|
Dan Neely wrote: Then I'd start sobbing because doing so would make it more likely that PHBs would decide Teams is a better value* than Slack and Zoom.
That is EXACTLY what happened at my job, except the "techinical" people got to keep Slack (for now at least)
Teams' meetings suck rocks. If you don't have the window maximized screen sharing is blurry. Never was like that on Zoom.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: That is EXACTLY what happened at my job, except the "techinical" people got to keep Slack (for now at least)
Fortunately the only person at my current employer who'll admit to liking Teams isn't in the chain for deciding on tools. Our sales/etc people say it's something they only use when forced to by overly restrictive customer firewall settings. Otherwise we use a mix of slack and zoom. Mostly slack on my half of the company with Zoom just for meetings; our corporate overlords use Zoom much more extensively.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
This is a video driver issue. I had similar problems with Zoom running on Intel video hardware in both Dell XPS and MS-Surface Pro systems. Zoom even noted that they knew about the issue.
Solution: update your video drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: For values that don't include things like actually working well, but these are PHBs we're talking about
Teams appears to work OK for our small (<10 people) meetings. What parts of the application don't work for you?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't use it. Complaints from people I know mostly are about the quality and reliability of calls or design features they find user-hostile but can't change or disable.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Gotta love these huge companies getting the government to help them compete.
|
|
|
|
|
Software development is the sort of field where it feels like there should be answers — where we should know things to be true or false. More or less
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: where we should know things to be true or false.
Where is NULL?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Multi-factor authentication is ripe for disruption. SMS 2FA is inherently defective. Phone authenticators get stolen. Security tokens get lost. It's a little awkward to carry around with you though
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: It's a little awkward to carry around with you though
Yeah, but just think what a babe magnet you will be! 
|
|
|
|
|
What, no Sinclair computers?
|
|
|
|
|
I have one I could volunteer for testing.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Google has a lot of choices of what it can rank these days for almost any query (minus the 15%) - and this 60% figure really shows how much choice Google has And 60% of this headline is duplicate
|
|
|
|
|
And the other 40% is not, because we pay attention and try to nuke all plagiarists 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Dope Wars, Space Trader, Graffiti, memos, calculators and more: the Internet Archive’s instant Palm Pilot emulator is an app store before the App Store. For those that still write everything in Graffiti
Those that know, know
|
|
|
|
|
Memories... 
|
|
|
|
|
Extend your codebase with custom, interactive blocks. I hear your documentation needs more code
|
|
|
|
|
Occasionally I run across a tool or development project with the intent of eliminating the programmer. "Exterminate! EXTERMINATE! EX-TER-MIN-ATE!"
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: There was no debugger or other tools, not even an editor with color coding.
Horrors!
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I currently work for a client who uses a no-code platform.
Their idea is that a business analist can change the program too.
The tool mainly calls database (SQL) stored procedures or executes SQL queries or calls web APIs.
You'd expect a flow like this:
Timer trigger -> exec SP -> call service -> exec query
Unfortunately, it's like this:
Timer trigger -> exec SP -> record set to XML -> call service -> XML to record set -> exec query
Now you think, still not too bad.
Unfortunately, looping and if-else branches are done in stored procedures, something a database isn't really meant to do.
It gets worse.
Processing large data sets is almost impossible using this tool (very slow).
So, what they do, XML files are stored on disk, an SP is executed which reads the XML and then processes it using OPEN XML FOR or something like that.
I don't know about you, but working with XML in a query is not something most of us do on a daily basis, so it greatly complicates things.
Now, with procedures calling procedures, views and functions, which are in turn called by some step of some task in a no-code platform, with no ability to search or debug, this thing is a nightmare to developer and maintain.
The database has thousands of objects, with tables that do nothing except store a result to be used in another task or step.
Basically, each function you'd have in code is now a stored procedure.
Despite having various services, all databases (three major ones) are linked and used for querying in the other databases.
There's a ASP.NET Visual Basic WebForms project for the front-end, which does little more than create and read records from/to the database and start a task in the no-code tool.
I'm a skilled developer with years of experience and I really struggle to maintain and develop this.
The person who built the bulk of this is around to tell me where I need to look.
Just last week we couldn't find where some table was updated, not even the person who built it could remember where it was.
We still haven't found it.
The main "programmer" is certain this is the way to go and that a business analist could build on this.
Their customer is satisfied, I'm horrified 
|
|
|
|
|
Really great story, thanks for sharing.
I understand the philosophy behind all of this is that the business _believes_ that they are going to _insure_ that their business logic is not _owned_ by some developer who has wrapped it in a computer language -- a confusing abstraction to them.
However, they've wrapped it in another thing that has no broad acceptance & are probably doing things in a proprietary way so now they are going to be _owned_ by a Business Analyst, I suppose.
They thought they were running away but they were really running in a larger circle and have only arrived back where they started. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's exactly it.
What strikes me most, is that most of the VB.NET code is moved to SQL, as the no-code platform does little in that regard.
Somehow, people think SQL is easier to develop in and that people who know SQL are in larger demand.
However, SQL is just not a general purpose programming language.
The result is all kinds of workarounds and hacks just to make easy things work and still lots of bugs (especially with error handling!).
Another phenomenon I've witnessed, with this platform and another no-code platform as well, is that their clients hire a consultancy company (often a subsidiary of the no-code company) to "write" their application.
So instead of hiring general purpose developers, they hire specialised no-code developers.
And so, the vendor lock-in is complete.
But somehow developers are in short supply 
|
|
|
|
|
mandatory[^]
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The following comment found under that comic strip is really how it ends up going...
Comment from site ...then the project manager gives it to the programmer saying, I did 99% of it, you should be able to finish this last little bit...
|
|
|
|
|
Designing a control loop for a motor is 100x easier and more reliable with Simulink™ than by hand, plus it's also a lot more portable across different chip manifacturers, which actually helps competition - so far a lot of chip manifacturer coast on the fact that embedded code is pretty much locked to the toolchain and the platfrom it runs.
Removing the hairiest part from the porting is a huge boon, and I'm talking as a standard developer who knows Jack and ![Sunshine | [little ray of sunshine]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/sunshine.gif) about control algorithms and Simulink, and Jack is out of town. It's also good from a software engineering standpoint since it helps with modularity - you can much more easily adapt different high level logics on a wide array of different motors without invalidating the test and validation already done on each of the component.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
