hi russ,
let me preface this message with a congratulations for running such a great service for the arboricultural community around the world. what a fantastic resource! thanks to all those people involved in making it possible. my suggestion is that perhaps you could modify the way the board is set up so that new postings are logged separate from the main body of the topics and messages. there is a message board on the international society of arboricultures web site which works in this way and it seems to make accessing the relevant messages easier and quicker. anyhow thats just a thought i had i dont know whether its possible for you to do here . regardless of that even in its present form this discussion board is a valuable resource

Reply to post by mark lutherborrow, on August 11, 1999 at 19:49:30:

I appreciate the suggestion, Mark. Unfortunately, I am at the mercy of the ISP for the board services. I have no control over the board structure, beyond setting up the topic sections and creating the background and headers. I have been in touch with the software author, who may at some point update the software to include a bunch of suggestions that were made here and on other boards. But there is no deadline at this time, and it's just a vague concept, I believe.

Sorry! I wish I could make it so.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on August 11, 1999 at 19:49:30:


Mark,

Russ is quite correct. We are all at the mercy of the board creators who market their products to ISP's and end-users like the ISA.

Writing programs used to be an elegant art, forced on the programmers by the initial shortages of memory. (In 1975, I started with computers when they were toggle switches you flipped on the front of the machine--and I bought 20 computers for our school that had 8K of RAM and recorded data on an audio tape.) Today, programmers are fat, sloppy and lazy--and would rather copy a bum routine then make a better one. Coupled with the marketing illusion that increased complexities are improvements, programs now are ponderous and increasingly counter-intuitive.

I don't agree with you. Russ has a better site than the ISA because he takes extra special care of it and its audience. The ISA is indifferent; because they've bought a new program, it must be better, so they ignore its shortcomings and any comments become criticisms easily dismissed by a pious administration.

In the ISA's minor defense, they're as impotent as Russ in getting some things to be better, but they're proud to be the biggest arboricultural organization in the world and will brook no criticisms. Seems to me that that's also a responsibility to be the most impressively responsive organization as well. Weboards are primitive word processors with a few relational databases as ornaments. If you use a series of them as many of us do, it hurts our tiny brains unnecessarily. Then again, who says life'd be a cakewalk.

I agree Russ runs an excellent site.

Reply to post by Bob W, on August 11, 1999 at 23:02:36:

I've found KnotHole to be the easiest to follow of the few boards I visit. I think the biggest factor is that threads and sub-threads are all logically grouped together. It is a little hard to go back and find older threads, but if you take the time to go back at least they are still grouped as originally posted. As another minor ISA defence, I suspect that volume of visitors has something to do with choice of / functioning of board. Another site I visit has just incredible volume and 24hr. activity. They have a crash about once a quarter.

As to programming Bob, I disagreee a little. RAM and storage limitations did indeed require clever programming. You might describe it as elegant from an engineering perspective. But it could also be clunky and more machine friendly than people friendly... remember the conversations with the computer Jason in War Games? Programmers now have the freedom to do really elegant, people friendly, intuitive applications if they want. I do agree that often they don't achieve that and they certainly add complexity for complexity's sake.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on August 13, 1999 at 21:57:28:


Scott,

Perhaps I missed making my own point. Wulkowicz continues...

Putting instructions and data into the first publicly available old machines, IMSAI and Altair, was done through toggle switches because the switches represented the two states of machine language; off (0) and on (1). The best, fastest chips today still use that same lowest level language of 010001001010 00101001000 1010101…etc.

This primal language is beyond the comprehension of any of us and we developed compilers and assemblers as translators from what we understand to what the machine "understands." It wasn't that " it could also be clunky and more machine friendly than people friendly". It was, and still is the only game in machine town.

When you wrote the first line of your response, it was gibberish to your machine. There are many layers of intervention that must occur before your machine sees what it operates in--on's and off's; 1's and 0's.

The various programs as you think of them, are at the top of the translation pile; FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, etc. These are logical structures with different styles and approaches in a continuing evolution. HTML and JAVA are simply further extensions of programmers' tools, nothing more.

What you speak of as user-friendly is really the graphical interface, developed by Xerox, fine-tuned by Macintosh and stolen by Windows. All the present Windows versions actually sit on top of DOS and they all suck. Of course if you went from DOS to Windows, it was a miracle.

The conversations with Jason were a hoax; we don't converse with our machines at all. They just do what they're told-in 101100111 talk.

Russ's site is excellent because of Russ-who tends a board supplied by his ISP. The reply page stinks because it scrolls endlessly off to the left and you can't easily read what you wrote, just like the old ISA board. And it doesn't have preview or a spell-checker, but that's not Russ's fault. The ISA site does, but they're clunky and flawed.

Certainly webboards are better than before; that's why we have versions. Where would we be if minivans didn't have their evolution into 15 cupholder vehicles? Don't mistake user-friendly frills for meat and potatoes' substance. Programming is fat and sloppy, just like I said. Given my druthers, I prefer trees.


10010 001101011 001110101010 00101

Reply to post by Bob Wulkowicz, on August 14, 1999 at 06:59:13:

Bob, the elegance of application programming (from the user perspective) is a separte issue from the platform or even the existence of the GUI. Traditionally trained programmers (in the tradition of COBOL, FORTRAN amnd the like) were trained to maximize machine performance which typically meant minimizing code bloat. That may have resulted in beneficial simplification but also prevented user friendly functions (as contrasted with useless frills). Whether you program directly in machine language or in a higher level language which runs through an interpreter or compiler is really a matter of technique. Similarly whether you compose in pencil, typewriter or word processor is a matter of technique. What you compose is a different matter altogether.

Program elegance has to do with understanding the needs of the user and designing the solution first, making the solution visually and logically appealing second and programming the code third.

GUIs have made things more intuitive, higher level languages have made applications building easier. To echo your initial point, that makes "programming" available to just about anyone at the third level and that does nothing to address levels one and two.

In addition to skill, there is the economic imperative. Having written 10,000 or so lines of code for tree care database applications (starting in dBASE II in a 64K CP/M interpreted environment and ending with Clipper dBASE superset complied DOS 3.1 environment) I can say with great confidence that if initial programming - in whatever environment/platform - takes X, then debugging, refining, improving and making elegant requires anything from 2X to ...YX (who knows) and you need to be pretty sure about demand before investing those multiples. Or.... you just sell the 1X product and walk away.

Reply to post by Scott, on August 14, 1999 at 11:48:00:

In the world of COBOL, FORTRAN, and the like, there were no user-friendly functions. The output was a constipated 8.5 x 11 page, which remains the standard for our perceptive universe. The frills were little happy faces in periods, parentheses, and slashes that we still find on bulletin boards today.

I don't agree with your statement: "Program elegance has to do with understanding the needs of the user and designing the solution first, making the solution visually and logically appealing second and programming the code third." Neither of us is about to type a letter in machine code. And if we did, even though it's a valid form of communication, who would read it?

The typewriter is not an improvement over a pencil, if you intend to draw. The dedicated word processor can be an improvement over the typewriter if you intend to edit. The PC is an enrichment over them all, regardless of platform, because of the variety and range of tools available to the author. Using them is not programming.

I would agree if you said "interpretive elegance" or "audience sensitivity." But again, those gifts are not programming skills.

If two people set out to "teach" an audience, and one uses clichés stuffed in a tea pot of old presentations and styles, while the other strives for clarity and easy digestion regardless of the format, who has the better opportunity for user-friendly elegance?

The winner communicates, not programs.

_________________

In your last lines about the motivation and commitment of program creators, you say,

"I can say with great confidence that if initial programming - in whatever environment/platform - takes X, then debugging, refining, improving and making elegant requires anything from 2X to ...YX (who knows) and you need to be pretty sure about demand before investing those multiples

Or.... you just sell the 1X product and walk away."


I agree, but let me make a word swap and observe, " Or.... you just buy the 1X product and walk away.

The ISA buys its webboard and walks away. Considering the size and importance of that organization, that's a profound shame. Russ nurses his board and stays attentive to his audience…and that has made all the difference.


Bob (I too had a CPM machine) Wulkowicz

Reply to post by Wulkowicz, on August 14, 1999 at 14:20:33:

Bob, I think we ahree on each of your last points. Programming tools don't make the difference. A functional program is not necessarily a good communication tool. And yes, the widespread availability of applications programs for low prices ($49.95, $249.95, whatever) based on massive volume sales has conditioned users to expect good stuff cheaply. I don't doubt lots of users or user organizations are accepting 1X stuff because they are unwilling to pay for more (assuming they are sensitive enough to know the difference).

Reply to post by Bob W, on August 11, 1999 at 23:02:36:

>>I don't agree with you. Russ has a better site than the ISA because he takes extra special care of it and its audience. The ISA is
indifferent; because they've bought a new program, it must be better, so they ignore its shortcomings and any comments become
criticisms easily dismissed by a pious administration.<<

1) Wellll.... I don't spend a huge amount of time, if that's what you mean. Actually, this place takes care of itself. Those who post here realize the nature of the board and really keep it at a high level without much prompting. In 18 months online, I have never yet bounced a message for content, and have made VERY FEW warnings. It's the users, not the webmaster, that make this place work.

2) ISA is not totally unresponsive- just too big to move very fast. There were complaints about the old board, so they looked around and got something a bit better. Took awhile, but they wanted to be sure they got the best they could for the money. They do listen to the complaints and suggestions, but like any large organization, they don't have the staff to answer directly to every one. The mission of ISA is not to provide the best web board- that's just a service to members that enhances the flow of information, which is the primary goal. Somethimes what we see as major problems, are just little issues from the perspective of an organization trying to serve 12,000 members worldwide.

BTW, I've already asked if they can update the dictionaries...

Reply to post by Bob Wulkowicz, on August 14, 1999 at 06:59:13:

Bob, 2 things-

If the reply box continues endlessly off your screen, you may need an upgrade in your browser. What I see as I type (on a Mac, thank you) is a box about 3.5 inches wide, and the text wraps as I type. (Netscape Communicator 4.51) Just something to think about.

Second- Your signature appears to be gibberish, as there is no consistency in bit depth. GIGO

Reply to post by Scott, on August 14, 1999 at 11:48:00:

There is a similarity with automobile manufacturing here. The first ones were spartan and utilitarian. They did only what was absolutely necessary to function. As they EVOLVED, a few amenities were added, and later the luxuries of burlwood dashes, leather upholsetery, and air conditioning. These are not needed to drive from place to place, but make it more comfortable to do so. It is only possible because the users want it (willing to pay) and the technology exists or was developed to provide it.

Software and hardware have developed in much the same way- the basic frame had wheels, a seat and propulsion; vac tubes, switches and output. Evolution of design has brought us to where bloatware is not the major issue any longer- ease of use and functionality are the overriding factors. And I'm not sure that is bad. We just remember how concise and compact the old stuff was, when it had to be. The hardware can now support the bigger software- just add a bigger hard drive, or add more RAM. But with the size comes capability. We will soon be taking to our computers, and they will answer us.

"Computer, send this message."

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on August 14, 1999 at 11:48:00:


I use Netscape 4.5 bundled on a windoze machine that I bought only because the best speech recognition has been written for those clunkers. I bought one of the first macs and stuck with them for some 15 years, vowing never to get in bed with el gummo gates. I imagine I can download 4.6, but I now type off the webboards in the style necessary for each board. Your's for example, doesn't take HTML; Doug's does fine, and the ISA will take a simplified HTML, but never run it through their preview/spellchecker--the preview shows all the tags but mutilates a few when you post right from there.

This PC came with Word 97, a vile beast if there ever was one. It's graphic enrichments are about the same level as the MacPaint and MacDraw that came with my first mac. Ptoooie!

My signature is usually gibberish, in any format, and was meant to be a joke. Take everything I do with a grain of snalt, Russ.

Bob


The ISA site had the same no-wrap problem, now fixed, so I'll rummage around and look into NS4.6, but if I go into computer cramp, I'm coming looking for you.

b

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on August 14, 1999 at 14:20:33:


I'd rather engage in conversations with trees than computers. Maybe they could tell me about progressive and directional pruning.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on August 13, 1999 at 21:57:28:


I made a promise not to complain about the ISA for a week.

Reply to post by Wulkowicz, on August 15, 1999 at 11:12:11:

>>Take everything I do with a grain of snalt, Russ.<<

I take what you say with about a half-pound of snalt, Bob.

If you're up to Netscape 4.5, you shouldn't be having any trouble with wrap. Is there perhaps a control setting that deals with that?

Good news! VOX is catching up for the Macs. You may be able to come home again.

Reply to post by Bob W, on August 15, 1999 at 11:23:14:

But you just said you got a box with VOX.?!?

I thought basil pruning was what you did in the herb garden, not on trees.

Add Indiscriminate pruning to your list.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on August 15, 1999 at 15:10:49:

Ain't youse guys got no culture? Basil Pruning was an English actor. Played in those b-movies about Serlock Holes but was originally a stage actor.