Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):

http://blog.excastle.com/2008/06/03/...oftware-sucks/

"Paulo" <eris_paulo> wrote in news:#DVrxEzyIHA.1236
@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
>
> [..]

As with anything, it's the people behind the s/w......

.......I'm guessing a LOT of this crappy s/w is .Net based !!!!!

Wouldn't suprise me in the least.

DanS wrote:
> "Paulo" <eris_paulo> wrote in news:#DVrxEzyIHA.1236
> @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
>>
>> [..]
>
> As with anything, it's the people behind the s/w......
>
> ......I'm guessing a LOT of this crappy s/w is .Net based !!!!!
>
> Wouldn't suprise me in the least.

Every commercial app I've seen, which was based on the flamework, sucked. Generally
*far* more than it's "Classic" predescesor. Yes.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:28:09 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" <karl>
wrote:
in <#6PkHo1yIHA.2384>

>DanS wrote:
>
>Every commercial app I've seen, which was based on the flamework, sucked. Generally
>*far* more than it's "Classic" predescesor. Yes.

You realize of course that you've stepped over the line and that now you
will be ridiculed and castrated by their most recent emissary or is that
mercenary - you know the freak Bill McBarfy.

No one is allowed to denigrate Microsoft in this group without suffering
the almighty gall and wrath of Bill McBarfy - their new naysayer and
public defender of all that is wrong, monopolistic and skewed in the
vendor's favor.

Realize of course that their tactics align themselves very closely with
the Republican Party (GOP - boy there's an acronym for ya) whose tactics
are identified as Attack, Attack, Attack, Never Defend. Once you grasp
these premises it becomes very easy to understand the "arguments"
presented in the past by such luminaries as Michael C and Paul Clement.

I shall now withdraw and forevermore will do no more than passively
observe the destruction and obliteration of this group. My apologies to
those who feel that I've contributed to the noise, but it's just so hard
to take this lying down. Microsoft will never win in my world, but I'll
have to be content to swallow those sentiments when digesting this
group. Au revoir.

VB6 - RIP

Frank

DanS wrote:
> "Paulo" <eris_paulo> wrote in news:#DVrxEzyIHA.1236
> @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
>>
>> [..]
>
> As with anything, it's the people behind the s/w......
>
> ......I'm guessing a LOT of this crappy s/w is .Net based !!!!!
>
> Wouldn't suprise me in the least.

It seemed to me that he was on about bad design, not performance or other
implementation issues. You can design really bad software with just about any
programming tool...

"Karl E. Peterson" <karl> wrote in message
news:2384
>
> Every commercial app I've seen, which was based on the flamework, sucked.
> Generally *far* more than it's "Classic" predescesor. Yes.

Examples ?

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t> wrote in message
news:anet
> "Paulo" <eris_paulo> wrote in news:#DVrxEzyIHA.1236
> @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
>>
>> [..]
>
> As with anything, it's the people behind the s/w......
>
> ......I'm guessing a LOT of this crappy s/w is .Net based !!!!!
>

Sadly, traditionally that's what folks have said about VB6 apps.

"Steve Gerrard" <mynamehere> wrote in
news:Esidna0x_qOJqtLVnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d:

> DanS wrote:
>
> It seemed to me that he was on about bad design, not performance or
> other implementation issues. You can design really bad software with
> just about any programming tool...

Yes, this is true. I just couldn't resist a .Net poke.

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t> wrote in message
news:anet
>>
>> It seemed to me that he was on about bad design, not performance or
>> other implementation issues. You can design really bad software with
>> just about any programming tool...
>
> Yes, this is true. I just couldn't resist a .Net poke.

Why ? What's the point other than trying to start another flame war in here
?

"Bill McCarthy" <Bill> wrote in
news:ewnDJ$2yIHA.1772:

>
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t> wrote in message
> news:anet
>>>
>>> It seemed to me that he was on about bad design, not performance or
>>> other implementation issues. You can design really bad software with
>>> just about any programming tool...
>>
>> Yes, this is true. I just couldn't resist a .Net poke.
>
> Why ? What's the point other than trying to start another flame war
> in here ?

Not trying to start anything. It was just a witty comment.

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t> wrote in message
news:anet
> "Bill McCarthy" <Bill> wrote in
> news:ewnDJyIHA.1772:
>> Not trying to start anything. It was just a witty comment.

Tired and Threadbare .... enough is enough.

> It seemed to me that he was on about bad design, not performance or other
> implementation issues. You can design really bad software with just about
any
> programming tool...
>
That makes sense in terms of basic GUI, which
was what Platt was talking about. On the other
hand, that can't be entirely separated from other
aspects of the product. To my mind anything
that requires a 70+ MB runtime is badly designed
in the terms that Platt defined: basic usability.
I wouldn't install such a giant runtime in order to
install software that I can get as good or better
without the limitations. And the same goes for Java.
It's not just a .Net thing. It's an issue of using
a tool for the wrong uses.

> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
>
> [..]
>

It's nice to see someone address the problems of
websites. But that also brings up another interesting
issue:
How does the proprietor want the product to be used?

Example:
I was recently looking into RCN for phone service.
Their website could easily tell me what's available,
but it mostly only advertises special promotions
without providing all of the details. Additionally, the
site provides a "shopping helper" where one enters
a street and zip code to find specific services
available. But the shopping helper does nothing more
than recommend calling RCN sales!

I find that a large number of commercial sites are
of little use. Sometimes it's because they didn't think
about what they were doing. Sometimes it's because of
overdone web design. But often, as is the case with
RCN, it's because the company doesn't actually want
their visitors to be able to use the site. The site is only
there to redirect people to sales agents.

> > Every commercial app I've seen, which was based on the flamework,
sucked.
> > Generally *far* more than it's "Classic" predescesor. Yes.
>
> Examples ?
>

Drive Image.
Was there something else written in .Net? :)

> Great blog entry by Joe White (notes from a TechEd presentation):
>
> [..]

"Sucks" is in the eye of the user or the coder. No more, no less. IMO.