Doug> Kendall Clark wrote:
>> Hmm, actually, I don't know a single free software hacker who
>> really gives a damn about the MS source code. Sure, if it's
>> ever available, we'll look and laugh and point and guffaw. But
>> I don't know anyone who wants to *work* on it. <shudder/>
Doug> Hey, I'm no programmer, I just use Microsoft stuff (on a
Doug> Mac, though). From a user's point of view, it seems klunky
Doug> and visually ugly. I'm assuming the guts of the code are
Doug> like that too. Why? It can't be the lack of technical
Doug> sophistication of their programmers, can it? And next to
Doug> Apple & Adobe graphic design it looks like crap. Why is
Doug> that? Surely they can afford snazzy designers. Is there
Doug> something in the way they organize the design & production
Doug> of software?
So two issues: it doesn't work well, and it's ugly as shit. I agree on both counts.
As for the first issue, I think it's a combination of legacy support (in the W32 codebase at least), a rampantly creeping feature set, and bad engineering practices. (They do this kind of weird masochistic-buddy-programming thing that is hugely frowned upon by the kinds of programmers who built the Internet and free software.) They also acquire most everything, which means they rarely start from scratch, and so have to live w/ what they buy. That's got to get sloppy. They also have really shitty tools and killed the other tool vendors for W32 by and large: Visual C++ and Visual Basic aren't good tools. Hard to build good s'ware w/ bad tools.
As for the ugliness, Steve Jobs always said that about MS. I think it's just really bad taste that comes right from the top. I'm sure they think their stuff is elegant. They're just wrong.
I have noticed a weird thing: Balmer and several other of their really big wigs at MS all seem to have acquired Gates's rather annoying and distinctive speech patterns. Pay attention the next time you hear one of them talking; it's pretty startling once you notice it. Creepy!
Best, Kendall Clark