541–550 of 604 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some Microsoft managers started suppressing people who reported internal defects, instead of leveling their teams up
That sounds like Goodhart's Law in action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Qt is only missing well-written, feature-complete bindings for a major JS runtime, including support for hot reload. Developing UIs without hot reloading is too painful.
I think what you're asking for has existed for a long, long time. QML.
> WPF was good As someone who saw what impact WPF had on average users running average hardware in the late 2000s to early 2010s, I disagree. In 2011, my brother was in seminary, using an average Windows Vista-era laptop that he had been given in 2008. When he was home for Christmas in 2011, we were talking about his laptop, and he told me that the Logos Bible software ran sluggishly on that laptop. He said something…
Hmm doesn't that sound like Apple's Tahoe/iOS 26? Effects upon effects upon more effects.
But they just plain failed to execute well on this idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is he dunking on .net? I think one of his main points is server .net was (and is) great. But the UI part of it was cloudy. I see it as complimentary to the post not contradicting it.
The UI part is exactly what I meant. WinForms was a godsend for professional developers making line-of-business apps, because previously if you used first-party dev tooling, you either had to deal with the considerable limitations of Visual Basic, or you had to deal with MFC that was low-level enough that all the things that were tedious about Win32 remained tedious. In comparison, Borland had Delphi, and there was a…
From the native code side, it was not so great. The .NET 2.0 CLR had very poor support for hosting from the native side and really wanted you to make a program that was .NET first, it didn't work well if you wanted something like primarily a C++ program that hosted a C# UI in the same process. Reverse P/Invoke via native exports wasn't exposed, so creating DLLs for consumption by non-.NET programs was difficult. Mixed mode debugging was and still is painful, with the debugger being glacially slow at some operations like OutputDebugString() processing and blocking some native features like data breakpoints, and the CLR eating access violation exceptions from native code so they couldn't be debugged properly. Build-mode wise, we had to ban C++/CLI assemblies depending on C# assemblies because the C# project system didn't handle incremental builds properly and forced the dependent C++ assembly to rebuild all the time.
These issues still largely exist and are an issue with WPF. It's a great UI framework, but it's unusable unless your front end is primarily a C# program.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over the past year I've started thinking a lot more about design and UI work, and I think it's basically impossible to design things, or create design systems, that appeal broadly to different types of users in a cross-platform way. I personally love dense UIs and have no expectation of doing certain kinds of work on a phone or low-powered device like a chromebook, phone, or bottom-barrel laptop. But if you're a comp…
It is absurd that there is no standardized UI toolkit, or rather that the web browser _is_ the standard with is characteristic _lack_ of user interaction idioms. The fact that there are multiple platforms for UIs* is a huge failure of the industry as a whole. Apple, Microsoft and Google could have had a sit down together at any point in the last 20+ years to push some kind of standard, but they decided not to in orde…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's because we went from the Desktop environment, where rules were well-documented and standardized, to the Web/Mobile environment, where rules had to be reinvented and, for the most part, were not. We've lost design idioms , which is a huge tax on users everywhere. I've been mad about this for years: https://essays.johnloeber.com/p/4-bring-back-idiomatic-desig...
Over the past year I've started thinking a lot more about design and UI work, and I think it's basically impossible to design things, or create design systems, that appeal broadly to different types of users in a cross-platform way. I personally love dense UIs and have no expectation of doing certain kinds of work on a phone or low-powered device like a chromebook, phone, or bottom-barrel laptop. But if you're a comp…
What I find must puzzling is that everyone seems to just be violating basic rules that had been in place for ages. Things like: - If you can't respond to a UI event wait until you can - Menus should be tree structures - Pressing alt should underline the hotkeys you need to access anything clickable As well as just basic responsiveness or predictability. A 2000 era windows application may not have been pretty, and may…
I am going to add my favorite here, just to rant into the void. A dialog box's options must never be Ok/Cancel. These are not the same sorts of things. "Cancel" is a verb, "Ok" is a noun (in this context). Even if "Ok" is taken to mean the verb "acknowledge", it is still not an alternative to cancelling.
99% of these dialogs should be "[Verb]/Cancel": Change "Ok" to a verb or short phrase indicating the action that will be taken if you press it. Don't do the action if the user hits "cancel". The verb should be something specific like "Delete file" or "Terminate process" and not something useless like "proceed".
That illustration at the end of the article is quite something.
Quite some slop Has it become unreasonable to use an image editor for anything? At least to stamp some readable text on top of your slop??
He's claiming Microsoft pitched "WitdFT" (sic), "HTMLAl5" (sic), and "C++" sonuitaneously (sic) at Build 2012.
HTML5 was released in 2008 and the C++ reference was released in 1985. How is this acceptable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This site needs a no LLM submissions policy too.
I flagged the post, don't even care how accurate it is. Go send your AI slop to /dev/null, folks.
I think it really abuses the assumption of good faith and the default to generous interpretation, because it forces you to divorce the author from their own published work in order to view them seriously. I suspect most of the comments here are generously ignoring the included graphic. But in the most generous view possible, the author is fine with publishing wildly inaccurate statements.
I think this makes HackerNews much worse, and posts like these should only be flagged.