copyright and see how the ammount of free software increases because now there is no reason to keep it closed. Licences like GPL are neccessary only in world with copyright.
You have it backwards. In a world without copyright the main protection for software would become trade secrecy. All the more reason to keep the software behind closed doors of one kind or another.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one way to look at it I guess. The other option would be to say that it's not "bad design" just "different to the way you want to do it".
Or how about "the same as the way that makes everybody constantly make mistakes and get frustrated". The case in question is clear: Apple did it wrong, and it users suffer. There is exactly one way to interpret this particular case as "different" rather than "wrong": reality distortion[tm]. Feel free, you're not me.
Slashdot historically has had a bias against things that are popular...
Not really. It is more a bias against evil.
You mean, work around Apple's bad design by compensating. I suppose a true Apple fan would be willing to, but I use a different product instead, that works better.
Perhaps there are more anti-Apple articles because Apple's practices have become more despicable? And that more because of Jobs than because of his absence.
For most users the UNIX CLI backend is sort of like the pistol in your sock drawer.
It feels good to know it's there, but you hope you never have to use it.
More accurately, it's like a snow shovel, it's primary purpose is not to kill people. Or perhaps it is more like a key lock on your car: it allows you to enter your care even if the battery ran flat in the remote entry device. Or perhaps it is like the steering wheel: it is only meant to be used by somebody who knows what it is for.
And finally, I'm a bit confused about what tasks you think users hould be employing Word for where it is more suitable than LibreOffice.
There are only two classes of users left using Microsoft Office now: suckers and innocent victims.
Open/Libre Office provides everything a home user or business needs, for free. In my opinion, in the last few years it passed Microsoft Office in stability and is roughly a tie in terms of fringe features that one has and not the other. Also in my opinion, where Microsoft Office and Open/Libre Office differ in user interface I usually prefer the latter. Cut and paste in the spreadsheet for example. In Open/Libre office it works like cut and paste in any other program. In Microsoft's product it does something weird.
Don't whine on Slashdot...
Wow, that word whine. It used to be Microsoft's favorite word when referring to the victims of their monopolistic practices. Now Apple fans (you) are using it, what should I read into that?
Apple, on the whole, make very functional UIs...
That is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that Apple makes UIs with missing functionality to the point of being unable to support my workflow in any reasonable way. Just one of countless examples from the iPad: new text entered into a browser search field does not select the entire previous contents of the field but instead just positions the cursor at the end. So I end up surprised to find my text glued onto the end of the previous search, which normally is not what I want. And this happens to every iPad user I have observed, it is not just me. Apple may call this simple but I call it broken.
Seems like Microsoft is casting around for some way to top Sony's rootkit.
When you show me one Android device that doesn't have OBVIOUS UI lag in scrolling, then ... and ONLY then will I even consider the idea that Android may eventually one day be comparable to iOS.
Android kicks iOS around the block already. My Xoom is silky smooth. Sometimes I use an iPad and it drives me nuts. Browsing response is terrible compared to the Xoom on the same network, going to the same sites. The iOS UI is actually quite crappy when you strip away the fandom.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the almost complete lack of consumer interest in Android tablets.
Nice troll. So Dell jumping into Windows phone 7 indicates an acute sense of what consumers want rather than just the usual and well documented thuggery from Redmond?
Do you mind if I ask you a question? Do you work on QT itself, or are you a QT user?
Digging a little deeper moderates "doesn't work" to barely works.
If you get all the compiler/linker flags right everywhere, yeah.
And also, the FAQ item is not a statement, it is a question, to which the answer is "this is what you need to do to make RTTI work with shared libraries". So I do not think you have proved RTTI does not work.
This is also true of the MOC. It barely works. It twists up the build situation horribly and breaks the language.
What language? C++ is already broken beyond repair.
Sorry, that rhetoric is no argument for breaking the language.
The Qt-approved subset of it, though, works nicely with moc.
That does not sound like a ringing endorsement.
But you avoided the main point: what stops you from embedding a (const char *) string pointer in each QT object and using that for introspection?
The fact that it alone is not enough for useful introspection. Every QObject-derived class does point to a type featuring a class string, among many other things provided by moc.
So what else is needed for useful introspection? And why is the MOC the only way to embed a type string in a class?
As if commercial breaks and laugh tracks were not enough, we have old news, puerile humor, fixed scheduling, oppressive DRM, bias, censorship, prudishness and no interaction. In two words: old media.
Digging a little deeper moderates "doesn't work" to barely works. This is also true of the MOC. It barely works. It twists up the build situation horribly and breaks the language.
But you avoided the main point: what stops you from embedding a (const char *) string pointer in each QT object and using that for introspection?
RTTI is not enough. FWIW, standard RTTI does not even work well across shared libraries when done by fairly mainstream compilers such as g++.
So, RTTI + shared libraries are the issue? Specifics please. And nobody has proved that a preprocessor is the only way to do RTTI-less introspection.
Indeed, small stupid things like moving the reload button to an unreasonable place. But Chrome has got some pretty big stupidities too. Still no "save all bookmarks as tabs". What's up with that? And Chrome loves to litter my ~/Downloads directory with pdfs I needed to look at first before deciding whether to keep or not. For just these two reasons, I use Chrome only for "throwaway" browsing while Firefox is used for "serious" browsing like researching a topic where I do want to save a whole set of results in an organized way and do not want to litter my filesystem with garbage that I looked at and deemed irrelevant.
Technically, Mozilla foundation should wind down Gecko and move to Webkit. How that would impact the plugin API is a big question. Probably in a positive way. Plugins are Firefox's greatest strength.
Anyway, I do not believe that technical reasons are the prime reasons for the shift in market share. It is actually network effect. Google has effective means of pushing Chrome into the market by leveraging its other assets. Rather like Microsoft versus Netscape affair actually. Remember how that hostile market takeover was always explained away by Microsoft as being due to technical superiority of IE over Netscape. But in the end when it all came out at trial, it was proved that the dominant reason was Microsoft's illegal application of market power. So we have a similar situation now playing out with Google as the attacker. But of course, Google is not evil so it's all good this time. Right? Right?
Thanks for that. The proposed syntax does not seem to require the MOC, but the page doesn't have anything to say about that, odd.
The moc also does a fair amount more than you seem to assume.
But not anything I want or can't do more elegantly some other way. Such "bundling" is not a valid justification for a design mistake.
moc is not just for signals! I hear this sort of thing repeated time and time again, and it's clear that every time, people do not do their homework.
I did my homework. I concluded that the MOC is disposable. Of the items you mention, only signals and slots are essential. Dynamic cast for example in no way justifies the clumsiness of the MOC. First, you can just use RTTI, I have no idea why this is such a scary thing for some folks. Or if you really really hate RTTI, adding your own simple type tags is trivial, works well, and can be retrofitted to QT objects thanks to multiple inheritance. With these tags you can introspect. Setting properties from Javascript... I don't care about it, but maybe somebody does. Surely this is not the tail that wags the entire dog.
I have already considered those links you supplied long ago. Lots of bogus arguments to support what on the face of it is a clearly bad design decision. Possibly one that could be justified at the time, but not today. Software design has advanced and so have compilers. But this one big fat wart does not for me negate the fact that QT is the best of class in the windowing library sweepstakes. Ijust wish MOC advocates would step back a bit and realize how unimportant the usual justifications are, compared to the major damage caused to build sanity and programming language orthogonality.
I like QT. It has become my GUI toolkit of choice. It does a lot to help you write rich interfaces with sensible defaults. It is no mean feat to reconcile those two. Recent versions have an awful lot of shiny gizmos under the hood, a full featured animation framework for example. Very few complaints. Except the MOC. Approaches like sigc++ or Boost signals are much better than the half baked preprocessor hackery. Given that QT breaks compatibility badly with each major release anyway, how about putting less effort into justifying that entrenched silliness and think about moving into the 21st century?
What would happen if the offensive code was simply commented out, allowing downloaders to easily add the offending code back in?
The technique is well known, I am sure there will be a patch. Actually, it would be a lot more interesting to shadow mapping added. I would not be surprised at all. Again the techniques are well known.
What I find entertaining is watching Microsoft burn its remaining Wintel cohorts one by one. Who's next? Intel?
Copyright is a powerful tool in the hands of free software authors, and a force for the public good. Obviously is used for evil as well, and current copyright duration is just offensive.
Thats not true, free software would be much better without copyright. Disband copyright and see how the ammount of free software increases because now there is no reason to keep it closed. Licences like GPL are neccessary only in world with copyright.
You have it backwards. In a world without copyright the main protection for software would become trade secrecy. All the more reason to keep the software behind closed doors of one kind or another.
You're right about one thing, nobody cares...about cell phones.
How's the weather on the planet you live on?