Well, not just UI. This is not necessarily true for safari, but in general.
Even in the underlying system, you want good integration. An OS is just a big plugin system when it comes to drivers, no? You don't want a driver that needs special treatment, such as initializing in a funny way, or using internal structures. Abusing casting or using "private" data of the parent system can have nasty effects.
This is overcome by producing an API for your product, like apple, safari and applescript. You want bad integration? Look at any program that scans slashdot's data through the website. If anyone at slashdot chnaged the formatting any, you'd be screwed.
Pith is a utility for Safari that tracks the currently open sites and displays them in a window. If Safari crashes, relaunch it, and Pith can recover the windows that were open.
Um.. and if pith crashes, can safari relaunch it?
If there should be tabs for safari, then it should be in the browser somehow, not as a second hand utility. By making it a second hand utility, they become two systems that become dependent on each other. No optimization, no good integration. Look at mplayerosx. It's one app that controls the other. It jsut doesn't feel.. seemless.
Best Fit is when something is made so that it is as good as it can be, not when it is weighed down by things that are unnecessary
There's a problem with best-fit. Sometimes, you wind up with two interfaces on two different systems, that use similar widgets, but do totally BAD things. For instance, a simple good thing.
I hit google.com, the cursor is defaulted to the search box. It speeds up my day by a fraction, but I like the convienence of not having to tab a bunch of times. Well, i never counted, because I noticed the behavior.
Now for a bad one. My school uses something called WEBSIMS. You login, you can see your bill, and register for courses. It's a type of middleware. The one thing it does that pisses me off, only because it is the odd-man-out, is when I finished typing in my fixed-length id number, it auto tabs to the password field. I usually fill out forms, hitting tab to go to the next field. It makes for quick input for me, since I'm a touch typist. Now when websims login page does that to me, i wind up hitting tab, and going not to the next field, but to a button. Great, now i have to shift-tab or use the mouse. It's annoying since it's unexpected behavior.
Guidelines are good. They get people to do things consistently, so menu's, buttons and widgets are used in some similar fashion. Some guidelines don't work out. Apple's no-tabbed-browser is just one thing they stick by. Nothing wrong with that. They just don't use MDI very often, if at all. That's their rule, you don't have to follow it, but for the sake of consistency, it's advised not to.
Having your systems all behave in similar fashions isn't a monoculture unless they all do the save behavior in the same fashion down to a tee. Guess what I'm saying, it's not so black and white. Restrict some things but give enough freedom to do things right.
Not being specific as the type of consumer, you'd want a 64 bit processor since 32bit processors emulating 64 bit is ugly, a pain and is slower.
Think of how we work with minutes and hours. You want to know how to many minutes are in 2.2 days You have to do multiplcation and division to get to it. Wouldn't it be nice if you could just keep the unit? Well, with 64 bit processors, you don't have to do odd manipulations to do things a 64bit.
Having said that, as a home consumer, who uses it for basic things, you prolly need not concern. As a scientist, engineer or a performance freak, 64 bit is "better" since you aren't so limited to the "largest atomic" block of memory you can have.
There's a diff between gnutella and DIRS. Gnutella is pull where-as your backup system would need to push. If I'm on Gnutella, and I want my mp3's backed up, I can't garantee that all of them will. How many people are gonna like all the music that I like.
Really, we should have expected this. Look at MS and office. They do better integration with windows becuase they know their own os inside out. (Well.. so we hope;)
They make the processor and an AMD derivative, if you can consider the pentium processors that. I'd hope they'd know how to write a compiler.
I'd also hope that sun can make better java technology and that ibm can write a better os for the AS/4000. Better == more integrated and done right in this case.
Um, that's what happens when you follow anyone's lead. Look at struts. I'm working/w the stxx people, who put xslt as a nother output method for stxx. I'm piggy backing off of stxx for an app I'm writing. When stxx dropped the perform() method in the Action class, I was forced to switch to struts 1.1.
Not a bad thing, but it happens. AIM's protocol isn't under rfc or anything, just as struts api (or stxx) isn't either.
So what if Opera sued Apple for the same reason Netscape sued MS?
Apple is probably planning on bundling safari with OSX. Granted, they probably won't integrate it. Is this right or wrong? Is it anticompetitive? Analysis?
Yeah.. I'm not a fan of evolutionary design. It bites you back in the end if you are either too lazy to rewrite, too busy, or things work (don't fix it).
True, you can get the code that is used to be non-buggy, but there's a big problem... when you have unused code, "fixme"'s and irrelevant "stuff" in your finished product.
unit is a tool for making sure your code works from the ground up, and easy regression testing of your base, and to some extent, non-base code. Refactoring is only good once you have enough code, where you wish to change design. Both are invaluable regardless if you prototype or not.
There is one key thing, one key advantage to prototyping in the destination language of your product. You can literally steal code from your prototype and inject into your finished product. Nothing is wrong with maintaining your two codebases, as your prototype eventually can be thrown away with little cost. After all, you did develop your prototype seperately. While evolutionary design may work well for the diliegent of keeping their code clean, it can lead to irresponsible artifacts being left behind.
Granted, each has their place. For small projects, nothing is wrong with evolutionary design. For some big projects too. You just have to be very careful.
One other thing to add. Find out the languages specialties and design specifications.
For instance, perl is a good string manipulation language, as was intended. Why? Because of regexp's and it is a script language. Quick to develop. Learn how to exploit those features.
Ruby and Java are good OOP languages (from my experience), learn how they work, what features are there, why, and how to use them. I didn't say python since I don't know the syntax to say bupkis about it.
Lisp for it's own reasons. It's good for expert systems (I believe).
It overlaps your post, but it forces you to know what tools to use before you use them. So you wouldn't go writing an OS in perl, or a large OO system, since it isn't the most secure of languages in the sense of encapsulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not just UI. This is not necessarily true for safari, but in general.
Even in the underlying system, you want good integration. An OS is just a big plugin system when it comes to drivers, no? You don't want a driver that needs special treatment, such as initializing in a funny way, or using internal structures. Abusing casting or using "private" data of the parent system can have nasty effects.
This is overcome by producing an API for your product, like apple, safari and applescript. You want bad integration? Look at any program that scans slashdot's data through the website. If anyone at slashdot chnaged the formatting any, you'd be screwed.
Nah, just the ingredients. :)
But it should act seemlessly with the system. Unless pith integrates with the UI, it's just another button launcher.
-s
Not while *BSD lives! ;) you know you smiled.
...to eliminate all the dupe stories
Yes, it's neat, but it's still a dupe!
Um.. and if pith crashes, can safari relaunch it?
If there should be tabs for safari, then it should be in the browser somehow, not as a second hand utility. By making it a second hand utility, they become two systems that become dependent on each other. No optimization, no good integration. Look at mplayerosx. It's one app that controls the other. It jsut doesn't feel.. seemless.
Does that mean we can't make fun of dubya anymore? :(
Not being specific as the type of consumer, you'd want a 64 bit processor since 32bit processors emulating 64 bit is ugly, a pain and is slower.
Think of how we work with minutes and hours. You want to know how to many minutes are in 2.2 days You have to do multiplcation and division to get to it. Wouldn't it be nice if you could just keep the unit? Well, with 64 bit processors, you don't have to do odd manipulations to do things a 64bit.
Having said that, as a home consumer, who uses it for basic things, you prolly need not concern. As a scientist, engineer or a performance freak, 64 bit is "better" since you aren't so limited to the "largest atomic" block of memory you can have.
There's a diff between gnutella and DIRS. Gnutella is pull where-as your backup system would need to push. If I'm on Gnutella, and I want my mp3's backed up, I can't garantee that all of them will. How many people are gonna like all the music that I like.
And no, I don't like N'sync or Britney Spears.
Really, we should have expected this. Look at MS and office. They do better integration with windows becuase they know their own os inside out. ;)
(Well.. so we hope
They make the processor and an AMD derivative, if you can consider the pentium processors that. I'd hope they'd know how to write a compiler.
I'd also hope that sun can make better java technology and that ibm can write a better os for the AS/4000. Better == more integrated and done right in this case.
Wait.. lemme get this right.
It's either not a problem since it's just somewhere around, like your car keys
or
It's like someone car keys, someone else took it out for a ride, but we don't know who and if it is ok.
*boggle*
Um, that's what happens when you follow anyone's lead. Look at struts. I'm working /w the stxx people, who put xslt as a nother output method for stxx. I'm piggy backing off of stxx for an app I'm writing. When stxx dropped the perform() method in the Action class, I was forced to switch to struts 1.1.
Not a bad thing, but it happens. AIM's protocol isn't under rfc or anything, just as struts api (or stxx) isn't either.
But, they aren't the only ones who produce softare.
But they do have a monopoly in the mac OS market. Granted, there is no competition, it's more a natural monopoly.
Are they using it to hinder others? I doubt it. Just making observations based on others.
So what if Opera sued Apple for the same reason Netscape sued MS?
Apple is probably planning on bundling safari with OSX. Granted, they probably won't integrate it. Is this right or wrong? Is it anticompetitive? Analysis?
Yeah.. I'm not a fan of evolutionary design. It bites you back in the end if you are either too lazy to rewrite, too busy, or things work (don't fix it).
There's a problem with that if you keep your prototype and production code the same if you are not using evolutionary design.
True, you can get the code that is used to be non-buggy, but there's a big problem... when you have unused code, "fixme"'s and irrelevant "stuff" in your finished product.
unit is a tool for making sure your code works from the ground up, and easy regression testing of your base, and to some extent, non-base code. Refactoring is only good once you have enough code, where you wish to change design. Both are invaluable regardless if you prototype or not.
There is one key thing, one key advantage to prototyping in the destination language of your product. You can literally steal code from your prototype and inject into your finished product. Nothing is wrong with maintaining your two codebases, as your prototype eventually can be thrown away with little cost. After all, you did develop your prototype seperately. While evolutionary design may work well for the diliegent of keeping their code clean, it can lead to irresponsible artifacts being left behind.
Granted, each has their place. For small projects, nothing is wrong with evolutionary design. For some big projects too. You just have to be very careful.
eclipse java development software (eclipse.org)
poseidon uml softare (gentleware.com)
Not a cricism on you or the parent... but I'm just curious.
Should he have used slashdot's refereal ID? The parent did put the effort into driving traffic and finding the books, with a direct link.
One other thing to add. Find out the languages specialties and design specifications.
For instance, perl is a good string manipulation language, as was intended. Why? Because of regexp's and it is a script language. Quick to develop. Learn how to exploit those features.
Ruby and Java are good OOP languages (from my experience), learn how they work, what features are there, why, and how to use them. I didn't say python since I don't know the syntax to say bupkis about it.
Lisp for it's own reasons. It's good for expert systems (I believe).
It overlaps your post, but it forces you to know what tools to use before you use them. So you wouldn't go writing an OS in perl, or a large OO system, since it isn't the most secure of languages in the sense of encapsulation.
-s
Well, it wasn't as illegal as it is today. But you are right, it started to get illegal.
That's fucked up. If anyone shoudl have been doing it, it should have been Sammy Davis Junior. ;)