<..snip..>I do not have to write a macro in MS word to do a simple thing like select text, and make only that
text bold, I have buttons to do it, a graphical process, much easier for the eye/mind to recognise
and process. No text to type, no parenthesis to worry about, no syntax to worry about....
[Long post - most of it supportive of your position .....]
Come on John - this is a little unrealistic. In a word processor I select text and change its attributes. In P2004 I select stuff and change their attributes - same process. In fact your analogy is spot on, but I think your implication is not.
In a word processor I select the text I want to change and change it attributes using menus or toolbars. In P2004 I select the objects and make my changes (probably in Inspector for multiple objects). In P99SE it is a little different - I edit the object and then choose to propagate the changes to other objects.
I think a better comparison for what you are saying would be the use of styles in a word processor, where you can propagate the changes to all like-styled objects with a suitable command sequence. I don't have to select all of the like-styled paragraphs first, I just edit the style and it happens magically.
If I have a complex massaging job to be done in a word processor I *do* write a macro. I have written Word macros to fix up DXF files so P99SE could import them - I certainly didn't select and edit every X and Y coordinate and apply the required translation. If I have a complex replacement to undertake in Word I may very well resort to a regular expression (the equivalent of a query) - these require I spend ages testing on small sections of what I am working on. They are *really* unintuitive and complex - and when executing replacements potentially highly destructive - but oh so powerful!
For lots of simple stuff there is no need to write a query in DXP/P2004 - and I know you know this. I think you de-value the legitimate issues with your somewhat inaccurate comparison.
I totally agree that many people with find writing queries a pain. The "Find Similar Object" right click is designed to help - whether it does or not is a matter of opinion. It actually matters little if the FSO and queries are better or worse than the P99SE globals - if there is a significant impression is out there that they are then Altium have to face up to it and either continue to "educate" (brain-wash for those that think I am an Altium stooge) users, or better, IMO, continue to work on the replacement and make it obviously better so Blind Freddy can't miss it.
This is happening (slowly maybe) - if you look at:
http://www.altium.com/nexar/nexar2004SP2_sneak_preview.htm
you can see an entry about "Improved global editing of designators". This feature is a *direct* result of people complaining that there is a problem (changing attributes of designators of selected components was harder in DXP/P2004 than P99SE) and users proposing and working out improvements.
Third option is to replace the old globals. However, it is clear that Altium are not likely to do this. The issue has come up so many times now. I know it is partly to make the underlying code more "regular". The old globals had to be essentially hand coded for each object type. If an attribute was not added to the dialog it couldn't be globally changed - globally changing testpoint state of pads anyone? But even this problem could be solved if they thought the imperative was there, presumably.
Getting the right query is sometimes the type of iterative process I would expect in software
development, or VHDL development where the expected behaviour is to construct, test, debug and back
round again.
This however should NOT put anyone off DXP, when it comes to the query language and getting used to
it and making it natural to use, well, I must just be extremely stupid and dumb compared to the
other 99.9999% of DXP.
I totally disagree here. If you have trouble you are not likely to be the only one. It is clear that it is not gelling for more than just a few "oddballs".
Long story coming up. Some years ago, before computers were on every desk, a bank software group was doing some user trials. A bank manager was asked to come in to try the new software under controlled conditions. He picked up the mouse and used it like a TV remote, pointing it at the screen. The reactions of those monitoring were more interesting than the event. Some thought the manager was stupid. I don't think so; he just hadn't been exposed to something before, but a smart person can learn something new quick enough if it is not too divorced from their experience and they have a *need*. If someone has a large leaning curve, and they can't see a benefit for themselves and they already have a working solution, why would a sensible person spend the effort? I guess the thing we all struggle with here is the bit about "can't see a benefit". I have never got an autorouter to do anything sensible. I have trialled Electra etc. I must be dumb coz plenty of people here swear by Electra. Or am I just not seeing that the learning curve (and $) is ultimately worth it. I am never likely to spend the time on learning something well if I don't see a benefit, yet I am never likely to be able to run the tool well enough to get a good result if I don't. Also, I think few people learn well unless they *have* to - I can't learn a new programming language by reading a book, I've got to get in there and use it.
I know an older developer who hardly ever uses breakpoints and single stepping during software development - just uses printf and other logging. Is he dumb? No, he just doesn't see the benefit in learning to use these features (much to the exasperation of those around him I must say).
Similar situation - user trialing of new software for corporate rollout. This time the developers were watching remotely. First person comes in and has real trouble with the software - right away it is clear they just don't get it. Developers complain about the stupid person brought in to test their pride and joy. Second person also has trouble - developers complain that the two most stupid users in the company have been found - but maybe not as loudly this time. Third person having trouble and the good members of the dev team are already sketching out improvement and trying to see where *they* have gone wrong.
In Altium's case it is clearly not all of one or all of the other of these examples. Many people are happily using the queries - they are not universally hated. However, many people continue to not like them at all. I would hate them if I had to write a query for every global edit. I don't.
You got me going as your comparison with a word processor, and your implication that you have to use a query to do simple edits, is not reasonable. I think you can do a much better job of explaining why you don't like the queries without the FUD.
Bye for now, Ian
____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
To Post messages: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
