Ian FUD ?
Don't get that one, sorry. But a short response, perhaps I did go a bit over the top on my comparisons, but I guess you seen through that to the true frustration felt. You and many other users are gifted enough to be able to use code and have a high level of competency in these areas, its as natural for you as using the telephone. I guess I am a little envious of never being able to attain high competencies in these areas, and I have tried, man have I tried hard as well, and I hate to let something get the better of me. Our developers in house actually have exactly the same thing to say to me, 'hey dude, what's the problem' but I can never convince them either because they cannot see it the same way as me, as they would need to let go and dismiss their 20 years + experience in programming to do so. It would be a guess of mine that the developers at Altium were itching to make this change a long time ago, instead of the inconvenience of writing an additional layer around what they essentially done before in 99SE anyways and well before you requested this as a feature. I know already what I can expect from SP2 ;), but will make no comment here, nor interrupt the SP2 process by doing so there either. My comments are based on SP1. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 November 2004 12:32 > To: Protel EDA Discussion List > Subject: RE: [PEDA] 99se vs. DXP vs. 2004.. Need a sample > offeelingsaboutdiff. and reasons for moving or not to the next > > On 09:47 PM 19/11/2004, John A. Ross [RSDTV] said: > ><..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] > > ____________________________________________________________ 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]
