DREWspective

I’ve wasted the best part of three days, and valuable developmnt time, trying to get Propel to work on my local web server (read: installation of AppServ on a partition other than C:).

For those not in the know, Propel is supposed to be a "object relational mapping" framework, which basically means you can access databases using objects instead of typing SQL. My current workplace uses it in their e-commerce solution, managed by some Unix geeks.

I was particularly excited about using it in my own project: I’ve embarked on a mission to create a portfolio solution, codenamed Foley. I was also thrilled that I’d finally been able to install and use the mysterious PEAR, though there was next to no information about how to do it in AppServ. I wasn’t too happy, however, with the business of trying to find where things had been copied to and how to use them.

Along came Propel, with its shitty documentation, and the horror began. (The documentation wasn’t entirely shitty, but bad enough.)

First and foremost, they mention having to build a build.properties file for your project. Rather awkwardly, they don’t have any.documentation on other, equally bits of important information you could include in the file. Eventually, I found out that there were default definitions lurking in some other folder.

You have to enable a couple of DLLs in php.ini (pdo and xsl). Only after messing around with the configuration files and some frantic searching did I find out that you have to add another one to the list (php_pdo_mysql, if you use MySQL databases) as well. Finally, my schema was turned into classes.

Then came the final nail in the coffin; trying to use the damn thing,

Initially the example given on the Propel Quickstart page didn’t work for me: I had an error message saying that the Propel class wasn’t found. It turns out that giving the right paths to the scripts was so important, it required using set_include_path(). So I added the relevant path to the function (the path to Propel.php) and included it as required.
On the next try, it told me that ‘Clss Item not found)…

Couldn’t be bothered to finish this rant. I’m using something else now.

I’d spent this Easter under the grip of "man flu".

Maybe it was because I’ve been working too hard on too many different things, or that I didn’t pull through with the things I was supposed to give up for Lent, but eventually I was convinced I deserved it. Right now, I’m managing a nasty chesty cough.

Something happened on Good Friday that I’d never expected. The fraud department of my bank called me up about a series of suspicious payments made using my innocent debit card.

I’d noticed there was something awry, when I’d tried to buy some aquarium supplies from my trusty pet store. I knew I had money in the bank, but the payment wouldn’t go through. Luckily I have a backup card with another account, so I’m able to survive.

It turns out that someone had tried to gamble using my card details. I couldn’t think of a single person who could have gotten hold of them outside of home… except for the guy in the US who sold me the polystyrene shapes.

Anyway, because whoever it was had "gained authorisation", my debit card was "blocked" on the spot.

While I really appreciate them notifying me (and luckily nothing left my account), the think that irks me is that the bank called on a Good Friday, knowing that there was another Bank Holiday looming, and that I’d have to wait around five working days for a replacement card.

If I didn’t have a backup card, I’d be in very deep shit right about now.

This has been a post in the making.

Having been speed dating a total of eight times, I’ve noticed some commonly occuring themes during the events. Here are a few of my observations: feel free to disagree or agree with them as you will.

Please note that I am specifially referring to speed dating in the 20s age group in London; these may be less relevant for older people, or those in other places.

Observation #1

Men want female friends as sexual partners.
Women want male sexual partners as friends.

A lot of these so-called dating gurus say that men focus on looks, while women focus on looks and personality.

Bullshit. If anything, in today’s society it’s usually the other way around.  As a guy or girl, how many times do you get blocked and deleted as soon as you reveal your photo? How many times do you do the blocking and deleting?

Either way, we can all agree that looks are important to both sexes. But there’s a huge difference between how important looks are to each genders.

I am speaking as a disgruntled, generally luckless speed dater, but with most women (at any kind of speed dating event) it really does all boil down to looks. Show me someone who disagrees; I’ll show you a liar.

From my experience in the dating and even friendship world (and it may be that I’m in London, which is generally a shallow city), girls get so many offers from men, so they are looking for people they find attractive physically and sexually to be their friends.

On the other hand, guys have enough problems with just talking to a girl, and would be just as happy making friends with those they didn’t find attractive. Of course, there are guys who are just after one thing (and they usually get it), but even they have female friends.

I famously carried out an experiment on the London branch of Gumtree some time ago: I posted an ad looking for friendship (and only friendship) with females.
Of the nine responses I’d received, seven of the girls demanded to see a photo, and cut off all communication once they found out what I looked like. The other two had just stopped responding after a while.

Observation #2

Men are more serious than women.

There have been maybe one or two girls at an event that I would have liked to have been involved with, but at the end of the day I have always been primarily looking for stable female friends. The guys I’ve spoken to at events, though they don’t say it explicity, are in the same boat.

In most cases, the emphasis in "speed dating" for guys is dating.

Ask any girl why she chose to go speed dating, and you’re guaranteed to get an answer similar to:

• "just for a laugh"
• "something to do"
• "for fun, innit"

As with the dating game in general, the onus is on the guy to do all of the work, while the girls just sit pretty (Rapunzel syndrome); this is merely an opportunity for them to evaluate the guys on offer.
With many companies offering a free event if nobody is ticked, they’re prepared to go away empty handed (probably to abuse the system). Either way they’ll decide whom they’re attracted to, and completely discard the rest.

In most cases, the emphasis in "speed dating" for girls is speed.

Observation #3

Men make up their own minds.
Women have their minds made up for them.

Before you queue up to disagree, I have a couple of questions for you:

How many times have you seen or heard of a guy pursuing a girl, or taking some course of action, though it’s against popular culture?

How many times have you seen or heard of a girl pursuing a guy, or taking some course of action, because of popular culture?

Whether your opinion is influenced by real life or the media, depending on your perspective, the answers will probably be the same. There are of course exceptions but, far as I’m concerned, too few.

In speed dating, both guys and girls compare notes during and after a speed dating event.

It has also been known for girls to change their minds based on what other girls think of potential suitors. Girls are far more concerned about having approval from other people than guys.  While deep down a guy wants a girl who will compliment and "complete" them, in their 20s and even 30s a girl is more concerned with finding a good "trophy", to improve their image and make other people jealous.

You won’t get a confession any time soon, but people changing their ticks has happened in at least one event I’ve been to. This is probably another reason why girls statistically tick less than guys.

In her mini book on speed dating, Clare McCann tells about a strange phenomenon: guys who tick more than one girl in a group of friends are often less likely to be a long-term match after the event. When the girls find out, they’ll wonder: "does he like me or her?" The result is that nobody wins, because there’s perceived competition and each girl thinks they’re going to lose.

Whether it was this phenomenon or something that I did wrong, I had experienced this after one event: one girl didn’t even respond to an e-mail, while the other, after a short phonecall and text messages, decided to break communication.

On the flip side, I have never known a guy to have based his ticking decisions on what other guys have ticked. Time after time, it’s been demonstrated that, if a guy really wants to see a particular girl again, he will register ticks for every girl that he liked.

From what I’ve seen, most guys keep details of their ticks a secret, but openly talk about the women they like (and dislike).  They also see other guys being a threat, even if subconsciously, but they all think they’re in with a chance… if only they get ticked back.

Observation #4

Men generally want what’s different.
Women generally want what’s popular.

I can’t sum this point up any better than Chris Rock’s famous line in one of his shows:

• guys look at someone else’s girl, and say they have to get a girl just like her;
• girls look at someone else’s guy, and say they have to get him.

There’s a hidden rule in the dating game, that says a girl will reject someone if they have never met their friends’ approval. Guys, on the other hand, have been known to risk friendships and even social status to date a particular girl.

In the film John Tucker Must Die, many of the girls in the high school had been out with the titular character, and complain about his ethics. But as another male character says later in the film, they all queue up to go out with him.

Guys, on the other hand, seem to be after someone who may be like someone they’ve found attractive, but is "just for them". Girls seem to know this, as shown by their efforts to emulate actresses and singers and the like in physical form.

There are noticable examples of guys initially rejecting, or turning a blind eye, to girls who aren’t very popular (Napoleon Dynamite, American Pie, any "teen" movie you can think of). But whether it’s a girl or a guy that does it, if they’re chasing someone on the basis of perceived popularity, I see it as a sign of not knowing what they really want.

In terms of speed dating:

Both girls and guys will go for the people who have the highest perceived value. But for the girls, it’s usually restricted to the one or two most popular people (in accordance with Observation #3). Guys will probably tick everybody they’re drawn to, whether as a friend or otherwise.

That’s enough bullshit from me.  Thanks for reading; just remember that these are my observations, and that I don’t expect anyone to take them as gospel. Actually, you shouldn’t; go out and see for yourself.

• Not done
• Not working
• No changes made
• Not fixed

I’m racking my brain as I write, but I can’t think of a single other "bug report" that gets on my thickwick more than the above. And now you’re going to find out why.

First of all, whether you’re a web developer, programmer or someone who works on some kind of long-term project, you’ve probably come across some guidelines for submitting "bugs", or as I prefer to call them, tickets.

("Bugs" always imply that something is wrong, and in recent times I’ve heard the term being used for feature requests and tweaks.)

Unfortunately, you may have been in a company, or "team", where the policy is to make these "bugs" as vague and nondescript as possible. I’ve been in three such places to date.

On several occasions I’ve been presented with a "bug" that looked something like this:

012345: product price not showing

not working - pls fix

and every time I’ve wanted to retort with

please be more vague

but I can’t do that, because I’ve been brought up on "cynical" comments already. That’s how serious this is.

So what is the problem?

The first thing is, you may have already addressed the issue at hand, whether you’re working on it or you’ve done the work. You might have spent valuable time and energy implementing a solution. But because the other person can’t see the result, they automatically decide that it hasn’t been done, rather than double-checking on their end for anything that could hinder progress.

I remember one good example from when I was relatively new to permanent work. The company had decided to use some (what was then) esoteric method of updating a site, where I would edit a file and then have to copy it using Dreamweaver to somewhere else, where another developer would do some more work on it.

Well, I had made the necessary updates to the pages, and to the best of my knowledge had followed the instructions. The next morning I received an e-mail basically telling me that none of the updates had been done, followed by a written tongue-lashing. And if that wasn’t enough, the Technical Director joined in soon after and had a dig at me as well.

That was an extreme case, which ultimately hammered the final nail in the coffin and resulted in my resignation. That’s an example of what can happen when people get lazy and make assumptions.

The second thing is, a "bug report" like "not done", "not working" etc. gives you next to no information. You don’t know what exactly is not working, what kind of problem it is, or whether it is actually working instead.  You end up wasting valuable time asking questions and gleaning information, or—worse yet—try to figure out what the problem is yourself. I’ve been in at least one company where they insisted I asked questions, but threw things right back at me (on occasion) when I did.

These kinds of statements are controlling; as long as you don’t know what the real issue is, they are controlling you. It must be handled appropriately, and if they refuse to help you, leave.

I’ve written about this before, and have made my views known about it on many an occasion. But not on DREWspective. So here we go.

Following my best friend’s success with online dating, where he claims to have had no less than 15 dates as a result, I decided to give being much more proacitve a go. I signed up to the same dating site as he did and began interacting, as well as going speed dating, winking on Match.com and trying to get things going on Facebook.

Unfortunately—since the Internet is the same as going outside these days—the result for me was exactly the same as before: a whole load of "not interested"s and unreturned emails.

There’s been a lot of them recently, but the icing on the cake comes from two or three girls whom I arranged to do something with. At the last minute they fall silent on me, giving their excuses or no reason at all. But when they do surface, they’ve magically ended up with someone else.

Today’s topic is silent treatment, and I’m going to tell you why I think it’s an evil thing.

First, let me point out that I’m wholly against using silent treatment as a first resort. People who use silent treatment as a first resort deserve to burn in hell.

You’ve probably met people who keep things to themselves and won’t tell you what you want (or need) to know, building up like a pressure cooker until they finally scream and shout and level blame and abuse on you.  You’ve probably met those kinds of people who think they can do whatever they want, and hide whatever important information they want. Those people use silent treatment as a first resort.

Second, let me talk about why silent treatment itself is bad.

For me personally, silent treatment—especially from the opposite sex—is a sign of disrespect, and a lack of responsibility; they don’t respect you enough to give you an answer, and they don’t care what it would mean for you.

Imagine you tried to call someone with your last remaining credit, and they hung up on you. Imagine using your last 10p to send them a text message that they never respond to. How about writing a long, detailed email to someone who doesn’t send even a short one back?

There’s advice circulating around the dating community that guys have to send detailed emails to potential girls if they want to increase their chances of getting a response.  How many of you guys have spent valuable time writig individual emails to girls who’ve written those lazy, cut-and-paste profiles, and got nothing for it? Wouldn’t you feel deflated?

Lots of people say that they don’t respond, no matter what the circumstance or medium, because they don’t want to hurt their feelings. Bullshit. Have you ever stopped to think that not responding would hurt their feelings?

Fair enough, you could argue that some people wouldn’t like what they hear. That would depend on both parties: the person wanting to know should be ready to accept what’s said; the person with the answer has the responsibility of telling them in the best way possible.

Personally, I might not like the answer I get (because I prefer pepole to tell the truth rather than candy-coat things), but in the long run I have far more respect for people who tell me how it is to my face, than people who resort to games and silent treatment.

There may be times when silent treatment is necessary, for example whe someone won’t take the clearly-explained, verbal hint. I say it should always be used as a last resort.

Your thoughts, please.