Developing Windows Error Messages: Error Messages That Communicate [With CDROM]

I would agree with other comments that this book is more philosophical than technical, but I think that is a good thing. When planning a program the error handling side should be more thoroughly planned, and this book helps with just that. I found much of the book obvious, and could flip through 5 or so pages at a time, but the bits that are not so obvious are worth searching for. If programs are written using the style of error messages and/or the error message handling process suggested within this book I feel that the user term "User Friendly" (at least in relation to errors) would actually be deserved. For instance, how many times have you come across an error that only has one action that you can take "OK"? Is it okay that the error happened? Is it okay that you can't do what you were trying to do?Therefore I would say that this book holds much more value to the project manager/project leader/planners than programmers.Much of what is spoken about is not OS specific (besides a bit of code). It seems that it is directly aimed at Windows 95, which is why there is no talk of NT error logs.I found the supplied code (2 DLLs) to be a bit old but it was a simple enough to use it as a template and build on them. The dialogs within the sample code are quite user and programmer friendly and did not need altering. Using code I already had, I added database error lookup/logging, screen and system capturing, NT Event Logging, email support and COM Interface within a day. HOWEVER I feel that the supplied code is of little value to any programmer who is not planning on altering the code in some way, so it may not be much use if you don't know C++.

Ben's book is well-written and well-edited and provides a number of useful ideas on how to write effective error handlers and error messages in the Windows environment. It's focus may seem strange to nonprogrammers, but programmers appreciate this sort of guidance on details.However, Ben does repeat some saws or maxims which need to be deconstructed. One is that at one time, error messages were overly terse because "there was not enough storage" to make them useful. I find this disingenuous, because the dreamtime to which Ben is referring to is probably the early 1980s. In the early 1980s, I was as a former IBM 1401 programmer (whose first machine ten years prior had 8000 characters of storage) in awe of the possibilities of the primitive disk and tape systems then available.On the 1401 I had developed a system which used an "overlay" and a supplemental manual procedure to provide a user with fully expounded error messages in English, and by the early 1980s, providing my users with English error messages was not a problem.The idea that at any time "we are limited by the gear available" is to me a confession that a certain need is not important enough to warrant our time. Basically, the need of users for error messages has always been triaged and continues to be triaged in an unconscious binary opposition between the "serious" and MALE tasks of programming, and the "not serious" FEMALE task of communication. To me the first mistake was to divide these tasks.Another old saw Ben repeats is that "programmers", in inverse proportion to their skill level or interest in being "programmers" do not like to write, or cannot write. This saw exists in a logical dependence on an idea from outside programming which is that there is such a thing as a content-free "skill in communication". Although a convenient corporate reification, useful for example in getting rid of racial minorities, women, and older employees on the basis that they are mistreated because of a generalized lack of "communications skills", the very idea that we can speak of communication without discussing content, or for that matter simple morality, is nonsense."Poor communicator" may be a true generalization as applied to the actual population of programmers in the United States. However, it is belied by a maxim of hero computer scientist Edsger Dijsktra, which is that programming ability is indicated by command of the language. To the extent that programmers write overly terse error messages they may actually be, while statistically representative of American programmers considered highly qualified, less well-qualified than they could be.This is because the only evidence we have that the programmer understands his system is something outside code. Ben Ezzell himself shows he's qualified by not only writing good examples of error messages but also by being aware of what the user probably needs. He does so as a programmer who can code, and it is a false humility of his to say tha

The book provides some clues on how errors should be considered. It spends a lot of time describing the current situation in a very verbose style. OK that's fun but not very instructive (I mean, we all know half the messages are stupid, unfounded, incomprehensible, etc.). This beeing said I would recommend the book for the same reason....

Great book, it read like a satire. This is the first book I have read dedicated to how to write error messages for a particular OS. I guess when your OS is full of cryptic hogwash, investigation reveals that the OS should be discarded altogether. I see a new usenet group forming: alt.badOS.poor.lowest_common_denominator.I will keep the book as a paean to Bill Gates. Otherwise an average written book by an otherwise great publisher.

Overall, I recommend this book to anyone trying to improve their error message reporting. The book includes a CD containing a first rate message reporting DLL. This code is itself worth the price of the book.The author's writing style is somewhat verbose for my tastes, and is filled with irrelevant and pointless footnotes and personal asides. Thanks to the excellent formatting and editing of O'Reilly books though, this doesn't seem to get in the way of reading the book.