Readit NewsIn the "real world" IAR Embedded Workshop is the hands-down winner (licenses are $$$$$$), which is unfortunate because despite being so mature it is awfully clunky.
Yes you can. If you're actually going to go broke when you're 60, I'd HIGHLY recommend touching at least a bit of that cash at the cost of federal income tax.
Edit: Am not financial advisor
> If you want to commit to a single architecture, it’s important to know which one gives you the most headroom to move up. I created a fictious “times better” score by comparing the the part tested with the best part available in the same ecosystem — this usually means fairly comparable peripheral programming, along with identical development tools. I multiplied the core speed, package size, flash, and RAM capacities together, ratioed the two parts, and then took the quartic root. Essentially, if every parameter is double, it is considered “2.0 x” as powerful.
See “The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_W...
It’s quite short and to the point. No weapons designed to permanently blind people are allowed. Incidental blindness is ok, also if you get blinded while looking through binoculars that’s fine. Blinding sensors is also fine.
So many of us exist in quiet desperation.
People struggling to survive are focused on their next meal or rent payment and while not destroying the world tomorrow sounds good, they are more concerned with what they have to deal with today.
The environment is a side effect of civilizations profit at all costs mentality. Unfortunately this outlook will continue to do as it has always done, reward the few at the top and punish everyone else.
Every time I spot "UX" in relation to something I use, I cringe. Not because I have anything against the idea of design, or good interfaces, or designing good interfaces. That is all great. The problem is that 99% of the time that the term "UX" shows up in connection with something I use, two things are going to happen:
1) I will have to relearn how to do something that I already was used to doing without even thinking;
2) Some feature or option is going to be removed.
The human brain is incredibly plastic and adaptable. Unless the interface is truly absurd, most people can get used to it and never give it a second thought again.
My number one (by far) request as a user:
DON'T FUCKING CHANGE THE INTERFACE
Unless there is a very good reason, and I bet there isn't.
I bought my first MacBook in 2007. Thankfully, Apple is one of the best behaved companies when it comes to not changing things for the sake of it, and part of the reason why I stick with them. I don't mention this out of some sort of fanboy-ism (I have no loyalty to corporations, I just buy shit I like). I mention it to make a more important point:
The UX of 2007 was absolutely fine, and if they would have made zero changes since then I would be perfectly happy. UX for laptops/desktops was solved in the early 2000. Everything else since then is just irrelevant bullshit.
One of my first tasks as a project manager in 2004 was to introduce the web concepts of UI/UX into what had become essentially commandlines converted to Tcl/Tk (after Xt we went to Tcl/Tk.. ugh).
First challenge was to convince the old timer CAD devs.
Once I was able to explain there the difference between UX and UI, it waslike a light went on over everyone's head: how you use it is different from what it looks like. I know, obvious now, but not 15 years ago. We spent 10 months really driving the new buzzword UX/UI in order to get buy-in for profiling how the top 3 existing CAD tools (formal verification, layout, and timing) were being used via instrumentation and interviews. We then proceeded to completely redesign the GUIs in Qt using a consistent set patterns, icons, and workflows.
Then we had to convince the old timer engineer users.
We put a lot of effort into classes to explain how to migrate, and holy shit did we get yelled at. So much "It worked fine before, why did you change it?!?!?!?" Uhh... because a feature you use 80% of the time required 5x more clicks to get to than a feature you used 20% of the time? FML. It got better, people liked it more on our follow ups months later. [The first product to use the new suite completed in 12 instead of 18 months and I personally believe it was due to the new tools being faster, but I'm biased, and it could have been a variety of factors.]
I agree with your point that it is frustrating as fuck when a UI/UX pattern changes, and it should not be done glibly. But I have also found myself getting angry at having to adapt to a new change that ultimately made me more productive, just because of my own inertia.
/shrugs/
PS. Ironically, as a sad end to this story: the GUI's my team made in the early/mid-2000's eventually bloated after 10 years in almost the same way the original AIX/Sparc GUI's I used in the early 90's did. New coders came on board, and new managers, and they just crammed new buttons into to the tools without thinking about the UX. That was ca 2010 when I left, so I don't know where they at today, but I did have a "the more the things change, the more they stay the same" moment!!