Oh Microsoft!

By -
My experience with Microsoft products is that they are typically as "helpful" as a three-year-old working on the car with you: occasionally they really do help, but most of the time their well meaning efforts are just in the way. For instance, they seem terrified that if they do not fill in a default name for every form, field, file, project, button, slider, and so forth, that the user will be come completely disoriented, freeze up, and be unable to continue. But because there is always a default, you can easily miss the fact that you have not chosen the names, and windup working with "Button1," "Slider1," "Form1," and "WindowsProject1." And, I would suggest, these are examples of names that you would never, ever want to give to your buttons, sliders, forms, and projects! If there is a manual of horrible naming out there, certainly naming a button "Button1" is in it. (You want to name it after what pressing it causes, e.g., "CalculateTaxButton".) In some cases,  such as a button or slider, these can be very easy to change, but with a Visual Studio project things are not nearly so simple.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more