Have you written something like this:
Would this be easier?
I’ve been thinking about this a lot, because I’m writing a software library. You know what’s hard? Deciding what classes, functions and properties to expose to the programmer.
My software library deals with spreadsheets, and for uhm, research, I downloaded 2 free open-source libraries for comparison. Then I looked at sample code for 2 commercial libraries too.
You know what I found?
For the most part, the libraries just expose the underlying class structures to the programmer.
While this gives the programmer ultimate coding power, I personally find this exhausting. It’s like the first time I encountered the .NET Framework. There’s an overwhelming number of classes with their own functions and enumerations… “I just want to write one single sentence to a file!” Even that took me a few minutes to get used to. Luckily there’s extensive documentation, or I’d just collapse under the weight.
Do you remember Nokia? It’s a telecommunications company, but I know it as a mobile phone maker. My experience with Nokia phones were that they were probably designed by engineers and programmers. There were a lot of dropdown menus.
We programmers can think in hierarchies. But users don’t usually think in hierarchies (I think there’s research showing dropdown menus on web sites confuse users).
Consider the basic task in programming: declaring a variable. Here’s how you do this in VB:
Dim asdf as Int32
Here’s how you do this in C# (and any C-family):
When I want a variable, I already know what type it should be. The type matters to me and the compiler. The name matters a little to me, and practically none to the compiler. By the time I type “Dim asdf as” I already forgot what type I wanted, because I was so busy coming up with a variable name.
I feel this is backwards. Yes, I kinda have a thing about VB in this case…
Remember the pinky twitching example?
This forces the programmer to go all the way back to the root class, and then traverse the properties down again to reach the Twitch() function.
This shortcuts a lot of the traversing.
I have a lot of respect for the programmers working on open-source projects. They give their time and effort to improving software without pay. I just feel the design sometimes leave a little to be desired.
Have you looked at an iPhone? The interface allows the user to reach something within a couple of taps.
Do you know Google recommends that website links be no more than 3 levels deep? This means every page should be available from every other page via no more than 3 clicks.
So why did the first twitching example need 5 levels to reach my Twitch() function?