1,175 karma · joined March 12, 2015
If they had taken more ideas from C# (especially ExecutionContexts), a lot of his complaints would fade away. He actually explicitly calls this out towards the bottom of the essay.
Maybe you should read the help file instead of going on "feelings". Every UI widget in Windows can be operated from the keyboard.
> Being required to use my pinky to try and hit CTRL instead of my thumb to hit COMMAND to do simple things like copy and paste is HUGE to me.
Oh come on. You're just making up reasons to dislike it at this point. "The shortcut key is a half-inch further away! THIS IS AMAZINGLY IMPORTANT MIND-BLOWING SUPER-FLAW!"
People were excited about it, it was making forward/upward progress for a few years. Microsoft bought Nokia, and people got even more excited.
Then what happened? Years passed with no flagship phone, literally no reason from me to move on from my Nokia 1020 because there was no hardware to move to. Then they announce that older models weren't getting the Windows 10 update, which was another nail in the coffin (not to mention a big "fuck you" to the fans that have stuck with Windows Phone this long). Now we're hearing basically... nothing at all about anything.
I loved Windows Phone 7 on my HTC Titan II, and I love Windows Phone 8 on my Nokia 1020. But unless a really killer new phone is in stores before January 1st, there's basically no way I can stick with Windows Phone for my next phone.
The fact that they're showing off Skyrim, a 2011 game, in their 2017 console launch video doesn't say much for their hardware's abilities. It says a lot about how beloved Skyrim is, though.
You mean garbage collection?
I'd love to hear about the "nightmare" you had. The worst I've ever had to do was restart the app pool, about 15 seconds of downtime and all was well again.
> And an MS stack when 80% of the world deploys to Linux on the serverside.
The MS stuff works. Reliably. For years. Decades. And has development tools no Linux solution even comes remotely close to matching.
> You might be stuck in the wrong decade...
That's kind of exactly the point the article was making. If the tools from "the wrong decade" are solid and reliable, just keep using them. That's the point.
2) A lot of people don't like having "rich applications built on the clientside", because in their experience that means buggy, broken applications that never work quite right and often break the scrollbar and back button.
Different people have different priorities when it comes to gaming.
They might not "focus" on it (whatever that means-- it has the feature, it works, what more "focus" do you need?), I suppose.
But the real killer is: games are still tied to hardware, not user account. Which means, if your console dies, you lose all your purchases. (Unless that's changed VERY recently.)
If you're used to the Xbox store like the grandparent, going to the Nintendo Shop is like stepping back in time a decade.
(Probably not Amazon, either.)
All the Star Trek series and films are on Netflix. Wouldn't it be great to have a playlist of every episode by original air date? (So you don't get confused when Deep Space 9 refers to an event in First Contact?) Wouldn't it be awesome to have a playlist of only the top 20 Voyager episodes, so you don't have to suffer through the awful ones?
It surprises me they haven't implemented this. If they did, any user could solve your problem of putting a movie series in order.
Of course I also wish they had a "back 30 seconds" button for when you miss a line of dialog, and that's never been done either. Sigh. It seems like all their revenue is going into making Marvel shows and zero into software development.
Whenever I wanted some mega-obscure Japanese or Thai movie, Netflix never had it and Blockbuster always did.
Oh well.
Ok. Then I guess it was a bad technical choice to pick that system if it prevents you from matching the features of your competitors, wasn't it?
I get the sense you're still missing my point here, but whatever.
> You've had 1 capability you appreciate removed, while having tons of others added.
Like what? The only one I'm aware of is "work offline". Which TFS also offers in the newer versions.
(Also: again, work on your reading comprehension. I talked about two capabilities that TFS and Subversion have that Git lacks.)
I'd like to hear about these "tons" of features Git provides over its competitors.
Or they could offer little widgets you can buy and post on your profile page, like LiveJournal does (assuming it still does; it's been ages.)
Or a combination of the two, like DeviantArt.
There's plenty of options. Hell, sell Twitter plushies. That failwhale image was pretty cute.
"Just block them", it's easy when there's one or two accounts being dicks. It's much more difficult when 4chan's recruited 50,000 accounts to be dicks.
Unfortunately, software in that particular niche has to be really good or it'll engender a lot of hate. If you're Skype, people generally don't mind because Skype is relatively easy and pleasant to use. If you're Git, people are going to hate you.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. The only claim I made about TFS is that it has a feature (locking files) that Git doesn't.
I cited it as an example that Git has fewer features than its competitors. I never said anything about its quality.
> This has nothing to do with Git specifically. This is a difference between centralized and distributed. If you want the benefits of distributed source-control, you'll have to pay the cost.
Fine; but that's not the point.
The point is it's a feature that I want. And now that Git has seemingly taken-over the field of source control, I no longer have it. Nobody does. It's gone.
I'm not a fan of newer software having fewer features than older software.
Ok...
> First of all, because git is a CLI application you can easily build a GUI for it,
Actually you can't, because Git has features like "pre-commit hooks" and it's literally impossible to translate the output/messages of those into reasonable form for a GUI to consume (since it's just freeform CLI output text). The best you can do is simply echo them back to the user in a stupid text dialog box. You'll notice all Git GUIs either don't support pre-commit hooks at all (always commit with them set to disabled), or display the output of them using the lazy text dialog box method.
The other limitation, of course, is that since Git has no library, it's impossible for a GUI to be based on Git without it actually using Git CLI commands in the background. Which means if the Git CLI changes its commands, suddenly its broken all GUIs built off of it. (GUI clients generally "solve" this problem by shipping their own Git binary and using it exclusively, even if a newer one is on the same system.)
(It's funny that you mention WinForms. What Git does with its CLI commands is pretty much exactly equivalent to a WinForms app with business logic in the event handlers. Except where any WinForms developer would say, "why are you mixing up the UI and the program logic? That's a terrible idea!" apparently Git developers think it's great and double-down.)
It's impossible to build a truly quality GUI without the product being designed with that in mind from the start. Git wasn't. And there was simply no excuse for that in 2005.
> You can't do the reverse,
The correct way of writing an application is to put all the functionality into a library, then keeping your user interfaces separate from that library. So while you're right that you can't do the reverse (build a quality CLI from a GUI application), if the developers of Git had done their job correctly, you wouldn't have to. Git would have a core library that anybody could build any kind of user interface from.
> Second, what "physical limitations" put people into a position where they can code but they can't use a CLI?
Dyslexia. I can manage in an IDE with a large dependence on auto-complete, but I can't do a CLI.
Since I grew up on Macs and it's only relatively recently that crud like Git has been seeping into the Windows development scene, this had never been a limitation for me in the past. Worse than being user-hostile, Git makes me feel disabled in a way no other program has.
> Multimedia artists are among the people who are most resistant to ever switch tools due to how much they have mentally invested into the complexities of their go-to application. Your example is far from good.
I'm sorry my examples do not meet your exacting standards.
We also had source control packages that were not only easier to use, but had more features: TFS let you put a lock on files that don't merge well, for example. Both TFS and Subversion allowed you to check-out only small portions of the repository.
Git has some nice things. It's generally fast, for example. It allows developers to work offline. But when the developer community apparently unilaterally chose to adopt it, we threw away a lot of good stuff, let's not forget that.
I'd also question that Git is "universally respected". I've worked with a great many programmers who found it just as unpleasant and unfriendly as I do. The reason people use Git is because other developers demand it as a condition of employment, not because it's enjoyable. In that respect, it's in the same class of application as, say, OracleApps or Lotus Notes.
---
^ Yes, someone's going to come in here and say, "well it's a professional tool for professionals therefore it's ok that it's difficult to use and hostile and not accessibility to people who can't use a CLI due to physical limitations because it's a professional tool for professionals.
Well.
Sony Vegas is a professional tool for professionals, and somehow it doesn't have even remotely the amount of usability problems Git does. So is Adobe Photoshop. So I don't buy that argument.
The big problem with the entire Unix philosophy is that it assumes all important data is text, when in the real world very little of it is. If you're one of the few people who can get away with text-based everything, it's great. If you're the vast majority of the population, it's a terrible idea.
How about respect?
---
Of course, the Seattle P.D.'s implementation of body cameras merely revealed that not only were they incompetent at policing, they were also incompetent at basic IT capabilities. So I guess that's a risk for New York.
I admittedly don't use Bluetooth and every time I've tried it's been a horrible experience.
> USB wifi module.
Mine works fine, no driver download.
> Logitech webcam.
Mine works fine, no driver download.
> Focusrite audio interface.
I don't have one.
> HP printer (actually this one required firmware on Linux too, so that's a draw).
I haven't used a printer in probably 10 years.
> XBox 360 controller (required a driver on Windows 8.1. Maybe that's changed in the last few months with windows 10).
Nope. Not on 8.1. Not on 10. There may be an optional driver for it (may be-- I've never seen it), but it's certainly not required. This one I can firmly say you're wrong about. (Unless you have like a Chinese knock-off Xbox 360 controller-- the brand-name ones work.)
I had a great experience the other day when I plugged in my ancient CanoScan LiDE 200 scanner I bought back in the Windows 2000 days, and it worked flawlessly in Windows 10, no drivers or software needed.
Is it really so impossible for you to understand that I might feel differently about the product than you do?