MSDN2 rant of the day
-
MSDN "classic" member list had this nice "base class members" link. Now, as an example, CStringT members[^]: I just wnat to find out the exact typedef got the length, so I look for GetLength(), ain't in the list. So off to hunting base class members I go. There is no link on the mebers page. Only a link to CStringT general documentation[^]. There's no link to "base class" at the top, or at the bottom. the declaration at least mentions the base class (that's the first indicator there actually is one). From here, I have two possibilities: Go to the Hierarchy Chart[^] linked at the bottom - but there I'd have to hunt for CStringT before I can arrive at CSimpleString. Another gem listed unter "remarks" (i.e. hiddlen in the middle of the document) CSimpleStringT. Where I still have to scroll down to "Other resources", and click on CSimpleStringT members[^] It's not just that some new edges are auto-documented verbosely lack information. Even the things that are described have the abysmal usability of a PDF document. Has Microsoft stopped dogfooding their own documentation? (Which would explain some other things circulating about Microsoft lately...)
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
MSDN "classic" member list had this nice "base class members" link. Now, as an example, CStringT members[^]: I just wnat to find out the exact typedef got the length, so I look for GetLength(), ain't in the list. So off to hunting base class members I go. There is no link on the mebers page. Only a link to CStringT general documentation[^]. There's no link to "base class" at the top, or at the bottom. the declaration at least mentions the base class (that's the first indicator there actually is one). From here, I have two possibilities: Go to the Hierarchy Chart[^] linked at the bottom - but there I'd have to hunt for CStringT before I can arrive at CSimpleString. Another gem listed unter "remarks" (i.e. hiddlen in the middle of the document) CSimpleStringT. Where I still have to scroll down to "Other resources", and click on CSimpleStringT members[^] It's not just that some new edges are auto-documented verbosely lack information. Even the things that are described have the abysmal usability of a PDF document. Has Microsoft stopped dogfooding their own documentation? (Which would explain some other things circulating about Microsoft lately...)
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
The MSDN got worth and worth. :mad: I am angry because it seems to be that the people at MS do not use their poor work. X|
Greetings from Germany
KarstenK wrote:
The MSDN got worth and worth.
th->se ?
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*) -
MSDN "classic" member list had this nice "base class members" link. Now, as an example, CStringT members[^]: I just wnat to find out the exact typedef got the length, so I look for GetLength(), ain't in the list. So off to hunting base class members I go. There is no link on the mebers page. Only a link to CStringT general documentation[^]. There's no link to "base class" at the top, or at the bottom. the declaration at least mentions the base class (that's the first indicator there actually is one). From here, I have two possibilities: Go to the Hierarchy Chart[^] linked at the bottom - but there I'd have to hunt for CStringT before I can arrive at CSimpleString. Another gem listed unter "remarks" (i.e. hiddlen in the middle of the document) CSimpleStringT. Where I still have to scroll down to "Other resources", and click on CSimpleStringT members[^] It's not just that some new edges are auto-documented verbosely lack information. Even the things that are described have the abysmal usability of a PDF document. Has Microsoft stopped dogfooding their own documentation? (Which would explain some other things circulating about Microsoft lately...)
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!It's just like in films. The sequel is rarely as good as the original.
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
KarstenK wrote:
The MSDN got worth and worth.
th->se ?
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*) -
MSDN "classic" member list had this nice "base class members" link. Now, as an example, CStringT members[^]: I just wnat to find out the exact typedef got the length, so I look for GetLength(), ain't in the list. So off to hunting base class members I go. There is no link on the mebers page. Only a link to CStringT general documentation[^]. There's no link to "base class" at the top, or at the bottom. the declaration at least mentions the base class (that's the first indicator there actually is one). From here, I have two possibilities: Go to the Hierarchy Chart[^] linked at the bottom - but there I'd have to hunt for CStringT before I can arrive at CSimpleString. Another gem listed unter "remarks" (i.e. hiddlen in the middle of the document) CSimpleStringT. Where I still have to scroll down to "Other resources", and click on CSimpleStringT members[^] It's not just that some new edges are auto-documented verbosely lack information. Even the things that are described have the abysmal usability of a PDF document. Has Microsoft stopped dogfooding their own documentation? (Which would explain some other things circulating about Microsoft lately...)
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!My biggest gripe with MSDN2 is that it insists on reloading that GIGANTIC navigation tree every time you click on a link.
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
-
My biggest gripe with MSDN2 is that it insists on reloading that GIGANTIC navigation tree every time you click on a link.
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
Oh my god, you're SO right. It's a chance my company have a good internet provider and they provide fast machines because I tried to load at my parents house (athlon xp 1900+) with a medium speed internet and it took 3 minutes each time the HUGE, massive and completely overkill tree has to load. That was a very frustrating evening!:mad:
Jean-Michel Aubin Software Engineer Imaging division Matrox Electronics Ltee.
-
MSDN "classic" member list had this nice "base class members" link. Now, as an example, CStringT members[^]: I just wnat to find out the exact typedef got the length, so I look for GetLength(), ain't in the list. So off to hunting base class members I go. There is no link on the mebers page. Only a link to CStringT general documentation[^]. There's no link to "base class" at the top, or at the bottom. the declaration at least mentions the base class (that's the first indicator there actually is one). From here, I have two possibilities: Go to the Hierarchy Chart[^] linked at the bottom - but there I'd have to hunt for CStringT before I can arrive at CSimpleString. Another gem listed unter "remarks" (i.e. hiddlen in the middle of the document) CSimpleStringT. Where I still have to scroll down to "Other resources", and click on CSimpleStringT members[^] It's not just that some new edges are auto-documented verbosely lack information. Even the things that are described have the abysmal usability of a PDF document. Has Microsoft stopped dogfooding their own documentation? (Which would explain some other things circulating about Microsoft lately...)
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!MSDN and MSDN2 have always been a mess. Nothing in either of these sites demonstrates that Microsoft web developers have a clue about intuitive design...
Steve Naidamast Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@ix.netcom.com
-
MSDN "classic" member list had this nice "base class members" link. Now, as an example, CStringT members[^]: I just wnat to find out the exact typedef got the length, so I look for GetLength(), ain't in the list. So off to hunting base class members I go. There is no link on the mebers page. Only a link to CStringT general documentation[^]. There's no link to "base class" at the top, or at the bottom. the declaration at least mentions the base class (that's the first indicator there actually is one). From here, I have two possibilities: Go to the Hierarchy Chart[^] linked at the bottom - but there I'd have to hunt for CStringT before I can arrive at CSimpleString. Another gem listed unter "remarks" (i.e. hiddlen in the middle of the document) CSimpleStringT. Where I still have to scroll down to "Other resources", and click on CSimpleStringT members[^] It's not just that some new edges are auto-documented verbosely lack information. Even the things that are described have the abysmal usability of a PDF document. Has Microsoft stopped dogfooding their own documentation? (Which would explain some other things circulating about Microsoft lately...)
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!MSDN & MSDN2 are awesome. So much more useful than man pages that they're in an entirely separate league. At the top of the page you've got each node in the MSDN documentation tree to the current page. Click on the class itself (CStringT Class) then go to remarks. Now that I think about it, that's kind of a pain. The .NET docs are so much better :)
arnshea, MCAD.net, MSc (CS)
-
MSDN & MSDN2 are awesome. So much more useful than man pages that they're in an entirely separate league. At the top of the page you've got each node in the MSDN documentation tree to the current page. Click on the class itself (CStringT Class) then go to remarks. Now that I think about it, that's kind of a pain. The .NET docs are so much better :)
arnshea, MCAD.net, MSc (CS)
No doubt MSDN is still good, but it's rapidly loosing.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!