My random 2 cents... I do miss pgadmin3's elegant simplicity. It also
'just worked' (despite the regular crashes). No docker image to deploy,
no special python environments to suddenly stop working.
It has come a long way from the beginning, but I think pgadmin4 got it's
tremendously rough start from the hodgepodge of technologies smashed
together to make an app.
Of course, what isn't a hodgepodge of technologies these days...
especially involving anything web related. There's many many layers
there, but that's also why sometimes it's so fragile with all the moving
parts versus using a singular system to build and design the bit.
I'm no where near an MS-Fanboy, but honestly it might have been a
smoother life cycle with better usability had the whole thing been
developed in C# on Mono.
I still can't barely use pgadmin4 for my workflow, and I've been
patiently waiting since September 2016 (1.0) to do so. I've since moved
on with my workhorse PG guis to be omnidb and datagrip, but keep up with
the pgadmin4 updates for a just in case release that might give me a
reason to use it again for day to day.
On 2020-09-20 19:02, Dave Caughey wrote:
tutiluren,
I think everyone understands that the usability isn't optimal. Indeed,
in my son's university program, they have a course on UE design, and
pgAdmin is used as a case study of a suboptimal user experience (sorry,
don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger!)
I've logged several feature requests relating to usability, and would
dearly love to see some of them get addressed. But then I look at
what's in the release notes, and see that the team is working on really
core capabilities. I.e., they have to support everything that
PostgreSQL can possibly do, most of what is fixed is way, way beyond my
knowledge. As a developer of a web app I just need the most basic
features, whereas the pgAdmin team has to collectively understand
absolutely *everything* about PostgreSQL. And in my experience as a
development manager, the kind of people who tend to like all the nitty
gritty details of databases rarely tend to have a passion for UE
design--different strengths and skill sets are required. So I'm not
surprised that a team that can understand the complexity of something
like PostgreSQL doesn't agonize over optimizing the UE.
But of course, anyone who is knowledgeable and passionate about UE
design is free to contribute, and perhaps make some improvements. And
at that point I look down at my feet awkwardly and mutter something
about not having the time to immerse myself in the project, and then
come to the happy realization that if it works and is free, then I can
live with the usability rough edges.
So... we have a product that has to encompass a mind-boggling range of
functionality. Could it have better usability? yes. Can I live with
it, as is? yes.
Cheers,
Dave
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 6:07 PM Bo Guo <bo....@gisticinc.com
<mailto:bo....@gisticinc.com>> wrote:
tutiluren,
I do not disagree with some of you suggestions; however, please present
your ideas professionally and with respect!
I for one am very grateful to be able to use pgadmin for free, and
thankful to those who are behind this wonderful and free product we
come
to rely on.
Bo
On 9/20/20 7:32 AM, tutilu...@tutanota.com
<mailto:tutilu...@tutanota.com> wrote:
> This is absolutely unreal. I never wanted to have to waste my time
> asking about pgAdmin 4 ever again, but here we are...
>
> Every single time I open it, even with a dedicated browser profile
> which never gets its data cleared, and even with the special
> configuration options (requiring one to hack a file) to not ask
for a
> stupid "master password", it **still** forces me to first
double-click
> the "Servers", then double-click the actual "server" to get back to
> work. So that's four pointless extra clicks every time I want to use
> pgAdmin 4.
>
> How do I make it connect immediately? Why would anyone ever **not**
> want it to at the very least show the list of servers? Why have all
> this extra, pointless work?
>
> Needless to say, there's nothing in the "preferences" to set this.
> It's seriously mind-boggling. The only reason I've never mentioned
> this before has been that there's even worse issues that
overshadowed
> this.
>
> Sometimes, randomly, it *does* connect immediately to the server
once
> you've double-clicked the "Servers" thing. The fact that this is not
> consistent, but (apparently) random, just further confuses me and
> makes me (again) wonder if this program was designed purposely as a
> psychological experiment.
Bo
