On 6/2/2010 4:02 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > It never ceases to amaze me when a suggestion comes up to "add" a > feature that has some practical use, we get a variety of opinions to > the contrary and yet I think we all forget that nearly all added > features come with the choice of on/off so that those of us wanting a > feature added can use it and those that don't want it can turn it off > and maintain the status quo.
As a software developer myself, here are some reasons that I disagree: 1. Every feature requires code space, which is in short supply. 2. The menu interface is already complicated and adding more switches makes it worse. I've talked to new K3 users who are overwhelmed. 3. If a feature is implemented at all, it must be implemented cleanly, in a way which fits the general user-interface and operational philosophy of the device. It can't have hidden 'gotchas', etc. It isn't a good argument for doing something fundamentally inconsistent to say that "you can always turn it off". 4. Once a feature exists, it has to be supported. Some 'features' and implementations thereof can have a large impact on the volume of support calls. 5. Programmer time is very expensive and limited. Just because something has 'practical use' to the four operators out of 10,000 who want a particular feature does not mean that the two guys who have to make this work should spend their time on it, especially when there are things that 1,000 operators could use. These are just some of the reasons that "because it's possible" may not be a good reason to do something! -- Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
