Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Null

popey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–196 of 196 posts

Re: Null

#191

Post by revicon »

voldacar wrote: post #168
munificent wrote: post #162

> I went through a phase a while back of holding down keys to see what they did. Back when I was a gamedev at EA, one of the things QA would do is button-mash test the games. Just smash as many buttons as they could at the same time at all sorts of random points in the game. This was a constant source of bugs. It was surprisingly easy to get the game into a state where it was totally hung because of this. One of the…

Couldn't you just stop receiving keypresses when a UI transition begins and then re-enable input once the new UI state has been established?

of course, but that doesn't stop a case where a button was already pressed down when input get re-enabled which would mean a button up event would still fire without a corresponding button down.

Re: Null

#192

Post by munificent »

voldacar wrote: post #168
munificent wrote: post #162

> I went through a phase a while back of holding down keys to see what they did. Back when I was a gamedev at EA, one of the things QA would do is button-mash test the games. Just smash as many buttons as they could at the same time at all sorts of random points in the game. This was a constant source of bugs. It was surprisingly easy to get the game into a state where it was totally hung because of this. One of the…

Couldn't you just stop receiving keypresses when a UI transition begins and then re-enable input once the new UI state has been established?

Yes, but it still means that when input is re-enabled later, the buttons are in an unknown state and you don't know if you'll be receiving unexpected button up events.

Also, it's very frustrating for users when input gets dropped on the floor at times where they don't expect. Determining when to queue that input and when to forget it is a real art. Humans have subtle, complex expectations there and there's no simple solution.

Re: Null

#193

Post by seren1 »

pitay wrote: post #184
david422 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the answer is - because the software can. And most of the time, the software can be more resilient with a trivial amount resource usage. If there was a physical device that could filter gas and non-gas liquids that could be installed in a car we would expect car manufacturers to do that. I have seen software that puts the onus on users to use it correctly "Hey user, don't enter more than 5 items in this list"…

If there was a physical device that could filter gas and non-gas liquids that could be installed in a car we would expect car manufacturers to do that. There is one thing they could do to stop people putting the wrong liquid in their car. That is to key the nozzle to only fit cars which support their fuel, so petrol pumps nozzles only correctly fit petrol cars, diesel pumps only fit diesel cars. Completely agree with…

Having owned a diesel car, I can confirm this is actually the case. The nozzles where I live are are keyed to prevent mishaps.

Re: Null

#194

Post by webmaven »

hnick wrote: post #178
webmaven wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I was in high-school, I took physics. I was assigned to room, say, 309, to a teacher whose name I didn't recognize. But I knew the teacher in room 309, and she even taught physics. So, I approached her, and asked, "I've been assigned 'Ms. Stewart', but it lists her as being in your room. Do you know what the correct room number is, Ms. Cook?" Right room; it was her maiden name, of course. I'm reasonably certai…

Traditionally yes, but there's no legal requirement and many people don't feel the need to make the change (my wife being one).

So, you're saying your wife did change her last name, but not the honorific? That's an interesting combination I hadn't encountered before. Probably worth adding to the "Things Programmers Beleive About Names" list.

Re: Null

#195

Post by hnick »

webmaven wrote: post #194
hnick wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditionally yes, but there's no legal requirement and many people don't feel the need to make the change (my wife being one).

So, you're saying your wife did change her last name, but not the honorific? That's an interesting combination I hadn't encountered before. Probably worth adding to the "Things Programmers Beleive About Names" list.

Ah no I missed your implication there. She didn't. It isn't unheard of though, some people stay with Ms as a default if they don't think their marital status is anyone's business. It's a less political version of Mz I guess, which is something one teacher I had used and made sure we knew about.

Re: Null

#196

Post by webmaven »

hnick wrote: post #195
webmaven wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you're saying your wife did change her last name, but not the honorific? That's an interesting combination I hadn't encountered before. Probably worth adding to the "Things Programmers Beleive About Names" list.

Ah no I missed your implication there. She didn't. It isn't unheard of though, some people stay with Ms as a default if they don't think their marital status is anyone's business. It's a less political version of Mz I guess, which is something one teacher I had used and made sure we knew about.

I suppose I assumed that anyone inclined to leave the honorific unchanged would also be inclined to leave their last name unchanged as well.

But we all know what they say about assumptions...

Post reply on HN