• LOLcat (unregistered) in reply to davedavenotdavemaybedave
    davedavenotdavemaybedave:
    The other day a friend of mine came into work and heard a very strange thrubbity-drumming sort of noise coming from one of the offices. He went to investigate, and found a desk fan, case removed, head-down in a plastic waste-paper bin, along with a mouse attached to a laptop on the desk next to it. Every time the fan rotated, it was smacking the shit out of the (optical) mouse and sending it ricocheting round the bucket, causing the noise. The laptop was displaying the end-screen from a full virus scan.

    Turned out, on interrogation of the user responsible, that they wanted to run a full virus scan, but noticed that their laptop powered itself off if inactive for more than 20 minutes. Solution: make sure the mouse moves plenty.

    The real WTF here is that the user's IT support contract is set up in such a way that having an IT tech change the power-saving settings would have 'cost' more than the new mouse that was required. Amazingly enough, the mouse still worked, but it was retired with full honours due to extensive scarring.

    LOL! I can totally picture the scene.

  • Chelloveck (unregistered) in reply to SCSimmons

    I don't know the language; does MessageBox have a built-in timeout or not? The text isn't clear:

    "...and being that tbe program halts until either Yes or No is clicked, doLogoff() wouldn't execute until after the user indicated that he was not there or took too long to say that he was there."

    So, does it block until it gets input, or will it return if the user takes too long? If the latter, this isn't a WTF. That's exactly the desired behavior.

    Oh, I know, it's a meta-WTF! TRWTF is the assumption that the article is supposed to make sense! :-)

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Jaime:
    Anonymous:
    Jaime:
    Anonymous:
    Vlbuttic Pickles:
    snip 1
    snip 2
    snip 3
    snip 4
    snip 5
    snip 6

    TRWTF is this quote.

  • (cs) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    powerlord:
    VB.NET is essentially a newer version of VB. Also, you compared it to C#, which has VB.NET as its contemporary (not VB).

    In other words, the context implied you were talking about VB.NET.

    No, VB.Net is essentially a completely different product with similar syntax. VB generally means VB6, especially when paired with screeds about its insanity, while VB.Net is simply another CLR language with uglier syntax.

    FoxPro was rewritten between 2.6 and 3.0 and Apache web Server was rewritten for version 2.0. These still retained their identity after significant changes. Microsoft doesn't seem to have an official position on continuity, but the version numbers given to VB.Net certainly express the desire to be seen as the next versions of VB after VB6. Even the Wikipedia article for VB.Net mentions that this is a highly contested matter of opinion.

    It seems to me that a lot of people want this confusion to exist. This way they get to say anything bad about "VB" they want to, hoping that a reader will imply that both VB6 and VB.Net are crap. Then, when they are confronted with actual facts, they can backpedal and say "But I was talking about VB6, not VB.Net". It's like, in high school, picking on someone that has a common name, and weaseling out of detention by saying that you were talking about someone else.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    Franz Kafka:
    powerlord:
    VB.NET is essentially a newer version of VB. Also, you compared it to C#, which has VB.NET as its contemporary (not VB).

    In other words, the context implied you were talking about VB.NET.

    No, VB.Net is essentially a completely different product with similar syntax. VB generally means VB6, especially when paired with screeds about its insanity, while VB.Net is simply another CLR language with uglier syntax.

    FoxPro was rewritten between 2.6 and 3.0 and Apache web Server was rewritten for version 2.0. These still retained their identity after significant changes. Microsoft doesn't seem to have an official position on continuity, but the version numbers given to VB.Net certainly express the desire to be seen as the next versions of VB after VB6. Even the Wikipedia article for VB.Net mentions that this is a highly contested matter of opinion.

    It seems to me that a lot of people want this confusion to exist. This way they get to say anything bad about "VB" they want to, hoping that a reader will imply that both VB6 and VB.Net are crap. Then, when they are confronted with actual facts, they can backpedal and say "But I was talking about VB6, not VB.Net". It's like, in high school, picking on someone that has a common name, and weaseling out of detention by saying that you were talking about someone else.

    I don't recall doing that in high school. But anyway, screw MS. They can want whatever they like, but the fact remains that VB6 != VB.Net - it's not even close. Sure, they tried to maintain continuity, but the training costs and plugin changes were enough that I'd dispute them being successful.

    VB6 is an awful beast that should die.

    VB.Net is a why bother - different enough from VB6 that retraining is required, but close enough to C# that you may as well learn that. The ugly syntax is excusable, but there's a better choice, so just go for that 'kay?

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Chelloveck
    Chelloveck:
    I don't know the language; does MessageBox have a built-in timeout or not? The text isn't clear:

    "...and being that tbe program halts until either Yes or No is clicked, doLogoff() wouldn't execute until after the user indicated that he was not there or took too long to say that he was there."

    So, does it block until it gets input, or will it return if the user takes too long? If the latter, this isn't a WTF. That's exactly the desired behavior.

    Oh, I know, it's a meta-WTF! TRWTF is the assumption that the article is supposed to make sense! :-)

    TRWTF is you wade in here without knowing what your commenting about and without bothering to read anybody else's comments first. Yes, MessageBox.Show blocks, otherwise this wouldn't be a WTF. You lacking the knowledge to get the joke does make it a non-WTF.

  • (cs) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    powerlord:
    VB.NET is essentially a newer version of VB. Also, you compared it to C#, which has VB.NET as its contemporary (not VB).

    In other words, the context implied you were talking about VB.NET.

    No, VB.Net is essentially a completely different product with similar syntax. VB generally means VB6, especially when paired with screeds about its insanity, while VB.Net is simply another CLR language with uglier syntax.

    I love method declarations that look like this:

    Private Sub comboBox_SelectedValueChanged(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles comboBox.SelectedValueChanged

    What's a bunch of unnecessary verbosity among friends anyway? I enjoy declaring methods as Subs or Functions instead of just specifying a bloody return type. Also, while the event-wiring syntax in C# isn't that great to look at, I still say it beats Handles blah blah blah.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I get really excited about declaring locals via Dim [name] As [type]. Who wouldn't? Silly conventions like [type] [name] are just too confusing.

  • ÃÆâ€â„ (unregistered)

    Why is it 30 seconds in the source, but two minutes in the dialog?

  • (cs) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    powerlord:
    VB.NET is essentially a newer version of VB. Also, you compared it to C#, which has VB.NET as its contemporary (not VB).

    In other words, the context implied you were talking about VB.NET.

    No, VB.Net is essentially a completely different product with similar syntax. VB generally means VB6, especially when paired with screeds about its insanity, while VB.Net is simply another CLR language with uglier syntax.

    The official name of the current language, according to the specification, is "Visual Basic". "Visual Basic .NET" no longer exists.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Spectre
    Spectre:
    Franz Kafka:
    powerlord:
    VB.NET is essentially a newer version of VB. Also, you compared it to C#, which has VB.NET as its contemporary (not VB).

    In other words, the context implied you were talking about VB.NET.

    No, VB.Net is essentially a completely different product with similar syntax. VB generally means VB6, especially when paired with screeds about its insanity, while VB.Net is simply another CLR language with uglier syntax.

    The official name of the current language, according to the specification, is "Visual Basic". "Visual Basic .NET" no longer exists.

    Who cares what the official name is? the name VB.Net is clear and unambiguous, while the official name appears to be designed for maximum confusion.

  • frits (unregistered) in reply to ÃÆâ€â„
    ÃÆâ€â„:
    Why is it 30 seconds in the source, but two minutes in the dialog?
    Because units in Windows are (confusingly) worth 4 seconds, whereas units in Linux(and UNIX) are in nanoseconds. Trust me, I know, having worked on compilers on both systems for over 10 years.
  • (cs) in reply to PS
    PS:
    And I never understood why anyone would consider interrupting the user with a completely pointless, modal dialog box every 5 minutes good UI design.
    It isn't; it's lousy UI design. Unfortunately, these particular requirements don't take UI design into account when they require the application to timeout after 5 minutes.
    PS:
    I think this story clearly shows why programmers should be kept away from the UI at all costs. Even if it involves bodily harm.
    Based on one story? That's not a generalization. </sarcasm>

    So just for laughs, who besides a programmer would you have writing UI code?

  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    PS:
    And I never understood why anyone would consider interrupting the user with a completely pointless, modal dialog box every 5 minutes good UI design.
    It isn't; it's lousy UI design. Unfortunately, these particular requirements don't take UI design into account when they require the application to timeout after 5 minutes.
    PS:
    I think this story clearly shows why programmers should be kept away from the UI at all costs. Even if it involves bodily harm.
    Based on one story? That's not a generalization. </sarcasm>

    So just for laughs, who besides a programmer would you have writing UI code?

    Personally, I think the graphics guy should write the UI code. All he has to do is create a hierarchtical stack of objects and he's good to go.

  • (cs)

    The real WTF is that the code does not handle all cases: TRUE, FALSE and SChROEDINGERS_CAT.

  • (cs) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    It seems to me that a lot of people want this confusion to exist. This way they get to say anything bad about "VB" they want to, hoping that a reader will imply that both VB6 and VB.Net are crap. Then, when they are confronted with actual facts, they can backpedal and say "But I was talking about VB6, not VB.Net". It's like, in high school, picking on someone that has a common name, and weaseling out of detention by saying that you were talking about someone else.
    Except for the fact that they were talking about someone else (VB6), even if they facilitated readers' confusion by using a generic name (VB). I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just that your "high school" analogy is flawed.

    Maybe they are intending to cause confusion as you say, or perhaps they are too lazy to be bothered to type "VB6" instead of "VB". Either way, you're losing sight of your argument by targeting their motives.

  • (cs) in reply to Smitty
    Smitty:
    Franz Kafka:
    powerlord:
    VB.NET is essentially a newer version of VB. Also, you compared it to C#, which has VB.NET as its contemporary (not VB).

    In other words, the context implied you were talking about VB.NET.

    No, VB.Net is essentially a completely different product with similar syntax. VB generally means VB6, especially when paired with screeds about its insanity, while VB.Net is simply another CLR language with uglier syntax.

    I love method declarations that look like this:

    Private Sub comboBox_SelectedValueChanged(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles comboBox.SelectedValueChanged

    What's a bunch of unnecessary verbosity among friends anyway? I enjoy declaring methods as Subs or Functions instead of just specifying a bloody return type. Also, while the event-wiring syntax in C# isn't that great to look at, I still say it beats Handles blah blah blah.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I get really excited about declaring locals via Dim [name] As [type]. Who wouldn't? Silly conventions like [type] [name] are just too confusing.

    But.... you never type any of that extra garbage. Everybody always claims that C# is faster to type becuase it is less verbose, but they forget that the IDE writes 99% of it. VB's block syntax is a bit ugly, but it's ideally suited for auto-completion and validation. So what if local variable declaration uses Dim, at least after typing Dim<space>x<space>As<space>, intellisense comes up with a list of just data types. In C#, you have to kick intellisense with control-space and it throws everything at you because 95% of the language is valid at the beginning of a statement.

    The Handles syntax you mention is produced by simply selecting the event from a dropdown in the IDE. It types the entire method declaration, along with the Handles clause with two clicks.

  • (cs) in reply to PS
    PS:
    And I never understood why anyone would consider interrupting the user with a completely pointless, modal dialog box every 5 minutes good UI design.

    I think this story clearly shows why programmers should be kept away from the UI at all costs. Even if it involves bodily harm.

    What is completely pointless about the dialog box? I am curious, how would you design this?

    If I understand the requirements you need to know if there is a person sitting in front of the computer working. You don't know if the person is busy reading the screen, or if the person walked away. How do you figure it out without installing additional hardware.

  • (cs) in reply to Smitty
    Smitty:
    boog:
    So just for laughs, who besides a programmer would you have writing UI code?

    Personally, I think the graphics guy should write the UI code. All he has to do is create a hierarchtical stack of objects and he's good to go.

    That's all it takes? I thought it might be a little more complicated than that.

    Regardless, even if UI code is so easy that any idiot who thinks he knows how to write code could do it, I'd still much rather entrust such a task to someone who actually does know how to write code, which would be a programmer of some sort.

  • PRMan (unregistered) in reply to Martin
    Martin:
    What is the problem with this code?

    It might not be elegant, but it says that MessageBox.Show halts the program (that is, this code probably exists in the UI thread of the main window) and so the user cannot do anything while the MessageBox is shown? Unless, of course, not logging off immediately causes problems on the server, I don't see the WTF?

    I'm pretty sure it defeats the timer...

  • (cs) in reply to SCSimmons
    SCSimmons:
    It's possible that TRWTF is that the main process can't cope with idle users, I don't know. But that doesn't excuse incompetent execution of the requested workaround.
    Software licenses. The company probably has a limit to how many processes of the application they are licensed to run simultaneously, therefore an idle user could take the spot of another user just by being logged in.
  • Allan Olesen (unregistered)

    I am confused why nobody has commented on this line: if (DateTime.Now > lastMouseActivity.AddMinutes(5))

    Does lastMouseActivity do what the name says: Record time of last mouse activity only?

    That would piss off some keyboard users. Including me. I hate when programmers think that nobody is going to use their software with a keyboard.

  • d (unregistered)

    Hardly a WTF

  • NC (unregistered) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    But.... you never type any of that extra garbage. Everybody always claims that C# is faster to type becuase it is less verbose, but they forget that the IDE writes 99% of it. VB's block syntax is a bit ugly, but it's ideally suited for auto-completion and validation. So what if local variable declaration uses Dim, at least after typing Dim<space>x<space>As<space>, intellisense comes up with a list of just data types. In C#, you have to kick intellisense with control-space and it throws everything at you because 95% of the language is valid at the beginning of a statement.

    The Handles syntax you mention is produced by simply selecting the event from a dropdown in the IDE. It types the entire method declaration, along with the Handles clause with two clicks.

    C# is most definitely faster. VB.NET has this awesome annoying background compiler which fails on large projects where it feels the need to hang the IDE for hours on ends while it attempts to catch up with your typing.

    Oh and it's amazing how often "Visual Basic Background Compiler has stopped working" message shows in VS.

    When you type Dim [name] As [Type], 95% of the language is valid, because it's not until you get to = than you've narrowed the results down to the type you just specified.

    So what if C# shows you everything, it selects the most relevant option for you anyway.

    The only reason VB.NET is still around is because we have to keep 1000's of newbies happy. If we took it away they would cry and MS would drown in a sea of tears.

  • (cs) in reply to Allan Olesen
    Allan Olesen:
    I am confused why nobody has commented on this line: if (DateTime.Now > lastMouseActivity.AddMinutes(5))

    Does lastMouseActivity do what the name says: Record time of last mouse activity only?

    That would piss off some keyboard users. Including me. I hate when programmers think that nobody is going to use their software with a keyboard.

    It'll piss you off even more when you've been busy typing in the application, and right before you hit the N key this yes/no confirmation pops up asking if you're still there (since you haven't touched the mouse in a while).

    No? Okay, I'll just log you off and you can lose all your unsaved work.

  • ASDg (unregistered) in reply to Tod

    [quote user="Tod"]Is TRWTF that the code for the popup text and the popup text don't match?[/quote]

    [Quote=ARticle} ...produce a dialog box that looks something like this... [/quote]

    'like' != 'Exact replica'

  • (cs) in reply to chrismcb
    chrismcb:
    PS:
    And I never understood why anyone would consider interrupting the user with a completely pointless, modal dialog box every 5 minutes good UI design.

    I think this story clearly shows why programmers should be kept away from the UI at all costs. Even if it involves bodily harm.

    What is completely pointless about the dialog box? I am curious, how would you design this?

    8<

    A Javascript/CSS slideover caution at top of the screen, that counts down until a mouse movement event or keyboard press occurs.
  • (cs) in reply to NC
    NC:
    Jaime:
    But.... you never type any of that extra garbage. Everybody always claims that C# is faster to type becuase it is less verbose, but they forget that the IDE writes 99% of it. VB's block syntax is a bit ugly, but it's ideally suited for auto-completion and validation. So what if local variable declaration uses Dim, at least after typing Dim<space>x<space>As<space>, intellisense comes up with a list of just data types. In C#, you have to kick intellisense with control-space and it throws everything at you because 95% of the language is valid at the beginning of a statement.

    The Handles syntax you mention is produced by simply selecting the event from a dropdown in the IDE. It types the entire method declaration, along with the Handles clause with two clicks.

    C# is most definitely faster. VB.NET has this awesome annoying background compiler which fails on large projects where it feels the need to hang the IDE for hours on ends while it attempts to catch up with your typing.

    Oh and it's amazing how often "Visual Basic Background Compiler has stopped working" message shows in VS.

    When you type Dim [name] As [Type], 95% of the language is valid, because it's not until you get to = than you've narrowed the results down to the type you just specified.

    So what if C# shows you everything, it selects the most relevant option for you anyway.

    The only reason VB.NET is still around is because we have to keep 1000's of newbies happy. If we took it away they would cry and MS would drown in a sea of tears.

    I've never once had the background compiler barf on me, and I have been using VB.Net professionally since it was in beta. A quick Google search for "Visual Basic Background Compiler has stopped working" results in about 50,000 pages, 90% of which describe background compilation, 5% rave about it, and 5% complaints. Even if it did crap out every once in a while, it would still help more than it hurts. I'm sure that people who have had flat tires wouldn't be better off switching back to wooden wheels.

    Your Dim comment doesn't even make sense. After "As", only data types are allowed. After "=", any valid expression is allowed (which include static properties and methods, so that means all types plus all methods in scope). The C# counter-comment of "it only shows you the relevant ones" is also true of VB. But, how could C# possibly know what is relevant at the beginning of a statement? You haven't typed anything yet, and your most recent modifications aren't even integrated into intellisense yet.

    I write about 60% VB and 40% C#. I have no problem with C#, I'm simply more productive in VB. I've certainly never run into a circumstance where it would be significantly harder to write VB than C#.

  • Dreadwolf (unregistered) in reply to Jaime
    Jamie:
    Anonymous:
    Jaime:
    Anonymous:
    Vlbuttic Pickles:
    TRWTF is use of var.
    I agree that it's pointless to use an implicitly typed local variable for a type that is known but I hardly think it is "TRWTF"; if that's what you want to use there are no strong arguments to say you shouldn't. Remember that the var keyword is perfectly legitimate in C# since the variable that it wraps is still strongly typed - unlike languages such as VB where "var" represents a weakly typed variable. We all know that weak typing is bad but there is no such argument against implicit strong typing. As long as you know the type at compile time it really doesn't matter whether you explicitly declared it or implicitly declared it.
    VB's equivalent of var is identical to C#'s and it is strongly typed. You are thinking of the old VB6 Variant data type that was removed from VB.Net ten years ago.

    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1946693/what-is-the-vb-net-equivalent-of-the-c-var-keyword

    It bothers me that people keep using VB6 as a strawman to talk down VB.Net.

    What the hell are you talking about? I never said "VB.NET", I said "VB". If I meant "VB.NET" I would have said "VB.NET". You have the cheek to talk about a straw man argument when you're doing exactly that - completely misrepresenting my original point. Learn to read or better yet just shut up since we all know your comments are usually complete rubbish.
    <snipped boring VB/VB.Net squabbling.>

    BTW, if you want to say the my comments are usually complete rubbish, do it while logged in. I stand by most of what I said in the linked post, even though I made a technical error. The person I was responding to made a bold claim that any command prompt access on a workstation on a NetWare network would automatically lead to system compromise. He backed up that claim with an anecdote that he had accidentally NET SENDed a message to the wrong person. That deserved a harsh response.

    I'm with you Jamie, he shouldn't have said that most of your comments are rubbish. That was wrong, and the link doesn't back up that assertion.

    He should have said that that particular post is just one other example of you being a complete dick because you were more concerned with appearing to be right and showing everyone how incredibly clever you are than with giving others the benefit of the doubt or adopting even an iota of humility when interacting with others.

    In the linked post, your response to Tracer was unnecessarily vitriolic, even considering that his comment conflated Netware and Windows. The fact that you are unapologetic speaks to your meagre character. Your need to bring up the fact that you were a "Master Certified NetWare Engineer" and the fact that you cited a link that directly contradicted your own position because you were in such a rush to try and humiliate Tracer just shows how pathetic your life must truly be.

    Perhaps a grade school in 1995 needs a Master Certified Netware Engineer? Just think how easy it would be to humiliate those little kids eh? What fun that would be, you sadistic pointless excuse for a human being.

  • Syntax (unregistered)

    Both my bank and my hosting provider logs me off after a period of inactivity. What's the issue? Surely this is a common requirement which any framework can handle

  • DGM (unregistered) in reply to tom103
    tom103:
    C# ... Java... yuck...

    FTFY

  • lbishop (unregistered) in reply to skington
    skington:
    I never used it, but I read a review of an early version of Mathematica, and it apparently would beep if something went wrong, with no further explanation; you needed to go to a menu option (I think it was called "Why the beep?") to find out.

    If some other application had beeped, it would smugly say "Mathematica hasn't beeped".

    That's still here in the latest version of mathematica (version 7). Under the "Help" menu is the awfully-punctuated "Why the Beep?...". In the absence of a beep this will pop up a dialog saying "Mathematica hasn't beeped yet." (Note "YET"). If there was a beep you get something almost as useless "Mathematica beeped to let you know that a warning or error message was generated by the kernel. You can disable this beep by resetting MessageOptions in the Option Inspector."

  • NC (unregistered) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    I've never once had the background compiler barf on me, and I have been using VB.Net professionally since it was in beta. A quick Google search for "Visual Basic Background Compiler has stopped working" results in about 50,000 pages, 90% of which describe background compilation, 5% rave about it, and 5% complaints. Even if it did crap out every once in a while, it would still help more than it hurts. I'm sure that people who have had flat tires wouldn't be better off switching back to wooden wheels.

    Your Dim comment doesn't even make sense. After "As", only data types are allowed. After "=", any valid expression is allowed (which include static properties and methods, so that means all types plus all methods in scope). The C# counter-comment of "it only shows you the relevant ones" is also true of VB. But, how could C# possibly know what is relevant at the beginning of a statement? You haven't typed anything yet, and your most recent modifications aren't even integrated into intellisense yet.

    I write about 60% VB and 40% C#. I have no problem with C#, I'm simply more productive in VB. I've certainly never run into a circumstance where it would be significantly harder to write VB than C#.

    http://www.csharp-architect.com/post/2009/12/03/VBNET-what-are-you-doing.aspx

    ^ Just found that too.

    I'm currently working on an application thats 10 years old moving it to C# because there are so many issues with a large application written in VB. So I write about 60% VB / 40% C# at the moment also.

    VB is by far the worst thing ever conceived.

    It fails to implement interfaces correctly too.

  • not-of-this-Earth (unregistered)

    Looks like it is common practice in IT industry. How very sad... Hello bugs! Welcome crappy software! Long live incompetence! Amen.

  • Jimmy Jones (unregistered) in reply to Brazen

    My favorite is the one that appears when windows boots after a bad shutdown and decides it need to check the hard disk.

    It's something like: "Your disk will be scanned in 30 seconds time, press any key to not scan the disk..."

    A key for "scan it now!"...? Nope. You have to sit and wait the full 30 seconds.

    (And repeat for every drive in the machine!)

  • Jimmy Jones (unregistered)

    PS: Can one of those dialogs have only a single "Yes" button?

    I thought the fact that they had to have two buttons was the reason so many of them don't make any sense.

  • db (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Honestly I don't care, it's nothing to do with me, it was just a recent example of you spouting bullshit about something you don't understand (complete with a citation that doesn't even support your argument). Another thing you don't seem to understand is that VB.NET != VB. I'm not debating this with you, it's a plain fact.
    No point getting smug, VB isn't really VB anyone. Once it was sort of BASIC, then it was Pascal, now it's a bastard child of Java.
  • anon (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Honestly I don't care, it's nothing to do with me, it was just a recent example of you spouting bullshit about something you don't understand (complete with a citation that doesn't even support your argument). Another thing you don't seem to understand is that VB.NET != VB. I'm not debating this with you, it's a plain fact.
    Can't we ban teenagers from this forum?
  • Paul (unregistered) in reply to tom103
    tom103:
    C# with Java-like naming conventions, yuck...
    Paul:
    MessageBoxEx allows you to put a timeout on the messagebox, yes?
    No it doesn't...

    Ah yes, I see now. I used some code a while to do that, and it made mention of MessageBoxEx() It's (the undocumented) MessageBoxTimeout() that you need to do it.

    I stand corrected.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Jaime:
    Anonymous:
    Vlbuttic Pickles:
    TRWTF is use of var.
    I agree that it's pointless to use an implicitly typed local variable for a type that is known but I hardly think it is "TRWTF"; if that's what you want to use there are no strong arguments to say you shouldn't. Remember that the var keyword is perfectly legitimate in C# since the variable that it wraps is still strongly typed - unlike languages such as VB where "var" represents a weakly typed variable. We all know that weak typing is bad but there is no such argument against implicit strong typing. As long as you know the type at compile time it really doesn't matter whether you explicitly declared it or implicitly declared it.
    VB's equivalent of var is identical to C#'s and it is strongly typed. You are thinking of the old VB6 Variant data type that was removed from VB.Net ten years ago.

    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1946693/what-is-the-vb-net-equivalent-of-the-c-var-keyword

    It bothers me that people keep using VB6 as a strawman to talk down VB.Net.

    What the hell are you talking about? I never said "VB.NET", I said "VB". If I meant "VB.NET" I would have said "VB.NET". You have the cheek to talk about a straw man argument when you're doing exactly that - completely misrepresenting my original point. Learn to read or better yet just shut up since we all know your comments are usually complete rubbish.

    Then you are wrong either way aren't you? If you meant VB6, then you meant 'Variant' as 'var' does not exist in VB6, only in .NET.

    If you meant 'var' and VB .NET then you are also wrong as pointed out by the original reply, they are both the same (strong typed at compile time) whether in VB .NET or C#.

    Squabble over.

  • Amorya (unregistered) in reply to lbishop

    Regarding awfully punctuated, if you're referring to the ellipsis at the end (…), that's because it's a human interface guideline requirement (at least on MacOS) for a menu item that opens a dialog box, as opposed to just doing an action straight away.

    For example, Save doesn't have one, but Save As… does.

  • Paul (unregistered)

    That is also in the Microsoft guidelines for UI design, more or less.

    Ellipses

    •Ellipses mean incompleteness. Use ellipses in UI text as follows: ◦Commands: Indicate that a command needs additional information. Don't use an ellipsis whenever an action displays another window—only when additional information is required. For more information, see Command Buttons. ◦Data: Indicate that text is truncated. ◦Labels: Indicate that a task is in progress (for example, "Searching..."). Tip: Truncated text in a window or page with unused space indicates poor layout or a default window size that is too small. Strive for layouts and default window sizes that eliminate or reduce the amount of truncated text. For more information, see Layout.

    •Don't make ellipses interactive. To show truncated text, let users resize the control to see more text or use a progressive disclosure control instead

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa974176.aspx
    Proper use of ellipses is important to indicate that users can make further choices before performing the action, or even cancel the action entirely. The visual cue offered by an ellipsis allows users to explore your software without fear.

    This doesn't mean you should use an ellipsis whenever an action displays another window—only when additional information is required to perform the action. Consequently, any command button whose implicit verb is to "show another window" doesn't take an ellipsis, such as with the commands About, Advanced, Help (or any other command linking to a Help topic), Options, Properties, or Settings.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511453.aspx#ellipses
  • (cs) in reply to anon
    anon:
    Anonymous:
    Honestly I don't care, it's nothing to do with me, it was just a recent example of you spouting bullshit about something you don't understand (complete with a citation that doesn't even support your argument). Another thing you don't seem to understand is that VB.NET != VB. I'm not debating this with you, it's a plain fact.
    Can't we ban teenagers from this forum?
    Bert Glanstron could do it!
  • (cs) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    BTW, if you want to say the my comments are usually complete rubbish, do it while logged in. I stand by most of what I said in the linked post, even though I made a technical error. The person I was responding to made a bold claim that any command prompt access on a workstation on a NetWare network would automatically lead to system compromise. He backed up that claim with an anecdote that he had accidentally NET SENDed a message to the wrong person. That deserved a harsh response.
    Save your breath. I've come to the conclusion that 'Anonymous (unregistered)' suffers from a permanent anabolic steroids disorder, or otherwise is incapable of civil conduct on the Internet.
  • (cs) in reply to PS
    PS:
    And I never understood why anyone would consider interrupting the user with a completely pointless, modal dialog box every 5 minutes good UI design.
    If you'll read the story again, it was supposed to be an INACTIVITY timeout. If you're working, it won't appear.
  • (cs) in reply to Vlbuttic Pickles
    Vlbuttic Pickles:
    TRWTF is use of var.

    Actually C++0x is bringing this option in, except the keyword will be auto rather than var. That is primarily because auto is already a reserved word in the language so can't break anything, whereas existing code may have variables called var.

  • (cs) in reply to North Bus
    North Bus:
    SCSimmons:
    It's possible that TRWTF is that the main process can't cope with idle users, I don't know. But that doesn't excuse incompetent execution of the requested workaround.
    Software licenses. The company probably has a limit to how many processes of the application they are licensed to run simultaneously, therefore an idle user could take the spot of another user just by being logged in.
    That would be plausible, except that this seems to be an internally developed application. I don't know about you, but I don't authorize limited user licenses to the departments in my company that I write apps for. :)
  • (cs) in reply to SCSimmons
    SCSimmons:
    North Bus:
    SCSimmons:
    It's possible that TRWTF is that the main process can't cope with idle users, I don't know. But that doesn't excuse incompetent execution of the requested workaround.
    Software licenses. The company probably has a limit to how many processes of the application they are licensed to run simultaneously, therefore an idle user could take the spot of another user just by being logged in.
    That would be plausible, except that this seems to be an internally developed application. I don't know about you, but I don't authorize limited user licenses to the departments in my company that I write apps for. :)

    It says in the damn post that it's for time-sensitive data analysis work. I don't know exactly what that comprises - anything from rush job financial figures for a bank to a euphemism for watching cctv feeds - but evidently it's important to make sure that jobs aren't being allocated to someone who's not going to perform them immediately.

  • (cs) in reply to Jaime
    Jaime:
    I have no problem with C#, I'm simply more productive in VB. I've certainly never run into a circumstance where it would be significantly harder to write VB than C#.
    Hmm... Let me rewrite that to make it more generic.
    I have no problem with X, I'm simply more productive in Y. I've certainly never run into a circumstance where it would be significantly harder to write Y than X.
    People prefer certain languages because they feel more productive (or comfortable) in them. Jaime's opponents could easily take the statement above and swap VB and C#, and they'd be about as justified as he is. So really, there is no best programming language. Some languages work better than others for some tasks, but programmers generally prefer languages purely for subjective reasons.

    That about sums it up for almost every this-programming-language-is-better-than-that-programming-language debate ever.

  • (cs) in reply to Jimmy Jones
    Jimmy Jones:
    PS: Can one of those dialogs have only a single "Yes" button?

    I thought the fact that they had to have two buttons was the reason so many of them don't make any sense.

    "OK" is a synonym for "Yes", No?

  • David G (unregistered)

    The horrible online coursework application Desire2Learn does this same thing. It pops up a dialog box that says 'Click OK to remain logged in'. If you click the button after the time has run out, it returns you to the login page, making the button meaningless. High quality educational software at its finest.

Leave a comment on “The Why Timeout”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article