[Banter] What is the worst software you have used for its price?

[Alex Eisenhut]

Linux (any version)
GCC (has to be the worst compiler ever)
Xilinx ISE
Anything by Adobe

GCC is bad?  Man, you must not have used XC8.  I reported at least four different bugs in that compiler that literally produced garbage code.

PICs, especially the baseline devices are a complete turd to program. It's truly amazing any compiler works.

Yeah, I guess you need to look at the General Instrument PIC from 1976 to understand why it's like that. It's a very sparse design.

[bd139]

They are fine for the intended purpose.

Wedging C in them somehow was a WTF when it came out for me at least.

[tom66]

Not to turn this into a processor debate but the 8-bit PIC architecture is crap.  A single working register then cramming in file-register-as-pointer-then-increment and things like that into the PIC18 architecture was a horrid mistake.  Why they didn't go with something like 4-8 working registers and indirect addressing on any register I'll never really appreciate - the whole architecture is *weird*.

The PIC24/dsPIC33 architecture on the other hand, is actually rather nice.   It's been designed by someone who appreciates processor design with many useful features for assembler programmers too. 

[free_electron]

Please choose the one you dislike:
(X) Emacs
(X) vi
 

done !

[Jester]

How about the numbering scheme in MS Word?

When I think about the complexity of some software for example Altium to something as simple as Word and then consider the resources MS has and the number of users, how is it even possible to screw up something so simple and then not fix it it?

[T3sl4co1l]

What numbering scheme?  What complexity?  Screw up which?

Offhand I would guess Word is more complex than Altium, in overall design/construction, and depth of development over the years.  But both are pretty well up there.

Herein lies one of the disconnects of software: what we perceive to be simple (i.e., Word), is often unimaginably complex in comparison, all that effort being behind the scenes, hiding that complexity from the user -- or, perhaps, tweaking it to a user-friendly level of complexity, because we certainly should not fool ourselves that graphical design, language, and human interface are simple, either!

Tim

[nigelwright7557]

M$ Windows. All versions.

Windows was written to be highly complex to stop others trying to replace it or copy it.
WPF, .net, .net core, Winforms etc etc all add to the bloatware.

I do a lot of Windows dev work.
Someone somehow cocked up uploading selected files to a website in Visual Studio.
Instead you had to upload the whole website, a real pain and took ages.
I complained and they eventually fixed it.
Only to find on next revision it was back to square one !
FFS !
They fixed it again and then messed it up again
Currently it is back to fixed but who knows for how long.

A few years ago they removed C++ winforms and my program relied on it.
I complained and eventually it was put back in but only as an option.

I am now moved over to .net core which seems better and faster than C#.
Hopefully they wont mess that up or make it obsolete.