Subject:
|
Re: [LDAO] Editor Feedback requested
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:31:10 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIEN@CTP.IWANTNOSPAM.COMavoidspam
|
Viewed:
|
2169 times
|
| |
|
|
Karim wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > 2 - lugnet.com started out at 80% and I am glad it did. Todd didn't
> > wait. I'd like to think that a small part of that was my urging. It's
> > not at 100% yet, there's lots more good stuff to come, I believe, but
> > it's gotten better already and we all got benefit out of it right out of
> > the chute.
>
> Speaking as an Industrial Designer :-) something as fundamental as an interface
> paradigm cannot be easily changed once implementation is begun. Not that you
> have to have all features working on the first try, but if you get halfway
> through the implementation and then discover that your basic interface plan
> doesn't work (or worse... works, but sucks), you have to go back and re-work
> everything. We're not talking about "which button does what"... that can be
> figured out later for the most part. What we're talking about here is "will the
> program need to do this at all" which IMO needs to be decided before you start
> writing it.
>
> --Kairm
Well I agree with that. In rereading the stuff I posted on this (at 3 AM
saturday) I may have come across as a little argumentative. Steve should
be free to do this however he sees fit, it is after all a labor of love.
I can still advocate using an industry standard OO language like Java
(1) instead of a vendor specific OO wannabe like VB, though.
Some discussion of how the underlying paradigm ought to be structured
would be beneficial. But we're already past that, talking about which
control keys do what.
So let's drop back a bit. Who are the users? How do they do their job
now, and how do they WANT to do their job later? What process do they
follow? Should that process be changed? Are there two distinct classes
of users? Do some people belong to both classes? Should the paradigms be
different or similar? Why or why not?
Discuss.
1 - as to which: I would use the Swing components for the UI. Use
Symantec Visual Cafe' for the IDE. Avoid Visual J++. Why Java? One
reason not mentioned yet is that at some point the UI or some components
of it could be web-ized as an applet. That will never happen with VB.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: [LDAO] Editor Feedback requested
|
| (...) Not 'argumentative', just 'containing strong opinions'. :) (...) Thanks, I will. (...) Go right ahead and advocate. But I'd blast VB for faults other than lacking inheritance. (...) Sort of. Part of the discussion is that some users like (...) (26 years ago, 16-Nov-98, to lugnet.cad)
| | | Re: [LDAO] Editor Feedback requested
|
| (...) OK. This is shorting the process, and completely unrealistic given my current goals and contraints, but I imagine a very good approach for a modeling interface would be like the following. Make the UI look like a set of instructions. Each step (...) (26 years ago, 17-Nov-98, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: [LDAO] Editor Feedback requested
|
| (...) Speaking as an Industrial Designer :-) something as fundamental as an interface paradigm cannot be easily changed once implementation is begun. Not that you have to have all features working on the first try, but if you get halfway through the (...) (26 years ago, 15-Nov-98, to lugnet.cad)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
