|
Yes I know this has been discussed before, but it is particulary obvious with this poll that people are using it to try to search the site...
(1) >>
(1) ATnotes
(1) CBitmap
(1) Essential for most of my apps
(1) expression
(1) games
(1) How else am I going to patch it after I release it?
(1) How long is a string ?
(1) I develop server-side apps
(1) It is important as and when it is necessary.
(1) mexx
(1) Most of my apps are internet based.
(1) multimedia
(1) Open VMS
(1) pwm controlle
(1) registration
(1) String classes
Bold items are condsidered legit answers, "How long is a string?" is considered a John answer (i.e. one deliberately added with no real reason  )
That means 10 out of 15 replies (n/i John's) appear to be mistakenly entered. Maybe you should add a default pre-focused value of [Enter your poll answer here], [Enter a search string here -- go on, I dare you mother f..] or somthing similar?
________________
David Wulff
http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Sonork ID: 100.9977 Dave
…
|
|
|
|
|
I actually pick a poll answer unless none of them are within like 50 miles of what I would choose, but then I'd drop on down into the poll forum and complain about the answers. 
I don't think I've provided a home-grown answer yet, but I'm old and I may have in the past and simply not remember that I did so, but certainly not for this poll.
Breasts.
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Hey dave how do you do the pic under your sig?
- Matt Newman
-Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
Frankly AOL should stick to what it does best: Fooling millions of americans into believing that it, AOL, is the web. -Paul Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Like thus...
________________
<font face="Lucida Handwriting, Cursive">David Wulff</font>
<a href="http://www.davidwulff.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.davidwulff.co.uk</a>
Sonork ID: 100.9977 Dave
<font size=24pt><span style='font-family:Webdings'>…</span></font>
Note: the span was necessary (rather than just adding the face attribute to the font element), as for some reason it was not working when I tried to preview it.
Note 2: choose characters wisely, as not all encodings will support them.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought maybe it was an image.
- Matt Newman
-Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
Frankly AOL should stick to what it does best: Fooling millions of americans into believing that it, AOL, is the web. -Paul Watson†
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote:
How long is a string?"
It is a good response though.
Qu .) Should your app be Internet enabled
Ans.) It depends on the situation .
You could also wonder if the Author meant a CString or was it non MFC.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
28 th Law of Computing:
Anything that can go wr#
Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
|
|
|
|
|
Your back!
- Matt Newman
-Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
†
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering why this page took so long to load. Then I find Paul and his followers have mistaken this page for the submission wizard and submitted their ideology articles as thread posts, with the net result that this page is not a page anymore, but rather it is a download and a considerable download and I am thinking of using gozilla or getright or flashget to download it. It should finish by morning my time...
Nish
[Signature temporarily down]
|
|
|
|
|
It's all these damn COM objects and .NET crap Chris has running.
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Squishy Tampon of Justice wrote:
It's all these damn COM objects and .NET crap Chris has running.
Just wait till he actually puts up VS.NET up on the server for download
Nish
[Signature temporarily down]
|
|
|
|
|
oh you just don't notice the size when you are on DSL.... 
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote:
oh you just don't notice the size when you are on DSL
[Signature temporarily down]
|
|
|
|
|
Nish is a little touch about the his slow connection
peterchen wrote:
oh you just don't notice the size when you are on DSL....
I know what you mean
- Matt Newman
-Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
†
|
|
|
|
|
Do you really the computers running your local power plant hooked to the internet? Well, those are the type of customers I deal with.
Tim Smith
I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
|
|
|
|
|
I would kind of like that, so i can boost up the power when it's cold
in the apartment.
/Magnus
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings,
I bet they ARE networked. The internet as a whole is a large number of intranets all cooperating. The code you write for remote reporting of power plant status SHOULD be able to work over the internet. Just because it sits on a leased-line based network, or something similar, doesn't mean that the coding is really any different.
I bet you either report status to a central machine on a regular basis, or have a way for a remote operator to query the status of the power plant. Various levels and indicators being networked makes management and data logging easy.
If you were to replace what is probably a dedicated line system with a VPN running over a DSL link, if it's built for remote access using interoperable technologies, you could probably do it almost transparently. Heck, SNMP seems potentially a great tool for this...
Have you designed for the internet? Well, yes. Are you USING the Internet? Perhaps not yet...
Perhaps I'm wrong, and the power plants are entirely run by looking at analog dials and power levels, and only managed by someone onsite who can look at the dials, but that seems...unlikely.
Here in California, there are websites which track the regular power consumption. Do you think someone types in that number, and it gets integrated into the web site? No, it's taking w/o human intervention, and merged with power stations across the state, to provide a good overview for the customers.
Once you're doing network programming, you're doing internet development. It's just a matter of taking that next step. You don't HAVE to, but it's there if you find a need, or even a desire.
-- Cyberfox
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I'm wrong, and the power plants are entirely run by looking at analog dials and power levels, and only managed by someone onsite who can look at the dials, but that seems...unlikely.
There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between having people stand in front of analog dials and having the plant internet enabled.
Plants have been run by computer systems for a very long time now. Only recently have you started to see the central systems provide internet access (which is a VERY VERY scary thought.) But the central system is only a VERY VERY small part of the number of computer in your average plant.
Tim Smith
I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
|
|
|
|
|
...Also...
It really seems shocking that there are people who seem to think that computers didn't exist prior to the internet. Then you have the people who thing that every application can have an internet component.
Trust me, the US Navy doesn't want to have the USS Ronald Reagan's navigational system popup a dialog box asking if they want to connect to the internet and check for an upgrade.
I can see it now, 30 seconds to the shuttle launch and they have to delay waiting for a shuttle monitoring station to dial into the internet and check for an upgrade.
The world of computers is HUGE. Most of it has nothing to do with the internet.
Tim Smith
I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Smith wrote:
It really seems shocking that there are people who seem to think that computers didn't exist prior to the internet
They did? Ohhh, you mean those funny advanced calculators that people had on their desktops and in big rooms. 
I only started using the internet about 4 years ago, and then the limit of that use was IRC.
The many years before that were not internet enabled. For what I do on a daily basis and for what the internet does provide me (like CP and a connection to someone like you) I wonder just how I got along without the internet. Yes, I got along, but things definitley are better for us developers with the internet around.
Look, I know not EVERY application running on a computer should be internet enabled. I assumed people would get that when I say "internet enable your apps" I don't mean nuclear submarines, power plants and or navigational systems. Come on.
Most of us here write normal apps; CRM, web sites, graphics programmes, stock control, billing programmes etc. Virtually everything we create could do with internet enablement IMO.
For those who work on power plant apps, well naturally not. But they know that.
And no one has yet provided me with a list of apps they don't think should be internet enabled. Till then, I stick with "internet enable your apps."
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
"The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, from the replies I got to the You will internet enable your applications thread I realise some people here have the same idea as I do.
I have been bashing my head against thick salesmen and clients for a long time on this idea and, even though it is nothing new, they still don't get it.
So here goes (as I said, this is nothing new, just re-stating it):
We should not be creating applications. We should be building components.
Yes, an application nowadays is a collection of components really, but how many times have you wanted to have the text formatting capability of Word in your own Widget application but without the, for instance, versioning component of Word? Sure you could do it, with a lot of Office automation, stickey tape and pins, but I will bet most of us masichists go the route of building our own text formatting component from scratch.
What is needed is a Text Formatting component, a Versioning component, a File Handling component, a Spell/Grammar Checker, a Comms component (for emailing, saving to the web etc.) etc. which you can just cluster around your data with ease.
At the heart of it though we still need one thing to be central in most "component clusters." That thing in my mind is a piece of data, a Data component. All the other components simply cluster around this central component and modify the data, nothing else.
They don't rely on any other components except the Data component though they may work with the other components if they are there.
Most of this is a reality, except the "central data" component. We are still far too focused on Applications as opposed to Data (which in turn through application becomes Knowledge, e.g. working data) and on seperating different data types into different storage and handling areas. e.g. I store each email in one PST in outlook, yet I store my Word files all seperately in the normal file/folder system. I have always wanted to be able to have Outlook store my emails outside of the PST, like my word files.
When we start a new project we envisage this huge behemoth and we start building our own components, taping them all together, doing proprietary stuff to get this-working-with-that in the quickest time possible.
In the end you have a cluster of components, but that cluster of components cannot re-center itself on a different piece of data without some serious re-development.
What do we really need to aply data, so becoming knowledge? We need generic components which focus on doing one or a few things very well.
Here is my list so far:
- Text Formatting (naturally this would format text whether it is big paragraph, a cell in a spreadsheet data file or a subject line in an email data file)
- Versioning component (with tracking and some notes/feedback capability)
- Storage and Data Search component
- Comms component (email, save to web, ftp etc. it takes any data file and wraps it in an envelope which contains a to, subject, from etc. the data file itself is not modified)
- Discussion component (this would tie in with the versioning component of course)
- Sort, File, List and Manage Data component (an enhanced file/folder system with categorisation etc. manages all your data)
etc.
As mentioned earlier one key thing is realising that all data is the same and can be handled in the same way. An email is just a collection of paragraphs with a wrapper envelope around it and a few links (attachments) to other data files. A word file is just a collection of paragraphs with a wrapper envelope describing some properties. Your C++ or C# or VB projects are just a collection of data files, which are also a collection of paragraphs (paragraphs of code, but still text), wrapped in a project envelope with some properties on how to compile etc.
Data is data, a record is a data file, a data file is a record. Sometimes I have seriously wanted to run a SQL query against my Projects directory looking for all Word files with a property of xyz and containing the word widget. But instead I have to stop using SQL Query Analyzer, open up Windows Exploer, right click, Search, type in the word and... doh, can't search properties of word files. Oh well.
People say the desktop is dead or dying or not designed to handle our modern needs. Well I say rubbish, the desktop is all about focusing on data, not applications. Unfortunatley we have mis-used it, and since capitalism rules everything and anything it is easier to sell an application with a nice name than a concept, idea or component.
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
"The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings,
An echo of my own comment (I always should read all the comments before posting). Small components together add up to more than the mere sum of their parts.
When I was younger, and first met the first Mac, I despised GUIs with a passion, because they made it impossible to actually manipulate the data you were working with. To me manipulation meant pass it through multiple processing steps that were entirely seperate programs and needed to know nothing about each other, but that they would receive some kind of input, and operate on it in the way they knew best.
If you can't tell, I'm talking about the Unix concept of piping the output from one program into another. Four or five pipes later, you have an exceptionally complex process that is composed of exceptionally simple parts.
I still don't know how to sort a file and remove all duplicate lines in Windows. I am tempted to say it can't be done without the Unix 'sort' and 'uniq' programs, or a bulky program that tries to do both operations.
Perhaps if I had been a bit smarter, I would have gone another route. Instead of despising the concept of a GUI for its shortcomings, tried to fix them through some sort of datacentric component system. I didn't, and I do somewhat regret it, because a competent solution for that same problem has not been found on Windows, or the Mac as I am aware.
The component systems that currently exist for Windows are burdonsomely complex, for programmers only (ANYONE can learn 'foo | sort | uniq'), and do not provide any kind of conceptual mapping ('this is a sort component').
For a comparison, and one system that I think maps as easily as simple unix pipes, I recommend looking at the old NextSTEP 'Interface Builder' whose object architecture was spectacular. EVERYTHING was available. You opened the standard OS LoginOut program, and you saw all the objects within it that controlled logging in and out. You could quickly draw up your own program that did the same thing, linked to the same objects, but provided your own UI on top of it.
It exposed by name (which was usually very useful) and member, and method all of the public accessors of every class in every program. You could link five different standard programs together, with a small amount of UI programming, and build an entirely new app, with printing, FTP, version control, text editing, and email, with virtually no effort.
Even non developers could do this, with a little training.
You want a great component model for Windows, you could do a lot worse than to pattern it after the Interface Builder for NextSTEP. Now, it's important to note that the entire OS was written with this, and the concept that this was the way to build a UI was heavily integrated into every single module, and nearly every program released for it.
Talk about code reuse...talk about plug-and-play software components...
Anyhow, my two cents is to get rid of the COMplexity that's been stuffed into the system, and put together something that's a lot more straightforward, and lets you really build off of what other people have built. It's sad that some people will scream that they don't want their modules being used in ways they weren't intended, and it's sad that some people CAN'T code in a cleanly seperated fashion, but for the rest, development COULD be a lot better than it is.
-- Cyberfox
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you will need NET of NET2 and something on top of it.
(Interface conventions etc.)
I also have been a fan of the Next system.
It was 10 years ahead and much more consistent.
But no market share, which is a shame and just proves what Paul has said
I am a signature virus!
Help me spread and copy me to your sig!
Ooops I am infected
|
|
|
|
|
I've been dreaming of this for so many years, but sadly it has never happened. I always thought COM would bring this about, but for some reason the vast majority of developers thought that COM was too complex.
There are other reasons too, not enough time spent designing systems, the not-invented here syndrome etc.
I have great hopes that .NET and the new database like filing system that Microsoft are working on will help make my dreams a reality.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
the new database like filing system that Microsoft are working on
What info do you have on this? Or rather, where can I get info on this? I would appreciate it.
I have always loved the idea of a database based filing system. It would be so awesome to be able to have the same physical file in two or more "folders." And searching/querying/sorting should be a lot more powerful and useful. And of course APPs could do so much more with it than the current NTFS/FAT ways.
I have heard of quite a few attempts at it, but none by MS or the OS developer itself, which is key to it's success.
I don't know COM all that well, though I probably should have got my arse in gear long ago about it, but I do know that one reason it "failed" (or rather was not quite the success people thought it should be) was because of it's very loose standards and low "base" requirements for COM objects. This resulted in a lot of COM objects not being able to talk to each other, as COM so intrinsically strives to do.
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
"The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am seriously contemplating writing a hook into Explorer to create a database based filesystem. You said you were aware of some earlier efforts to do this... could you point me to them or tell me more?
Thanks,
etafix.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
