|
It's not meant to be clicked, you right-click it and pick Copy to put the URL on the clipboard. It's like a PermaLink in blog terms.
The trouble with doing this automatically is two-fold
1. AFAIK only IE has built-in clipboard support
2. Clipboard access can be turned off, and in the default configuation, IE shows a scary warning message when the page tries to use the clipboard.
|
|
|
|
|
[IE7, Vista]
Previewing a response to a post causes focus to be transfered to the parent window a couple of seconds after displaying the preview window. I can't tell you how annoying this is. OK, I can. OK, I just did. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
If only there was some way of previewing your post without opening a new window... 
|
|
|
|
|
...on IE.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: IE
Ah, well. There's always a trade-off, i suppose...
Last modified: 10mins after originally posted -- Fixed quote. Oops...
|
|
|
|
|
Um... I hope CPhog didn't add the wrong attribution in your reply.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: If only there was some way of previewing your post without opening a new window...
----
Scripts i’ve known...
CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better.
Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve
Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums
Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages
In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete
Spam, spam, spam. You should be imitated. Or at least hired.
Seriously, though: Why are these features so (apparently) easy for you to implement and so hard for the CodeProject folks? Is it the tools you're using? What?
By the way, the above signature had so many lines I couldn't quote it properly when composing this post - the last line was clipped in the display box. Am I reporting this problem to the right person?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: By the way, the above signature had so many lines I couldn't quote it properly when composing this post - the last line was clipped in the display box.
I do that with my signatures, just to be difficult.
The Grand Negus wrote: Why are these features so (apparently) easy for you to implement and so hard for the CodeProject folks? Is it the tools you're using?
Well, i do use great tools. But i suspect The Management has been a bit distracted by The Re-Write.
Nothing like writing The Second System to get your creative juices flowing... 
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: Well, i do use great tools. But i suspect The Management has been a bit distracted by The Re-Write.
Nothing like writing The Second System to get your creative juices flowing...
Well, then, good for them. Too bad your stuff will be made obsolete by the built-in wysiwyg message editor, the new printing facilities, the delete-in-place function, and all of the other features they'll be including in the re-written version.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Too bad your stuff will be made obsolete by the built-in wysiwyg message editor, the new printing facilities, the delete-in-place function, and all of the other features they'll be including in the re-written version.
Not at all - it'll have served it's purpose (it's purpose being: i get it first)
|
|
|
|
|
It's so hard to write good sarcasm. There's a possibility, I would think, that your stuff won't be made obsolete by the re-write...
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you get it? He doesn't care!
Why did people write the C programming language when they knew it would be made obsolete by Plain English?
|
|
|
|
|
Ed.Poore wrote: Don't you get it? He doesn't care!
Ed, you missed Osmo's sarcastic dig at Chris M. He's not going after Shog, he's going after Chris M. 
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have a link, or has it been obliterated via Report as Abuse or Spam?
I have no idea what I just said but my intentions were sincere.
Poore Design
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ta! ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
Eh??? 
I have no idea what I just said but my intentions were sincere.
Poore Design
|
|
|
|
|
Ed.Poore wrote: Eh???
Let me help you out. Since the first Macintosh was introduced decades ago, it became obvious to nearly every normal person that wysiwyg editing is superior - far superior - to the "edit here and preview there" approach. Nevertheless, on this (and many other sites) the user is unable to do what those one-megabyte, one-megahertz Macs could do. It seems that Shog has addressed and solved the problem, in his spare time, while the "professionals" at CodeProject either don't see the problem, or don't care, or whatever. I'm wondering if the re-write that we keep hearing about will be as good as Shog's add-ons. That's all. Can they, after more than seven years, finally get the premier coding site up to the standards set by the early Macintoshes without using third-party add-ons?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: It seems that Shog has addressed and solved the problem, in his spare time, while the "professionals" at CodeProject either don't see the problem, or don't care, or whatever.
Osmo,
Instead of acknowledging that Shog's a genius, you are trying to make it look as if what Shog does is the norm and therefore CP-devs have to be bad. You have to get a proper perspective of Shog's astonishing abilities (both in terms of web-scripting and in terms of innovative ideas), before you go complaining that CP's not as good as Shog's add-on is.
Also, Shog's not answerable if CPHog breaks something. The few hundred who use it would not be mad at him if it causes something bad to happen. But Chris can't take the same risks. For instance, I've noticed on multiple occasions in the last week how people using CPHog are misquoting authors when they reply to a post. It seems to be a CPHog bug where the parent post's author is associated with the current post's content. No one complained and the issue is not even noticed much or commented upon. If Chris made a similar bug he'd have been attacked strongly on the Lounge and would have received a few 1000 angry emails.
So by comparing CPHog's powerful UI with CP's native UI, you are being as unfair as you possibly could be.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: So by comparing CPHog's powerful UI with CP's native UI, you are being as unfair as you possibly could be.
I mentioned Shog simply because he appeared at the top of the thread. What I really want to compare, and ask, is this:
Why are machines and software that are literally thousands of times bigger and faster than the original Mac so much less user-friendly? And why does no one seem to notice? Or care? Shouldn't we all, as developers, be ashamed? I know I am. When I have to teach a new user how to use, say, Windows, I always begin with an apology for the tasteless over-complexity of the thing.
So what is our excuse? We know the thing can be done better - because it has been done better. On much less capable machines. What is holding us back? Why can't today's developers do what a handful of pioneers did over 25 years ago? I'm not concerned with Shog and Chris here except as examples. I am concerned that the whole industry has apparently lost sight of what constitutes good design, efficient implementation, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly the answer is to do with the fact that the industry moves on so fast that developers are just trying to keep up with things. Yes I know that we can simply refuse to learn new technologies but what happens when your clients ask why are you still using C++ rather than the latest new fangled hype from Microsoft.
Things are beginning to be made easier to develop with new technologies etc but you are still talking about a website here that has 3 million + members spread all over the world, I've come across problems between machine configurations within the same company which is supposed to have standardised PCs, imagine how much more complex the whole process becomes when you deal with 3 million individual configurations. And as Nish said people here don't mind if free utilities like CPHog break because a) they're regular enough on the site to know about them, b) they know the author of them and c) respect him for spending his free time creating such a nice utility so they give him some slack. When Chris has to do something it will impact (the majority anyway) of those 3 million users without them having to do anything so it has to work, the impact of Shog's stuff is so much smaller in comparison. (Sorry to go back to your example but I thought I'd continue the trend  ).
|
|
|
|
|
You foget that this is the web, it is infinately more difficult to develop working systems here then it is on a desktop application of a similiar sized application. Because we are limited by what 3rd parties have done we can either take the built in features for browsers (which are always different per browser and very badly written to begin with)or build them from scratch, again causing a cross browser problem or a huge load problem.
If you do not know about advanced web development then please do not comment on it.
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: You foget that this is the web, it is infinately more difficult to develop working systems here then it is on a desktop application of a similiar sized application. Because we are limited by what 3rd parties have done we can either take the built in features for browsers (which are always different per browser and very badly written to begin with)or build them from scratch, again causing a cross browser problem or a huge load problem.
If you do not know about advanced web development then please do not comment on it.
Actually, I'm not "forgetting that this is the web" - I'm commenting on that very thing. It's a mess and needs to be fixed. How? Well, that depends on who you are...
Maunder, for example - having declared his site to be "Microsoft-Centric" and having limited his audience to "Visual Studio and .NET" programmers - should simply insist that everyone who uses his site use the Microsoft browser. That would simplify life for him, make the thing more reliable for his users, and provide a more stable and simpler (I use the term loosely) development environment for features like those we had 25 years ago on the Mac. It would also help to promote Microsoft's monopoly and the eventual elimination of those irritating 3rd parties together with the confusion they cause.
Osmosians, on the other hand, have dedicated themselves to an even larger goal, hoping (as it says in our Manifesto) within three decades to make the entire "Windows/Intel/Linux Era nothing more than a bad memory in the annals of computing." This will, of course, require drastic (and unilateral) measures. When the time comes, we will introduce an "Alternet"(tm) over which computers of the PAL 3000 variety - and only those computers - may communicate. Our "Alternet"(tm) will, of course, be much smaller at first, and may never rival the original Internet in size or diversity; but that's not the point. It's an "Alternet", not a "Replacementnet"; an alternative to the monopoly mentioned above. It will be simpler, cleaner, and large enough to be useful, and that's enough for us.
It always strikes me how parochial the views expressed here are. "If it doesn't help me with the problem I've got right now, and help me right away - or help me make more money - I'm not interested." Doesn't anyone dream anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
Ok comparing Pal to Web development is drastically different. The whole point of the HTTP protocol is to have it's content interpreted by the other end. This means that anyone who can recieve the response can interpret it.
What the Web needs is a drastic re-vamp of it's standards, which is something that will never be achieved while the W3c is in "power" (and I use that term loosely).
Because at this time it is beyond me to change this I just have to settle for work arounds and lesser content. I will eventually start a small organisation for a new web standard but I do not have time for that.= right now.
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: Because at this time it is beyond me to change this I just have to settle for work arounds and lesser content. I will eventually start a small organisation for a new web standard but I do not have time for that.= right now.
Fine, fine. But here's an opportunity to keep an eye out for.
Let's say some huge (or not so huge) corporation wants us to develop an internet application that will allow their employees to access the company database and place and track orders from their laptops. Well, we can either implement this as a web application (with all the grief we've been discussing), or suggest that each employee will do his work using a small client program that we will write - a client-side application that only knows how to work with the company database. This puts us - with the exception of a tiny bit of low-level internet protocol - entirely in control of both the interface and the internals of the thing. We can make it look and feel and operate exactly as we wish, providing the customer with a reliable, easy-to-use, and easy-to-learn system.
Now, why isn't this approach taken more often? I say it's because today's developers, as a whole, have forgotten (or haven't ever learned) how to actually design and implement systems from scratch. So instead of giving the customer one big program that does exactly what he wants it to do, they end up giving the customer hundreds of little programs - in several different languages, most of them interpreted - that don't quite do what he had in mind.
Consider, for example, this site. Making it entirely wysiwyg, with edit-in-place and all those other nice features, using current internet protocols, is hard. But writing a client-side application to do those things, and distributing the thing free to CodeProject members, is relatively easy.
In other words, let us, as individual developers, (1) admit that internet protocols and standards are unreasonably goofy, unreliable, and not likely to change for the better; and then (2) use them as little as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
