TP>> Ever seen message boxes with a "do not show this warning again"
TP>> checkbox? That adds a little more "bloat" but doesn't slow you down
TP>> any more.
p> Right, it's called a "switch."
In some programming languages, perhaps. Using the Win32 API in C or
C++, it's called a checkbox.
p> And the way that netscape's switch works, that once you tell it not
p> to show again, you literally have to destroy your settings to go
p> back to the original. (usually beyond the newbie's ability)
So you're saying that since the newbie may take the choice that they
don't want with a not-understood dialog box, it's best to assume that
the newbie didn't really want it anyway? Doesn't make sense to me.
p>>> I never liked it. I'd rather have "no warning" "No pop-up" It's just
p>>> another pop-up screen to slow you down. I been fighting to get rid of
p>>> pop-up screens.. You wanna Add more? LOL One other question...
TP>> User configurability is the key.
p> Where have I heard that before? Yes, user configurable, right now it
p> *IS* configurable, you type in the subject/or lack of subject, and off
p> you go. (great for listbot servers -BTW)
Uh huh, I see the words but they're not making any sense. I don't
happen to see "user control of pop-up warnings" having anything to do
with the choice to (not) type in a subject.
*I* would prefer that email clients not only not allow sending a
message with no subject, but put me into the subject line when I go to
send a message that has no subject.
p> Your suggestion add's limitation ie: a switch of some type and a
p> pop-up screen. So, the next logical question is... Will this be
p> applied globally(It'l limit the program), what if some folks want to
p> use it on account specific(program get's bigger), or even folder
p> specific settings(Program gets bigger yet.)
Implementation details are left to the developers, but your assertion
that making such a thing folder-specific means that it's bigger than
application wide is only partially true: the code for the QuickSearch
bar is almost guaranteed to dwarf any pop-up message.
No reason why such a thing couldn't be folder specific. Hmm, instead
of checking the global variable check the variable that's stored in
the folder's data area. Data size grows by an amazing amount, only
eight of such options can fit in the space of one letter in the
mailbox format. Damn watch that bloat.
p> Where are these settings stored? An ini file? Self modifying code?
Unfortunately you know the words but not what they mean. What self
modifying code has to do with storing user options is beyond me...
p> So, with what was stated above, the options, would have to be not a
p> "do not show again" switch, since that would create configuration
p> problems, therefore, it would either have to be applied globally,
p> or per account, or per folder. Which brings me full circle, to the
p> question of how many more resource files will that need, and how
p> many new Sub's, iterations? I am not saying it can't be done, I am
p> saying, where does it stop?
Well the solution is not necessarily one of "do not show again" in the
pop up message. Perhaps it's in the account options page. The
addition to the resource script, since many here probably don't know,
probably adds to the overall size of the executable the amount of
space taken up by the longest word in this sentence.
Let me end this subject here by suggesting that the only people who I
shall respond to about "bloat" are people who actually know the first
thing about WINDOWS programming, and by that I don't mean the
high-level implementation, I mean what it actually turns into. Even a
resource script in VC++ isn't what a dialog box turns into, it turns
into an extremely small data set which gets fed into the Windows OS
for creation at some point in the future.
p>>> Do you do any(and I mean in ANY language ASM, C, BASIC, VB, etc.)
p>>> programming yourself? I have done some programming myself, i'm no
p>>> expert, but I learned really fast my programs get big really quick when
p>>> I start adding eye-candy. Pop-up screens are eyecand... its hand
p>>> holding..
TP>> Hand holding is not eye candy. Anyway, yeah, I'm a programmer.
p> If the second statement is true, I don't see how you can say the first
p> statement is true.
Aye, but at the same time I've pretty much determined that you're not
the one to judge.
p> I've written down and dirty programs that have no color, no
p> windows, no helpfiles that are at least half the size of adding
p> color, windows, helpfiles.
Unfortunately for all of us, a program can have crappy helpfiles, a
terrible UI, and unusable color, thereby offering ZERO handholding
while at the same time not being eyecandy.
Let me define it for y'all in the way that my industry uses it:
Eyecandy is the stuff that's not necessary for program execution but
makes the experience of using the software "cool". It's not something
that makes the program more functional, it's something that is utterly
useless and exists for no other reason that to provide the user with a
"pretty" environment within which (s)he can work.
p> Anytime I've added windows and new resources, the program grows (no
p> pun) "like a bat outta hell!" (A new tagline!) <BG>
Sorry to hear it. I've seen some pretty fancy Windows programs that do
some amazing things (and have a lot of handholding AND eyecandy), all
the while being smaller than "hello, world" generated by VC++ or
Delphi.
TP>> Software of mine has sold 2 million copies around the world and I'm
TP>> sure right around the same number of pirated copies.
p> What software is that? Friendly question, just curious, I guess I
p> could just do a search on your name, or you can save me the time. A
p> url would be an okay answer.
My name wouldn't turn up much that's current but you can see what I've
spent the last three years working on (at least, the interpretation
that the web people have of it) at http://www.syphonfilter.com/.
TP>> Pop-up windows can be irritating but they can be useful. Hence the
TP>> reason for making them user configuable, yet another thing that Agent
TP>> does wonderfully.
p> TB isn't Agent.
Heh, that's the truth.
p> I tried a freeware agent once(seemed like it sucked because you
p> can't change the Server's without some hassle)...
FreeAgent doesn't have all of the facilities of the pay-Agent. It
tells you that in the helpfiles and the website from which you
download it.
p> I use Linux http://www.linux-mandrake.com for my newsgroups on
p> newsguys(zippo.)
Thankfully for a lot of other Linux people, Agent runs under Wine
reasonably well (http://www.winehq.org/ if memory serves). Thanks for
the URL, but I have several Linux choices that I'd make before
Mandrake (ick).
p> I have no need for agent as you can see. If your suggesting the Bat
p> have NNTP support, I would say...
I would never suggest such a thing, as they say, Agent is great at
that when you don't need multiple server support.
TP>> Anyhow, adding pop up windows with one checkbox and some text and a
TP>> yes/no button selection does NOT add all that much code under windows.
p> What about under Delphi? At least one new resource file... YES? Some
p> more interfacing to some other iterations Depending on how structured
p> the rest of the program is. YES? Possibly a new subroutine? YES?
Dunno about Delphi adding files, but the number of resource files is
ultimately irrelevant. An intelligent implementation would add one
line of C code for the check, one for the setting of the checkbox at
dialog initialization time and one for the checking of it on "OK",
definitely tons of bloat. Again, not a whole lot compared to the
rumoured newsreader support.
-tom!
--
Hopin' this said *something* useful, [EMAIL PROTECTED] out.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
