Re: Learning process
From: Chris \( Val \) (chrisval_at_bigpond.com.au)
Date: 01/05/04
- Next message: Martijn Lievaart: "Re: which should i learn c or c++ ?"
- Previous message: Martijn Lievaart: "Re: which should i learn c or c++ ?"
- In reply to: Paul F. Johnson: "Re: Learning process"
- Next in thread: Paul F. Johnson: "Re: Learning process"
- Reply: Paul F. Johnson: "Re: Learning process"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:19:43 +1100
"Paul F. Johnson" <paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.05.07.56.50.749789@all-the-johnsons.co.uk...
| Hi,
|
| Chris ( Val ) managed to grunt out the following :
|
| > "Paul F. Johnson" <paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:pan.2004.01.04.20.14.44.184479@all-the-johnsons.co.uk...
[snip - G'day Paul :-)]
| > I don't have any figures at hand, but I totally disagree
| > with you - I would bet that MFC actually *dwarfs* the amount
| > of 'wxWindows' applications and users out there :-).
|
| Have I said *anywhere* that there are more wxWindows apps out
| there?
What does- quote:
"treble your potential client base by using wxWindows"
...mean then ?
| What I've said is that using wxWindows massively
| increases your userbase potential.
'massively' :-) ?
[snip]
| > What I am questioning, is your comment, quote:
| > "treble your potential client base by using wxWindows"
| >
| > Sorry, but I find that very difficult to believe - Max :-).
| >
| > I do not have any statistics, but my feeling is that it is
| > actually the opposite.
|
| Okay. Look at Scribus (a Linux DTP app). Uses the Qt libs which means that
| it has an instant userbase (for free) of Mac OSX and Linux. There are over
| a million users of it (currently, based on downloads). Not a massive
| number compared to Quark or Indesign. If it had been designed using
| wxWindows, it would have a *potential* userbase of Windows, Mac <OSX, OS
| X, Linux, OS/2 and a few other platforms. The same would apply if Qt was
| free for Windows. Keyword is potential. Potentially, by using wxWindows,
| you're massively increasing the userbase which you 100% won't do using MFC.
Oop's, there's that word 'massively' again :-).
But really '~one million' users, does not justify the
term 'massively' at all I'm afraid :-).
I think you're actually agreeing with me, but you just
don't know it :-).
What really gets me the most, is that everyone endorses the
excellent work of the open source community(I am happy that
it exists too), but some people just go to far to promote
how good it is, when it is still leaps and bounds away in
many areas.
What's worse, is many of the open people against MS, are
actually killing themselves to provide MS like applications,
emulators to run MS Windows applications and support - how
ironic is that :-).
[snip]
| > Again, it is these kind of quotes that I am against, because you are
| > only guessing. Sure, *nix* is increasing it's user base(as one would
| > naturally expect), but why do you think the MS user base is declining ?
|
| MS sales figures, number of documented companies moving over and removing
| Windows as the desktop environment over companies adopting.
Please paste in the relevant link here: ------------------
[snip]
| > It would take countless years to even get near the
| > 'Redmond Beast', so any discouraging talk of a decline
| > is pointless.
|
| Not really - it only takes people to wake up to the "let's
| patch again, like we did yesterday" mentality of MS - and
| people are.
FWIW, most(if not all), of the *nix* distributions, are
regularly patched, just like MS stuff. If you don't think
so, then can you tell me why there are so many incremental
releases(not only to the kernels), but the supported
applications that are part of the package(s) ?
I'll tell you why - bugs :-).
| > As much as you or any others despise MS, you do at
| > least have to acknowledge that they have made significant
| > improvements, are continuing to do so, and *do have an
| > excellent product*.
|
| Nothing MS produce is excellent in anyway, shape or form.
That could not be further from the truth - like them or hate
them, they indeed have good products on offer, although, I
admit, that they are expensive.
| If a box comes
| preinstalled with an OS, people stick with it - lots
| never bother applying
| patches.
So why is that the fault of MS ?
The same can be said for *nix* systems.
| It usually doesn't matter how bad the product is either.
| Face it, Outlook/Outlook Express are two of the most
| insecure piles of pap on the face of the planet - yet will
| people move to Pegasus or EudoraLite? No.
You know, I regularly visit MS Windows Update, and I can tell
you, that as soon as any security hole is found, you can find
a patch for it - almost immediately.
And let me say this once again.
Every single operating system(or software(on any system)), can
be exploited, if the hacking community were focused on it, and
because MS hold the crown - there are more reward points in
hacking it, rather than the rest.
| They don't need to as they already have O/OE. Mozilla is now a far more
| capable browser than IE - it is certainly more compliant to w3c specs - is
| it dominant? No. Why? It's not bundled with Windows.
People are not stupid - they use what works, and indeed works well.
Why on earth would they want to change it ?
| A stranglehold does not make for "improvements" either. Win3.11 was the
| most stable version of Windows with Win2K being the most usable, yet the
| current version has more holes than a cheese grater, tries to do the
| thinking for the user and treats everyone like a 3 year old (it's not for
| nothing that XP was dubbed the Teletubbie edition in the UK)
I can tell you(from my experiences), W2K and XP are solid rock stable,
and I use both of them heavily each day of the week.
| > | Depends. The object model for wxWindows is not greatly different to
| > | MFC and quite a lot of the methods have an equivalent (or close to
| > | one). If you can make a case to the PHB that to transfer over to wx
| > | will *make* the company even more money at the cost of probably a
| > | couple of weeks development time, he/she would have to be crazy not to
| > | say go with it.
| >
| > On the contrary, they would not be the crazy ones :-).
|
| Given the choice of two weeks work in return for lots of money, or keep
| plodding on is crazy? Makes sense to do the work!
I don't believe you could re-write and re-document any
substantial application in two weeks :-).
| > Are you now going to tell me, that you can re-write an application,
| > re-document it all(ERs, DFDs etc...), unit test the code, go through
| > UAT, etc.. it a couple of weeks ? LOL :-).
|
| Depends. It is not unknown for large programs based on MFC to be moved
| over in 3 weeks. Once the test procedure is there (and lots of the same
| ones *can* be used), things slot into place.
|
| > I wasn't talking about a toy program you know!
|
| I know. Toy ones tend to take ages!
I'm now confused ???
The toy ones take time, but the substantial ones do not ?
[snipped out of frustration :-)]
| > But the windows command line is still widely used today. You *have* to
| > know your way around it, even if using *nix*.
|
| Windows has not really had a command line environment since DOS 7 vanished
| (XP). It is not that widely used any more.
Couldn't be further from the truth - the command line
is live and kicking in many workplaces.
| > Please do not confuse MS-DOS with today's Windows command line.
|
| I'm not. DOS was usable, it had it's problems, but was definately more
| usable!
Nope - today's command line interpreters would eat DOS
alive, and support many types of scripting etc...
[snip]
| Nope. bash (and csh and zsh) are all quite happy together. Anyone using
| bash understands that - even PHBs!
Yes, but I was talking about the fact one may not know
how to perform a simple command line 'command' under
modern Windows interpreters.
[snip]
| > | W32 is suffering now and I have no doubt that in 10
| > | years time, Linux and BSD will be suffering in favour
| > | of something else....
| >
| > Yes - It's called 'LogHorn' :-).
|
| Longhorn is awful. Have you seen the betas? Euw!!!!! Longhorn, especially
| created for those who can just about turn the computer on and like eye
| candy and don't mind everything running dog slow!
That is an exaggeration of monolithic proportions :-).
Cheers.
Chris Val
- Next message: Martijn Lievaart: "Re: which should i learn c or c++ ?"
- Previous message: Martijn Lievaart: "Re: which should i learn c or c++ ?"
- In reply to: Paul F. Johnson: "Re: Learning process"
- Next in thread: Paul F. Johnson: "Re: Learning process"
- Reply: Paul F. Johnson: "Re: Learning process"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
