Unacceptable?
-
Mark Salsbery wrote:
Is that really what Microsoft's job is?
Yes. The vendor of an operating system documents his work so others can write application programs that run on top of it.
Mark Salsbery wrote:
because of their idiocyncrocies I can make a good living for life.
Is making up for the idiosyncrasies of another really a "good living"? And do you really want to do that for your whole life? You sound ripe for a blessing - the Great Osmosian Blessing: "May God give you exactly what you're asking for." Amen.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Yes. The vendor of an operating system documents his work so others can write application programs that run on top of it.
In a perfect world. I still don't believe it's a requirement.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Is making up for the idiosyncrasies of another really a "good living"? And do you really want to do that for your whole life?
I'm personally having no trouble with writing for the Windows OS. If I have to occasionally dig for a solution then that's ok. Many people won't even look in the SDK. All I'm saying is if it was easy and perfectly documented then everybody would be doing it and I wouldn't make as much money. That may go against your Osmosian order but frankly, I'm no spiritual coder. I do it for the money. I'd rather not have to work :) Thanks for the blessing :)
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The vendor of an operating system documents his work so others can write application programs that run on top of it.
I'm not convinced that MS is really in the OS business though. Oh, they create and sell operating systems, no doubt about that... but i never got a good vibe from them, if you know what i mean - it always seemed as though operating systems, frameworks, platforms... were sort of a by-product of whatever it was MS was really up to...
I agree. I'm far from being a conspiracy theorist but I've been convinced on one occasion that MS only provided a dumbed-down API. Why wouldn't they though? They are in the software business and being the OS creator as well has distinct advantages :) That's a much more lowdown and dirty tactic then having some lame documentation IMO. Mark
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The vendor of an operating system documents his work so others can write application programs that run on top of it.
I'm not convinced that MS is really in the OS business though. Oh, they create and sell operating systems, no doubt about that... but i never got a good vibe from them, if you know what i mean - it always seemed as though operating systems, frameworks, platforms... were sort of a by-product of whatever it was MS was really up to...
I have a book with interviews of "successful" developers from years back. One of them is Bill Gates and he goes on and on about how proud he was to be able to squeeze the print command for his basic interpreter into 20 bytes of assembler code. You're right; somewhere along the line his priorities changed...
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Yes. The vendor of an operating system documents his work so others can write application programs that run on top of it.
In a perfect world. I still don't believe it's a requirement.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Is making up for the idiosyncrasies of another really a "good living"? And do you really want to do that for your whole life?
I'm personally having no trouble with writing for the Windows OS. If I have to occasionally dig for a solution then that's ok. Many people won't even look in the SDK. All I'm saying is if it was easy and perfectly documented then everybody would be doing it and I wouldn't make as much money. That may go against your Osmosian order but frankly, I'm no spiritual coder. I do it for the money. I'd rather not have to work :) Thanks for the blessing :)
The best thing a man can do for himself (and those around him) is ask himself, "If I didn't need money, what would I do?" And then he should start doing that. If he does, he'll find himself not only more fulfilled, but he'll discover that the money takes care of itself.
-
I have a book with interviews of "successful" developers from years back. One of them is Bill Gates and he goes on and on about how proud he was to be able to squeeze the print command for his basic interpreter into 20 bytes of assembler code. You're right; somewhere along the line his priorities changed...
The Grand Negus wrote:
he goes on and on about how proud he was to be able to squeeze the print command for his basic interpreter into 20 bytes of assembler code.
Yeah... I get a huge kick out of reading the various blogs written by Microsoft developers. There are some seriously talented people there, very dedicated to what they're doing, determined to do it well... ...Of course, there are huge parts of Windows that don't get blogged about. Bits that no one could ever be enthusiastic about, the bits written by people who just don't have it in 'em. And the people who might have once been enthusiastic about what they're doing, but have had it beaten out of them by too much process and too little freedom. The two "coolest" things i've seen in Vista so far? A searchable Start menu, and an enhanced MessageBox(). Honestly, that's just sad.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
he goes on and on about how proud he was to be able to squeeze the print command for his basic interpreter into 20 bytes of assembler code.
Yeah... I get a huge kick out of reading the various blogs written by Microsoft developers. There are some seriously talented people there, very dedicated to what they're doing, determined to do it well... ...Of course, there are huge parts of Windows that don't get blogged about. Bits that no one could ever be enthusiastic about, the bits written by people who just don't have it in 'em. And the people who might have once been enthusiastic about what they're doing, but have had it beaten out of them by too much process and too little freedom. The two "coolest" things i've seen in Vista so far? A searchable Start menu, and an enhanced MessageBox(). Honestly, that's just sad.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
See[^].
Blast! I wish you had at least written "See Nish's thread" instead of objectifying me and my thread into a mere incident you could capitalize on to push your stuff. I bet that if your English language compiler works at all, that it lacks politeness and etiquette and is an extremely rude compiler. :rolleyes:
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
I bet that if your English language compiler works at all
From first hand experience I can say that it does indeed work and I believe the way it works is very impressive however it lacks most of the user interface that we expect from a professional software product made in this decade. I believe in its current form it is best suited for use in a computer programming class to show students yet another way of programming.
John
-
See[^]. Does anyone see a problem here? Isn't it Microsoft's job to document the operating system and provide programmers with the means to use it? Is Visual Studio really so deficient that a programmer must resort to a wiki to get a function header? Is C# so incomplete that a programmer can't convert a point from device to logical coordinates without leaping out of the managed code paradigm? Clearly, anyone who promotes Microsoft's principles and products should be ashamed.
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
I bet that if your English language compiler works at all
From first hand experience I can say that it does indeed work and I believe the way it works is very impressive however it lacks most of the user interface that we expect from a professional software product made in this decade. I believe in its current form it is best suited for use in a computer programming class to show students yet another way of programming.
John
That's good to know, John.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
I bet that if your English language compiler works at all
From first hand experience I can say that it does indeed work and I believe the way it works is very impressive however it lacks most of the user interface that we expect from a professional software product made in this decade. I believe in its current form it is best suited for use in a computer programming class to show students yet another way of programming.
John
John M. Drescher wrote:
From first hand experience I can say that it does indeed work and I believe the way it works is very impressive however it lacks most of the user interface that we expect from a professional software product made in this decade.
Thanks for the compliment. The user interface is the way it is for three reasons: (1) It is designed to challenge preconceived notions. Specifically, how many of the widgets, gadgets, and redundant ways of doing things commonly found in a "software product made in this decade" are really necessary? For example, the Adobe PDF reader I use has over 110 different commands for adjusting page magnification; our page editor has just two. Our interface is offered as a minimalist (yet useful) corrective to such excesses. (2) Our interface is independent of the operating system. It looks the same under Windows 95, XP, and Vista. When we port it to LINUX, it will look the same there. Exactly the same. Nothing new to learn; nothing new to "get used to". Nothing new to document; nothing new to teach. A great productivity aid. (3) We like it the way it is. Really. And having used it to write several very significant programs, and having used the built-in page editor for designing everything from house plans to children's books, we think it's fair to say that it works and works well - at least for us.