Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #60439 > unrolled thread

The trouble with software

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  The trouble with software dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-06-08 12:31 +1000
    Re: The trouble with software Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> - 2014-06-08 08:27 +0100
      Re: The trouble with software richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2014-06-08 11:49 +0000
        Re: The trouble with software Jeremy <jeremy0505@gmail.com> - 2014-06-11 08:53 +0100
    Re: The trouble with software Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-08 10:09 -0400
    Re: The trouble with software Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-06-08 19:35 -0400
      Re: The trouble with software dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-06-09 10:41 +1000
        Re: The trouble with software jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2014-06-09 12:51 +1200
      Re: The trouble with software Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-06-08 17:54 -0700
        Re: The trouble with software RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2014-06-09 08:26 +0100
          Re: The trouble with software ampersand@RhEyMpOnVoEtTiHsImS.co.uk (Martin S Taylor) - 2014-06-09 10:44 +0100
          Re: The trouble with software Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-06-09 12:07 -0400
          Re: The trouble with software Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-10 09:44 +1200
            Re: The trouble with software "Alan Richardson" <jared.r@xtra.co.nz> - 2014-06-10 09:55 +1200
            Re: The trouble with software Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-06-09 18:01 -0700
              Re: The trouble with software RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2014-06-10 05:08 +0100

#60439 — The trouble with software

The trouble with software is often a result of it chewing off more 
than it can swallow. There is often an impossible aim to be everything 
to everyone. 

It's a big world, better for app makers to make *small* apps that do a 
*very* limited number of things well, let other apps do other things.

In making apps for iPads, for example, where prices are generally low, 
there is surely less pressure to make hugely complicated apps, the 
marketing is simpler. The pressure that app makers feel to go 
complicated is perhaps psychological rather evidence based.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#60469

On 08/06/2014 03:31, dorayme wrote:
> The trouble with software is often a result of it chewing off more
> than it can swallow. There is often an impossible aim to be everything
> to everyone.
>
> It's a big world, better for app makers to make *small* apps that do a
> *very* limited number of things well, let other apps do other things.
>
>

That used to be the theory behind software for the Acorn computers.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60474

In article <efUkv.148696$dF4.101515@fx27.fr7>,
Graeme Wall  <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> It's a big world, better for app makers to make *small* apps that do a
>> *very* limited number of things well, let other apps do other things.

>That used to be the theory behind software for the Acorn computers.

And before that Unix.

See the fourth page of

  http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol57-1978/articles/bstj57-6-1899.pdf

-- Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60767

In article <ln1il5$2qn3$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>, richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk 
says...
> 
> In article <efUkv.148696$dF4.101515@fx27.fr7>,
> Graeme Wall  <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >> It's a big world, better for app makers to make *small* apps that do a
> >> *very* limited number of things well, let other apps do other things.
> 
> >That used to be the theory behind software for the Acorn computers.
> 
> And before that Unix.
> 
> See the fourth page of
> 
>   http://www3.alcatel-lucent.com/bstj/vol57-1978/articles/bstj57-6-1899.pdf
> 
Interesting read. 

-- 
jeremy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60486

On 2014.06.07, 22:31 , dorayme wrote:
> The trouble with software is often a result of it chewing off more
> than it can swallow. There is often an impossible aim to be everything
> to everyone.
>
> It's a big world, better for app makers to make *small* apps that do a
> *very* limited number of things well, let other apps do other things.

As long as they are designed so that they can be federated afterwards, fine.

But some s/w projects are, by necessity, quite large and complex and 
thus need an engineering approach.  That is a lot of scope/spec/design 
long before the first line of code is written.  Some organizations 
rightly do not allow any coding at all before the design is complete and 
signed off.  Such projects often break down the system into CSCI's and 
strictly define the interfaces between them.  But such are not always 
'small'.

-- 
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60550

dorayme:

> The trouble with software is often a result of it chewing off more 
> than it can swallow. There is often an impossible aim to be everything 
> to everyone. 
> 
> It's a big world, better for app makers to make *small* apps that do a 
> *very* limited number of things well, let other apps do other things.
> 
> In making apps for iPads, for example, where prices are generally low, 
> there is surely less pressure to make hugely complicated apps, the 
> marketing is simpler. The pressure that app makers feel to go 
> complicated is perhaps psychological rather evidence based.

Thank you for advising me in another thread that I am a "pretentious
stuck up little shit."

Taking that as read, I would argue that some apps are designed to
perform complex tasks, and thus cannot be small and very limited. I
hold up Software Bisque's TheSky X (Mac, Windows, iOS) as an exemplar.
Star charting with fast response, telescope mount control, guide-camera
control, imaging-camera control, astrometry, mount alignment utility...
All related tasks, all easier to use when they are available in tabs in
the same application. Ideal for pretentious stuck up little shit
astronomers like me.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60556

In article <080620141935091461%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> dorayme:
> 
> > The trouble with software is often a result of it chewing off more 
> > than it can swallow. There is often an impossible aim to be everything 
> > to everyone. 
> > 
> > It's a big world, better for app makers to make *small* apps that do a 
> > *very* limited number of things well, let other apps do other things.
> > 
> > In making apps for iPads, for example, where prices are generally low, 
> > there is surely less pressure to make hugely complicated apps, the 
> > marketing is simpler. The pressure that app makers feel to go 
> > complicated is perhaps psychological rather evidence based.
> 
> Thank you for advising me in another thread that I am a "pretentious
> stuck up little shit."
>

I don't blame you for not quoting your pretentious stuck up post at 
which my remarks were directed! 

What's the matter with you Davoud? Why not be like me: self-effacing, 
modest?

> Taking that as read, I would argue that some apps are designed to
> perform complex tasks,

You don't need to *argue* that, I agree and it is clearly true for 
some things. With your astronomy - are you sure you are an astronomer 
and not an astrologer, your logic sometimes makes me wonder? <g> - it 
is likely that some programs need to be quite complex affairs. 

But even here, something expert astronomers probably can never *quite* 
see, some amateur needs might be very much simpler. Looking at some of 
iPad apps, I am often irritated by *too much*.   

I have simple needs and tend to think that the settings I use in 
perhaps complex programs define a simpler possible program. Of course, 
others use different settings and so I might be being a little 
unrealistic to suppose anyone would bother to develop a simpler 
program for my needs.

Still, small programs that do a few things well are surely easier to 
make, easier to understand, likely to be easier to make *look* and 
feel good and less subject to bugs and bad things generally.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60562

dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:

> Why not be like me: self-effacing, modest?

So modest apparently, you have to state that you are :-D I'll keep
looking for role models, thanks very much.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60563

On 2014-06-08 23:35:09 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:

> dorayme:
> 
>> The trouble with software is often a result of it chewing off more
>> than it can swallow. There is often an impossible aim to be everything
>> to everyone.
>> 
>> It's a big world, better for app makers to make *small* apps that do a
>> *very* limited number of things well, let other apps do other things.
>> 
>> In making apps for iPads, for example, where prices are generally low,
>> there is surely less pressure to make hugely complicated apps, the
>> marketing is simpler. The pressure that app makers feel to go
>> complicated is perhaps psychological rather evidence based.
> 
> Thank you for advising me in another thread that I am a "pretentious
> stuck up little shit."
> 
> Taking that as read, I would argue that some apps are designed to
> perform complex tasks, and thus cannot be small and very limited. I
> hold up Software Bisque's TheSky X (Mac, Windows, iOS) as an exemplar.
> Star charting with fast response, telescope mount control, guide-camera
> control, imaging-camera control, astrometry, mount alignment utility...
> All related tasks, all easier to use when they are available in tabs in
> the same application. Ideal for pretentious stuck up little shit
> astronomers like me.

TheSky HD for iPad looks like a great App. However, for those not as 
into astronomy as you are, or are on a tighter budget (they don't want 
to spend $30) they should take a look at Sky Guide, a bargain at $1.99. 
It lacks the camera and telescope controls, but still provides good 
information.
< https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sky-guide-view-stars-night/id576588894?mt=8 >

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60589

On 09/06/2014 01:54, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2014-06-08 23:35:09 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:
>
>> dorayme:
>>
>>
>> Taking that as read, I would argue that some apps are designed to
>> perform complex tasks, and thus cannot be small and very limited. I
>> hold up Software Bisque's TheSky X (Mac, Windows, iOS) as an exemplar.
>> Star charting with fast response, telescope mount control, guide-camera
>> control, imaging-camera control, astrometry, mount alignment utility...
>> All related tasks, all easier to use when they are available in tabs in
>> the same application. Ideal for pretentious stuck up little shit
>> astronomers like me.
>
> TheSky HD for iPad looks like a great App. However, for those not as
> into astronomy as you are, or are on a tighter budget (they don't want
> to spend $30) they should take a look at Sky Guide, a bargain at $1.99.
> It lacks the camera and telescope controls, but still provides good
> information.
> <
> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sky-guide-view-stars-night/id576588894?mt=8
>  >
>

I've used this:

http://www.qcontinuum.org/planets/

Excellent (for a novice), and free. Curiously, 'Planets' doesn't come up 
as an Apple store search

-- 
Cheers, Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60591

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> > TheSky HD for iPad looks like a great App. However, for those not as
> > into astronomy as you are, or are on a tighter budget (they don't want
> > to spend $30) they should take a look at Sky Guide, a bargain at $1.99.
> > It lacks the camera and telescope controls, but still provides good
> > information.
> > <
> > https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sky-guide-view-stars-night/id576588894?mt=8
> >  >
> >
> 
> I've used this:
> 
> http://www.qcontinuum.org/planets/

I'm a 'Distant Suns' man myself.

MST

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60597

RJH:
> I've used this:
> 
> http://www.qcontinuum.org/planets/
> 
> Excellent (for a novice), and free. Curiously, 'Planets' doesn't come up 
> as an Apple store search

There are a number of free or inexpensive planetarium applications that
won't show up in the Apple Store. Notable free apps for the Mac are
Cartes du Ciel from <http://www.ap-i.net/skychart/en/download> and
Stellarium from <http://www.stellarium.org>.

Please see <http://www.primordial-light.com/macastronomer.html>.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60644

In article <ysmdnR21fvFe_AjOnZ2dnUVZ8oWdnZ2d@bt.com>, RJH
<patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 09/06/2014 01:54, Savageduck wrote:
> > On 2014-06-08 23:35:09 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:
> >
> >> dorayme:
> >>
> >>
> >> Taking that as read, I would argue that some apps are designed to
> >> perform complex tasks, and thus cannot be small and very limited. I
> >> hold up Software Bisque's TheSky X (Mac, Windows, iOS) as an exemplar.
> >> Star charting with fast response, telescope mount control, guide-camera
> >> control, imaging-camera control, astrometry, mount alignment utility...
> >> All related tasks, all easier to use when they are available in tabs in
> >> the same application. Ideal for pretentious stuck up little shit
> >> astronomers like me.
> >
> > TheSky HD for iPad looks like a great App. However, for those not as
> > into astronomy as you are, or are on a tighter budget (they don't want
> > to spend $30) they should take a look at Sky Guide, a bargain at $1.99.
> > It lacks the camera and telescope controls, but still provides good
> > information.
> > <
> > https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sky-guide-view-stars-night/id576588894?mt=8
> >  >
> 
> I've used this:
> 
> http://www.qcontinuum.org/planets/
> 
> Excellent (for a novice), and free. Curiously, 'Planets' doesn't come up 
> as an Apple store search

The UK's MacFormat magazine did a "Group Test" of some Mac OS X
stargazing apps in the January 2014 issue with this conclusion ...

     SkyORB 3D         1 star (out of 5)
     SkySafari Plus    4 stars
     Equinox Pro       5 stars
     Stellarium        2 stars
     Cartes Du Ciel    3 stars

     The Winner: Equinox Pro
     Equinox Pro offers the most by way of functionality
     for the observer, and does it in a sleek and user
     friendly way, and at a price that is by no means 
     'astronomical'. While it does not offer the space 
     flight simulator function offered by some of the 
     apps, this in no way detracts from its use as a 
     stargazing software. It has all the features 
     necessary for a real observing aide, which are easy
     to configure and will benefit the newcomer and 
     experienced observer alike.

     The runner-up was SkySafari Plus, which offers
     excellent planetarium features. It's perhaps a 
     little better than Equinox Pro for setting your 
     location and is more customisable for observational
     use, but is not as good at operating a telescope. 
     Sadly SkyORB 3D and Stellarium were the two that 
     brought up the rear and offered little to twinkle
     about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60646

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:44:05 +1200, Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:

> In article <ysmdnR21fvFe_AjOnZ2dnUVZ8oWdnZ2d@bt.com>, RJH
> <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/06/2014 01:54, Savageduck wrote:
>> > On 2014-06-08 23:35:09 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:
>> >
>> >> dorayme:
[snip ...]
>> >  
>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sky-guide-view-stars-night/id576588894?mt=8
>> >  >
>>
>> I've used this:
>>
>> http://www.qcontinuum.org/planets/

You may find PlanetWerks by GreyWyvern of interest. It used to be a widget  
on Opera but is now standalone.

Alan


>>
>> Excellent (for a novice), and free. Curiously, 'Planets' doesn't come up
>> as an Apple store search

[snip ...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60649

On 2014-06-09 21:44:05 +0000, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> said:

> In article <ysmdnR21fvFe_AjOnZ2dnUVZ8oWdnZ2d@bt.com>, RJH
> <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/06/2014 01:54, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2014-06-08 23:35:09 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:
>>> 
>>>> dorayme:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Taking that as read, I would argue that some apps are designed to
>>>> perform complex tasks, and thus cannot be small and very limited. I
>>>> hold up Software Bisque's TheSky X (Mac, Windows, iOS) as an exemplar.
>>>> Star charting with fast response, telescope mount control, guide-camera
>>>> control, imaging-camera control, astrometry, mount alignment utility...
>>>> All related tasks, all easier to use when they are available in tabs in
>>>> the same application. Ideal for pretentious stuck up little shit
>>>> astronomers like me.
>>> 
>>> TheSky HD for iPad looks like a great App. However, for those not as
>>> into astronomy as you are, or are on a tighter budget (they don't want
>>> to spend $30) they should take a look at Sky Guide, a bargain at $1.99.
>>> It lacks the camera and telescope controls, but still provides good
>>> information.
>>> <
>>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sky-guide-view-stars-night/id576588894?mt=8
>>>> 
>> 
>> I've used this:
>> 
>> http://www.qcontinuum.org/planets/
>> 
>> Excellent (for a novice), and free. Curiously, 'Planets' doesn't come up
>> as an Apple store search
> 
> The UK's MacFormat magazine did a "Group Test" of some Mac OS X
> stargazing apps in the January 2014 issue with this conclusion ...
> 
>      SkyORB 3D         1 star (out of 5)
>      SkySafari Plus    4 stars
>      Equinox Pro       5 stars
>      Stellarium        2 stars
>      Cartes Du Ciel    3 stars
> 
>      The Winner: Equinox Pro
>      Equinox Pro offers the most by way of functionality
>      for the observer, and does it in a sleek and user
>      friendly way, and at a price that is by no means
>      'astronomical'. While it does not offer the space
>      flight simulator function offered by some of the
>      apps, this in no way detracts from its use as a
>      stargazing software. It has all the features
>      necessary for a real observing aide, which are easy
>      to configure and will benefit the newcomer and
>      experienced observer alike.
> 
>      The runner-up was SkySafari Plus, which offers
>      excellent planetarium features. It's perhaps a
>      little better than Equinox Pro for setting your
>      location and is more customisable for observational
>      use, but is not as good at operating a telescope.
>      Sadly SkyORB 3D and Stellarium were the two that
>      brought up the rear and offered little to twinkle
>      about.

On my Mac I have *Starry Night Pro 6.4.3" which does a pretty 
sophisticated job.
On my iPad I have Sky Guide HD serves me well.

I have taken a look at SkyORB and it is just too gimmicky to be really useful.
I guess for $40 Equinox Pro isn't too bad.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60662

On 10/06/2014 02:01, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2014-06-09 21:44:05 +0000, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> said:
>
>> In article <ysmdnR21fvFe_AjOnZ2dnUVZ8oWdnZ2d@bt.com>, RJH
>> <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/06/2014 01:54, Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2014-06-08 23:35:09 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> dorayme:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking that as read, I would argue that some apps are designed to
>>>>> perform complex tasks, and thus cannot be small and very limited. I
>>>>> hold up Software Bisque's TheSky X (Mac, Windows, iOS) as an exemplar.
>>>>> Star charting with fast response, telescope mount control,
>>>>> guide-camera
>>>>> control, imaging-camera control, astrometry, mount alignment
>>>>> utility...
>>>>> All related tasks, all easier to use when they are available in
>>>>> tabs in
>>>>> the same application. Ideal for pretentious stuck up little shit
>>>>> astronomers like me.
>>>>
>>>> TheSky HD for iPad looks like a great App. However, for those not as
>>>> into astronomy as you are, or are on a tighter budget (they don't want
>>>> to spend $30) they should take a look at Sky Guide, a bargain at $1.99.
>>>> It lacks the camera and telescope controls, but still provides good
>>>> information.
>>>> <
>>>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/sky-guide-view-stars-night/id576588894?mt=8
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I've used this:
>>>
>>> http://www.qcontinuum.org/planets/
>>>
>>> Excellent (for a novice), and free. Curiously, 'Planets' doesn't come up
>>> as an Apple store search
>>
>> The UK's MacFormat magazine did a "Group Test" of some Mac OS X
>> stargazing apps in the January 2014 issue with this conclusion ...
>>
>>      SkyORB 3D         1 star (out of 5)
>>      SkySafari Plus    4 stars
>>      Equinox Pro       5 stars
>>      Stellarium        2 stars
>>      Cartes Du Ciel    3 stars
>>
>>      The Winner: Equinox Pro
>>      Equinox Pro offers the most by way of functionality
>>      for the observer, and does it in a sleek and user
>>      friendly way, and at a price that is by no means
>>      'astronomical'. While it does not offer the space
>>      flight simulator function offered by some of the
>>      apps, this in no way detracts from its use as a
>>      stargazing software. It has all the features
>>      necessary for a real observing aide, which are easy
>>      to configure and will benefit the newcomer and
>>      experienced observer alike.
>>
>>      The runner-up was SkySafari Plus, which offers
>>      excellent planetarium features. It's perhaps a
>>      little better than Equinox Pro for setting your
>>      location and is more customisable for observational
>>      use, but is not as good at operating a telescope.
>>      Sadly SkyORB 3D and Stellarium were the two that
>>      brought up the rear and offered little to twinkle
>>      about.
>
> On my Mac I have *Starry Night Pro 6.4.3" which does a pretty
> sophisticated job.
> On my iPad I have Sky Guide HD serves me well.
>
> I have taken a look at SkyORB and it is just too gimmicky to be really
> useful.
> I guess for $40 Equinox Pro isn't too bad.
>

Actually, yes, forgot - I have that, came as part of a bundle. 
Incredible to my tiny mind, love the spaceship mode.

-- 
Cheers, Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web