Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Saturday, September 17, 2005
So You Think Visual Basic Is A Wimpy Programming Language?
Yes, hardcore programmers sometimes look down on their Visual Basic counterparts. Aren't those the guys who never have to deal with pointers, dynamic memory allocation and multithreading, and who are writing code in a language that was intended for novices (hence "Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code"). Those who use an interpreter whose roots go back to Microsoft's first product, Altair Basic? Hey, not so fast! I know Java and .NET developers who have no clue about pointers, dynamic memory allocation and multithreading either, and are easily outperformed by VB veterans.
Last week I introduced a Visual Basic programmer to MSXML, and prepared some code samples so she would have something to start with. And it's true, the VB6-syntax is partly bizarre. Let alone the Visual Basic IDE which pops up an error messagebox each time I leave a line of code that does not work yet (although I am sure there should be an option to switch off this annoyance). It also has the same usability charm as back when it was introduced on 16-bit Windows. The API is quite limiting as well, so the first thing I had to do was to import several Win32 functions.
Let's face it, legacy applications done in Visual Basic can turn into a CIO's nightmare. A huge number of little standalone VB applications have emerged during the last fifteen years, fragmenting corporate software infrastructure. VB applications are often hard to maintain because of the lack of structured programming the language enforces, VB6 itself is a dead horse and the migration path to VB.NET is tedious.
Legions of VB programmers are supposed to switch over to VB.NET those days. VB.NET does not have a lot in common with the old platform but some syntax similarities. Not only do those programmers suddenly have to grasp OOP, they must also get to know the .NET framework as well as a completely different IDE. BTW, I really dislike the VB.NET syntax. Just compare the MSDN VB.NET and C# code samples. C# is elegant (thanks to MS distinguished engineer Anders Hejlsberg), while VB.NET is nothing but an ugly hybrid.
Another story comes to my mind: a friend of mine, expert on Linux and embedded systems, once went to work for a new employer. He knew they were doing some stuff in Visual Basic. Then one day someone sent him a Powerpoint file. My friend was wondering what it was all about, as the presentation itself was empty. "No, it's no presentation, it's our codebase", the other guy answered. They had done their stuff in Powerpoint VBA. Unbelievable! Needless to mention, my friend left that company shortly after.
So if you want to know my opinion: Visual Basic might be wimpy, but in some perverted way it's for the real tough as well.
Last week I introduced a Visual Basic programmer to MSXML, and prepared some code samples so she would have something to start with. And it's true, the VB6-syntax is partly bizarre. Let alone the Visual Basic IDE which pops up an error messagebox each time I leave a line of code that does not work yet (although I am sure there should be an option to switch off this annoyance). It also has the same usability charm as back when it was introduced on 16-bit Windows. The API is quite limiting as well, so the first thing I had to do was to import several Win32 functions.
Let's face it, legacy applications done in Visual Basic can turn into a CIO's nightmare. A huge number of little standalone VB applications have emerged during the last fifteen years, fragmenting corporate software infrastructure. VB applications are often hard to maintain because of the lack of structured programming the language enforces, VB6 itself is a dead horse and the migration path to VB.NET is tedious.
Legions of VB programmers are supposed to switch over to VB.NET those days. VB.NET does not have a lot in common with the old platform but some syntax similarities. Not only do those programmers suddenly have to grasp OOP, they must also get to know the .NET framework as well as a completely different IDE. BTW, I really dislike the VB.NET syntax. Just compare the MSDN VB.NET and C# code samples. C# is elegant (thanks to MS distinguished engineer Anders Hejlsberg), while VB.NET is nothing but an ugly hybrid.
Another story comes to my mind: a friend of mine, expert on Linux and embedded systems, once went to work for a new employer. He knew they were doing some stuff in Visual Basic. Then one day someone sent him a Powerpoint file. My friend was wondering what it was all about, as the presentation itself was empty. "No, it's no presentation, it's our codebase", the other guy answered. They had done their stuff in Powerpoint VBA. Unbelievable! Needless to mention, my friend left that company shortly after.
So if you want to know my opinion: Visual Basic might be wimpy, but in some perverted way it's for the real tough as well.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Andy Hertzfeld On NerdTV
Bob Cringely just published the first in series of interviews on NerdTV (hey there is no MPEG-4 codec in Windows Media Player - luckily Quicktime supports MPEG-4). He talks with original Macintosh system software programmer Andy Hertzfeld about Apple, the Mac project, Steve Jobs, Open Source and how he just recently excavated the old sourcecode of Bill Atkinson's MacPaint for Donald Knuth. Today Andy Hertzfeld runs Folklore.Org - "Anecdotes about the development of Apple's original Macintosh computer, and the people who created it".
At one point they refer to Cringely's 1996 TV-series "Triumph Of The Nerds", where Steve Jobs accused Microsoft of having "no taste" (his words actually were "The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste, and what that means is - I don't mean that in a small way I mean that in a big way.").
So after "Triumph Of The Nerds" aired, Steve Jobs came over to Andy Hertzfeld's place, and called Bill Gates to apologize. When Steve Jobs says sorry to Bill Gates, it goes like "Bill I'm calling to apologize. I saw the documentary and I said that you had no taste. Well I shouldn't have said that publicly. It's true, but I shouldn't have said it publicly". And Bill Gates responds saying "Steve, I may have no taste, but that doesn't mean my entire company has no taste". This little episode tells us a lot about those two characters, doesn't it?
At one point they refer to Cringely's 1996 TV-series "Triumph Of The Nerds", where Steve Jobs accused Microsoft of having "no taste" (his words actually were "The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste, and what that means is - I don't mean that in a small way I mean that in a big way.").
So after "Triumph Of The Nerds" aired, Steve Jobs came over to Andy Hertzfeld's place, and called Bill Gates to apologize. When Steve Jobs says sorry to Bill Gates, it goes like "Bill I'm calling to apologize. I saw the documentary and I said that you had no taste. Well I shouldn't have said that publicly. It's true, but I shouldn't have said it publicly". And Bill Gates responds saying "Steve, I may have no taste, but that doesn't mean my entire company has no taste". This little episode tells us a lot about those two characters, doesn't it?
Sunday, September 04, 2005
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly Elevator Panel User Interface
Some days ago, I blogged about the completely-screwed-up user interface of a parking garage ticketmachine here in the city of Linz, Austria. Same place, different usability nightmare: The garage elevator.
I should explain first: There are two parking decks, both under ground. They are labeled "level 1" and "level 2". The elevator stops at both levels, and at the ground floor from where you can exit to the outside.
Anyway, who ever is responsible for this parking garage's elevator panel, did not follow the "Keep-It-Simple-Stupid"-principle (remember, this panel and its "manual" are located outside the cabin):
Translation:
You want to enter the destination floor? [No, do I have to?]
Press "-".
Press "1" or "2".
No further operations required inside the cabin.
It's hard to notice, but the "-"-button is actually in the left bottom corner.
There are only levels 0, 1 and 2 - what are the other buttons good for? Oh I see, future extensability. Once they will excavate a whole new level 3 under ground, at least they won't have to touch the elevator panel! And what for the "-"? There is no "+"-counterpart. It all ends at level 0. This just forces you to press two buttons, instead of one. But then, it's mathematically correct, right?
So, you are standing at the ground floor, and want to go down. Unless you press "-" and then "1" or "2", the cabin will not even show up. Similar when you enter at level 2, you can then either enter "0" or "-" followed by "1". It's just ridiculous!
Now I am sure the Petronas Twin Towers must have a complex shortest-path-selection-algorithm implemented for their elevator system. I understand this decision making can be simplified if the user signals the destination of his journey already when calling the cabin. As we all know, standard elevators provide one up- and one down-button for summoning the cabin, so the cabin only stops if it's passing by in the right direction (not to mention that many people still press the wrong button or both of them once they get impatient). This ought to be enough for small to medium size systems.
Where does that thing want to go anyway? On level 0, basement parking garage customers tend to go down. On the lower levels, they most likely want to get up to the surface. OK, some weirdows might enjoy shuttling between level 1 and 2. Anyway with one and only one intermediate level, there is no real need for a complex path-optimization approach, which would depend on preceding destination input. Knowing whether we want to go up or down, followed by destination input inside the cabin should be the natural choice. Also, that's what people are used to.
I have observed elderly folks standing in front of that panel, giving up and going up or down the stairs by foot. I know this interface overstrains users. But hey, at least there are "no further operations required inside the cabin".
And I have tried, it is not a telephone, either. And in case it's supposed to be a calculator, where is the square root button? (talking about calculators, just a short off-topic-insertion at this point: you might want to have a look at Kraig Brockschmidt's online book "Mystic Microsoft" - Kraig is the creator of the original Windows 1.0 calculator and author of "Inside OLE").
I should explain first: There are two parking decks, both under ground. They are labeled "level 1" and "level 2". The elevator stops at both levels, and at the ground floor from where you can exit to the outside.
Anyway, who ever is responsible for this parking garage's elevator panel, did not follow the "Keep-It-Simple-Stupid"-principle (remember, this panel and its "manual" are located outside the cabin):
 |  |
Translation:
You want to enter the destination floor? [No, do I have to?]
Press "-".
Press "1" or "2".
No further operations required inside the cabin.
It's hard to notice, but the "-"-button is actually in the left bottom corner.
There are only levels 0, 1 and 2 - what are the other buttons good for? Oh I see, future extensability. Once they will excavate a whole new level 3 under ground, at least they won't have to touch the elevator panel! And what for the "-"? There is no "+"-counterpart. It all ends at level 0. This just forces you to press two buttons, instead of one. But then, it's mathematically correct, right?
So, you are standing at the ground floor, and want to go down. Unless you press "-" and then "1" or "2", the cabin will not even show up. Similar when you enter at level 2, you can then either enter "0" or "-" followed by "1". It's just ridiculous!
Now I am sure the Petronas Twin Towers must have a complex shortest-path-selection-algorithm implemented for their elevator system. I understand this decision making can be simplified if the user signals the destination of his journey already when calling the cabin. As we all know, standard elevators provide one up- and one down-button for summoning the cabin, so the cabin only stops if it's passing by in the right direction (not to mention that many people still press the wrong button or both of them once they get impatient). This ought to be enough for small to medium size systems.
Where does that thing want to go anyway? On level 0, basement parking garage customers tend to go down. On the lower levels, they most likely want to get up to the surface. OK, some weirdows might enjoy shuttling between level 1 and 2. Anyway with one and only one intermediate level, there is no real need for a complex path-optimization approach, which would depend on preceding destination input. Knowing whether we want to go up or down, followed by destination input inside the cabin should be the natural choice. Also, that's what people are used to.
I have observed elderly folks standing in front of that panel, giving up and going up or down the stairs by foot. I know this interface overstrains users. But hey, at least there are "no further operations required inside the cabin".
And I have tried, it is not a telephone, either. And in case it's supposed to be a calculator, where is the square root button? (talking about calculators, just a short off-topic-insertion at this point: you might want to have a look at Kraig Brockschmidt's online book "Mystic Microsoft" - Kraig is the creator of the original Windows 1.0 calculator and author of "Inside OLE").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)