Re: C#, .Net, and Mono

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/27]

From: Daniel Pittman
Subject: Re: C#, .Net, and Mono
Date: 21:51 on 27 Dec 2006
peter@xxxxxxx.xxx (Peter da Silva) writes:

>> > I can't parse that sentence. Each part of it makes sense
>> > individually, but put together the result is noise. What do you
>> > mean by a completely stupid design being sound?
>
>> Small decisions are often right.  Issues which do not touch on
>> semantics are often fine.  Multi-arch JIT has strong work.
>
> OK, "Mono contains many sound components, but the design is completely
> stupid"?
>
> So it's like audiofool speaker wires with gold-plated optical connects
> and homeopathically aligned oxygen-free copper decals?

It seems to me like the GNOME "user friendly" policy:

Problem:

    Users are finding the degree of choice offered intimidating, and
    what most people want is things that "just work."[1]

Solution:

    Rip out the UI controls every single option you can find, especially
    if they are software interaction fundamentals.  Everyone must
    interact with the software the same way.  You must *not* have a
    choice about what triggers what, or what reacts how.

    Then leave all the actual "twiddle X, Y and Z" options that you need
    to fiddle with in place, but put the settings into the Windows
    Registry ^W^W gconf database, without documentation, and still
    depend on people twiddling them.

Yay.  Thanks team.  Your efforts made it much harder and less
comprehensible for end users -- unless they have a systems administrator
to twiddle things for them.  Good plan.

   Daniel

Footnotes: 
[1]  I agree with this sentiment, incidentally.

-- 
Digital Infrastructure Solutions -- making IT simple, stable and secure
Phone: 0401 155 707        email: contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
                 http://digital-infrastructure.com.au/
There's stuff above here

Generated at 03:02 on 01 Jan 2007 by mariachi 0.52