![]() ![]() This is not in any meaningful sense a "pgAdmin 4". If they wanted to develop a web application, fine, but why call it pgAdmin? There are also stupid animations, such as fade effects, which constituteĬompletely unnecessary delays to what should be a functional interface.įor some reason context menus sometimes open a substantial distance from theĮven for a web application, there are parts which are quite poorly styled. Than pgAdmin3 because pgAdmin3, unlike pgAdmin4, was a desktop application. ![]() It is infinitely less like "a desktop application" >multi-user/web deployment options, dashboards and a more modern design. >.and vastly improves on pgAdmin III with updated user interface elements, Tree view items are initially absent and flash into place, as the images areĬompared to pgAdmin3, it's horrible and borderline unusable. When I expand the items in the tree view for the first time, the icons for the Never becomes possible to do anything with the server. The hierarchy has a loading spinner superimposed over it, which is not aĬonvention I recall ever seeing before. The tree view "+" icon for expanding a level in What the UI does scream is not "a desktop application", but Bootstrap. Windows, beside the main window, are real. Similar, and thus cannot exceed the bounds of the main window, which is not how they are supposed to work. It'sĪn overlay in the main window, which cannot be moved. The preferences "window" is not a window. They think in pgAdmin4 has "the look and feel of a desktop application". I would be genuinely interested to know what on earth Have no idea what they are talking about when they say "the look and feel ofĪ desktop application." I can't detect a single thing which seems to imply anyĮffort in this regard. Means it doesn't have "the look and feel of a desktop application". Starting that it's not a native application, which basically by definition Look and feel of a desktop application" means. I don't think the person who wrote this even knows what "the >The software has the look and feel of a desktop application It's like postgres uis are like the PHP of database UIs: people that like it have no idea how bad they are, and the very few people go elsewhere to see how much better the world is outside. Amazingly, most postgresql UIs are simply terrible at writing and running sql. I want the first button in the toolbar to be a "New SQL Query" that opens a huge editor that lets me write and run SQL. If I could sum it up, the thing I miss the most is being able to work with SQL. EMS has a lot of features, but honestly it bothers me it cannot even use the default system font in windows, the environment it's built to run on. Valentina Studio and EMS are good, but not great. Last week I went through ALL the GUIs in the postgres wiki page and found nothing good. ![]() When I found dbForge Studio for MySql, I felt at home. ![]() It let me write huge SQL files, save them, reopen then and run them. It's an UI focused on writing SQL, and any wizard has a "Generate SQL for this" button. Having worked with MSSQL for years, MS hit the right spot with Management Studio. Or maybe another way to put it is that as someone coming from MSSQL and MySql, it seems the "postgres people" are used to a completely different way of work that feels odd to me. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |