From: hans AT brandinnovators DOT com (Hans Zuidam) Subject: Re: GUI 24 Dec 1996 09:37:49 -0800 Sender: daemon AT cygnus DOT com Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <199612241708.RAA01208.cygnus.gnu-win32@truk.brandinnovators.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Original-To: root AT jacob DOT remcomp DOT fr (root) Original-Cc: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com In-Reply-To: from root at "Dec 22, 96 01:48:50 pm" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com > > Visual C++ is pretty cheap if you want a GUI. Personally, I don't > > know why you'd want that - I recently prototyped a project with Visual > > C++ and then converted it to build under Cygwin32, and breathed a big > > sigh of relief when I was finally able to type ``make'' instead of > > having to screw around with the damned GUI (Godawful User Interface). > > Yes. That's great idea. And when you are at it, use 'vi', what a GREAT > editor. And then, what a GREAT relief of not using the GUI debugger!!! > For instance, instead of just clicking over the name of something to > be displayed at the screen, type gdb's commands (how easy isn't it? > Oh! you forgot it, type help !) > > I think that for people that LIKE typing like you, that is surely heaven! > That's right. STAY WITH gdb, vi and all that. It's not that we like typing, it's more that typing is still the fastest way for us to get our ideas and actions into the bloody machine. After 10 odd years using vi I don't think of cryptic vi commands any more, just as much as you don't think about the shapes of letters when you write something. I seem to have some unconcious process (thread?) in my mind that converts editting actions into typed commands. Granted, it's not simple when you start with vi, but when you stick with it the anoying bits go away by themselves. One major thing every graphical user-interface designer seems to forget is that the goal of a user-interface is have people at different skill levels work quickly and as much error-free with applications. Most graphical user-interfaces are only ok for people at the most elementary skill level. I doubt if selecting some ``compile'' command from a menu, seeing a dialog popup and then selecting `OK' to start a compilation is speedier than just typing `make' at a command line. Both graphical and command line based user-interfaces have their strengths and weaknesses based on their target audience. It's nice to have them both available such that the user can choose the one that's most comfortable with his/her mode of work. The problem with graphical user-interfaces is that they are far more complicated to design and implement than anyone really cares to admit. They are so complicated that it is hardly possible to experiment with them before deciding the `right mode of operation.' With command line user-interfaces there is at least some common experience on how to do certain things and how not to do things. With graphical user-interfaces this is still very far off. Merry christmas, Hans -- H. Zuidam E-Mail: hans AT brandinnovators DOT com Brand Innovators B.V. P-Mail: P.O. Box 1377 de Pinckart 54 5602 BJ Eindhoven, The Netherlands 5674 CC Nuenen Tel. +31 40 2631134, Fax. +31 40 2831138 - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".