|
J4amieC wrote: The. Site. Is. Unusable.
But. Not. Working. Properly.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Interesting use of the word "good". I would have thought "good" would be reserved for a statement like, "I will put in place a coloriser that works properly all the time."
Do you pay a membership fee to CodeProject? No.
Are they contractually obligated to provide code snippet colorization? No.
Should beggars be choosers? No.
:josh:
My WPF Blog[ ^]
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. - Aristotle
|
|
|
|
|
Josh Smith wrote: Do you pay a membership fee to CodeProject? No.
Are they contractually obligated to provide code snippet colorization? No.
Should beggars be choosers? No.
Should programs work? Not work for me, but work simply as a matter of principle?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Should programs work? Not work for me, but work simply as a matter of principle?
So every last program you've ever written never had a bug in it, eh? If that's the case, you may wish to speak to God and let him know where he went wrong in making the rest of the world.
Really, even if you had semi-valid points, you totally do yourself more harm than good by coming off as a sour apple. None of us here have really seen you do anything useful - just complain. In my book, programmers solve problems and not and sit and whine and complain about them. That's what users do.
And lastly, this ain't the soapbox man. At least try to keep the discussions on topic rather than infest yet another message board with your drivel. Bugs or no bugs, CP is a great resource and you know it; otherwise, you would've left already. Why don't you do something weird and start talking about its strengths for a change.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: So every last program you've ever written never had a bug in it, eh?
Don't be silly; nobody's perfect. But we don't release programs with known bugs. And we do consider testing and debugging part of "Getting the Job Done".
Jeremy Falcon wrote: At least try to keep the discussions on topic
The topic, brought up by the poster I initially replied to, was "workarounds". My thought was twofold. First, that "workarounds" are generally not good because they take the pressure off actual fixes. And secondly, that we shouldn't need "workarounds" for the most basic of operations - like add, change, and delete of profile information. After seven years.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Don't be silly; nobody's perfect. But we don't release programs with known bugs. And we do consider testing and debugging part of "Getting the Job Done".
So you assume your testing is perfect then? I've known testers (for a larger company) that were awesome in finding my bugs. They were better at it than I, and yet still a few bugs would slip through the cracks. That's what makes them bugs.
The Grand Negus wrote: And secondly, that we shouldn't need "workarounds" for the most basic of operations - like add, change, and delete of profile information. After seven years.
Which is my point. You offer nothing much but criticism. Oh sure, there's a time and place for that, but if that's all you do than it's a problem that's no better or worse than refusing to admit the truth.
Really man, to me it seems like you're wasting your talents on being bitter.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: So you assume your testing is perfect then?
No. Just as good as we know how to do.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I've known testers (for a larger company) that were awesome in finding my bugs. They were better at it than I, and yet still a few bugs would slip through the cracks. That's what makes them bugs.
But the bugs that "slip through the cracks" are not known bugs, which is the topic here.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You offer nothing much but criticism.
Not so. I offer constructive criticism which is significantly different. When Chris approached me directly regarding the colorising problem (above) I didn't just complain, I offered a reasonable analysis of the problem and suggested a workable solution. One that would make the thing better for all and free up a great deal of his time in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: But the bugs that "slip through the cracks" are not known bugs, which is the topic here.
Ok, but none of us really know Chris' schedule or priorities. Say what you will about that, but until we're in his position all we can do is judge and second-guess. Regardless, his priorities don't necessarily affect (directly) the quality of the software in itself.
In the real world things do cost money. That includes time and programmers. Maybe he's making a trade-off depending on the circumstances. I don't know. Oh jeeze, now I sound like I'm defensive. Whatever, my point is we can't always assume we know.
The Grand Negus wrote: Not so. I offer constructive criticism which is significantly different.
But it is criticism nonetheless. Constructive criticism in itself isn't bad, but that's all you do. It's like all day long you look to speak of CP's flaws while avoiding increasing the merits in your own work. And yet you're surprised to be called a sour apple? Too much of anything is bad, and I'm sure we can both agree on that.
The Grand Negus wrote: suggested a workable solution
What you suggested was akin to undermining the entire structure of the Web rather than actually addressing his issue. Which is what I'm getting at. Your idea of solutions revolve around sweeping generalizations that don't really help, all while you criticize and offer no real work/contribution of your own.
For that matter, I think an extensible colorizer for future syntax is way more doable than writing a PDF writer (you'd have to let authors write for free or else most wouldn't) for every platform under the sun. Either way, I'd rather have to colorize my HTML manually before I was forced to make everything online a bunch of PDFs.
So, in essence what you suggested doing was not only more complicated it's extremely impractical.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: But we don't release programs with known bugs. And we do consider testing and debugging part of "Getting the Job Done".
Hint: plain english Claude Monet demo + no internet connection = crash + burn
Not a known bug? Not a very good tester!
The Grand Negus wrote: most basic of operations
Like a valid internet connection in a program that requires an internet connection? Like error reporting to the user when something goes wrong?
Your arguments are about as watertight as a pair of fishnet tights.
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: Hint: plain english Claude Monet demo + no internet connection = crash + burn
It doesn't crash and burn; it displays an appropriate error message.
|
|
|
|
|
Aaaah but it didnt when you released it did it mr nag us.
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: Aaaah but it didnt when you released it did it mr nag us.
Simply not true. The current version is the same as the original. The alleged error was mis-reported.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: If that's the case, you may wish to speak to God and let him know where he went wrong in making the rest of the world.
 Good one!
:josh:
My WPF Blog[ ^]
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit. - Aristotle
|
|
|
|
|
If you try to delete the b'date from your profile. It saves settings without any problem, but again shows deleted b'date in your profile.
|
|
|
|
|
prasad_som wrote: If you try to delete the b'date from your profile. It saves settings without any problem, but again shows deleted b'date in your profile.
It's been that way for a while now. A workaround is to set it to a wrong date like Jan 1 2000 and leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: It's been that way for a while now.
I was thinking, How its gone unnoticed.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: A workaround is to set it to a wrong date like Jan 1 2000 and leave it at that.
Thinking something similar.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: It's been that way for a while now. A workaround is to set it to a wrong date like Jan 1 2000 and leave it at that.
Is that really the best the premier "Visual Studio and .NET" site can muster?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Is that really the best the premier "Visual Studio and .NET" site can muster?
I see what you are trying to do Osmo - but it's not working. The right question is, "how good would a site's content and community have to be, if it's the #1 site in the world for its technology area despite minor inconveniences such as an inability to change the date of birth setting" 
|
|
|
|
|
It's simply Database 101. For each field in a table, we need add, change, delete, and query capability. These are not "conveniences", but expected essentials, and their lack is not a mere "inconvenience", but negligence.
It's wrong; it's broken; it's a bug; it should be fixed; it never should have made it past beta testing. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Or should. And the #1 site in the world for its technology area should be ashamed about it. Ashamed.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris has other things to worry about, like the implementation of a PHP forum.
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Bradml wrote: Chris has other things to worry about
Perhaps. And there's all that biking, too.
But you're missing the point. Basic add, change, and delete capability is something that should be provided at the very start. Oversights like this one - and there are many similar problems with this site - should not have made it (as I said before) past beta testing.
No user in his right mind would accept such a thing; do your clients let you get away with work so sloppy? I hope not. "Well, Mr. Businessman, we're sorry you can't update the phone numbers, and when you delete a dependent sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but look how nice those payroll checks look!" Nonsense. We're the users of this program, and we have a right to demand more of our developer. Especially since he claims to be working with the best technologies available.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm pretty slack. Maybe I'll do some work or something one day.
The Grand Negus wrote: should not have made it (as I said before) past beta testing
Yes, there are a hundred little things like this but you know what? The site works pretty well in serving its purpose: to allow developers to share source code, post articles, and discuss programming issues as a community. We even offer a money back guarantee that should keep Mr. Businessman happy.
So yes we can go back and fix all those little niggly things or we can just move on, as we are doing, with rearchitecting and rewriting everything.
And anyway, who said anything about us being past the beta stage? It's just that, unlike Google, we don't actually stick a "beta" tag on everything 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
And Pilate replied, "What is truth?"
|
|
|
|
|
And Chris replied, "Why do you always act like a jerk?".
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler]
Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp]
The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson]
I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
|
|
|
|
|
CP is due for a bit of a rewrite. Not that it is completely messed up, but it does have a few little bugs. I suspect Chris is working on a new system as we speak.
Anyway this is not a corporate site, it is a community site, can you name one that doesn't have bugs?
One major factor to any bugs here is the decision to use ASP.net 
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
