31–40 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
this is exactly the attitude i'd expect from something hosted on sourceforge. I was also surprised that a db advertised as graphical did not have a screenshot on the front page
it feels like the same person is posting under different nicks
for what purpose I do not know.
Apparently saved project created with BeeBase is basically a sqlite DB, that you can open with any sqlite browser. So i think a lot of value could come from standardised sqlite format, upon which you could build different UI's to manipulate the content of said sqlite DB and then provide a app that would build client UI based on content of same sqlite file.
You can export to SQLite3, but not import it back in again.
I find it just a shame that databases as a concept is something that has been relegated to be hidden deep in the backends and accessed only by specialized DB admins or through narrow and leaky APIs; SQL is considered arcane wizardry instead of being suitable for technical business users like afaik it was originally envisioned as.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
not sure if you are trolling or serious here but thats a bad user experience and also very condescending
As a user you know the basic constraints on table names, if you don't you can't use the software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not sure if you are trolling or serious here but thats a bad user experience and also very condescending
It's not about a user, it's about someone declining to become a user because the manual is distributed as a separate PDF. I see two solutions for this problem, either use another software or hire someone to adapt this one to you. As a user you know the basic constraints on table names, if you don't you can't use the software.
If your users are developers, then this mindset will inevitably lead to poor developer experience (DX). That is a stance that someone could take, but their software would be then only used in spite of the DX, not because of it. In general, this would lead to a more miserable experience. I don't think that's good, even if it's just a lot of small annoyances along the way.
Here's a Dylan Beattie talk that touches upon this very thing: https://youtu.be/BIkXid_pBiY?t=629 (specific timestamp to relevant bit)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, it's a bad error message if you need to read 8 pages of tutorial to get that basic feedback.
[flagged]
The software obviously did a specific check that failed, but added no context as to why. Like a boolean isValidName() function. You're already doing checks, you know why it failed, tell the user. Even in fuzzy terms is more helpful than pass/fail.
Now, if the error said something to the effect of 'name must be uppercase' and the user was confused or complaining, I'd be more inclined to agree.
What a nice surprise!
How do you test? Could you automate it?