Return-Path: Errors-To: list-errors@solutions.apple.com Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 03:18:24 -0800 Errors-To: list-errors@solutions.apple.com Reply-To: mpw-dev@solutions.apple.com Originator: mpw-dev@solutions.apple.com Sender: mpw-dev@solutions.apple.com Precedence: bulk From: Cris Mooney To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: MPW Dead? - Lets wrap this up! X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 3464 >(you are in a maze of twisty little command-lines, each slightly demented in it's own special, undocumented way...) (you are in a maze of twisty little MENUS & BUTTONS, each slightly demented in it's own special, undocumented way...) (you are in a maze of twisty little VERBAL COMMANDS, each slightly demented in it's own special, undocumented way...) I've programmed on graphical and non-graphical platform after platform, and, despite my being an "aging programmer" at 34 (thanks for the generic/geriatric insult), I utilize a graphical interface just like any young wipper-snapper. Yet, inevitably there will be functionality that I need which was overlooked or not valuable enough to warrant the development cost of a graphical interface. Likewise, some graphic interfaces provide options not implemented by command line. What I see here is some people latching on to the graphical interface exactly as they accuse us old timers of latching to command lines. In truth, they are non-adaptive dinosaurs, and will find themselves obsolete when the next wave comes (whatever it may be). At such a time, I will continue to use which ever communications method (interface) suits my task. Anyone who endorses throwing away the wealth of simple command line utilities already developed, and versatility of simple command line interface, is clearly so self-centered and illogical that they are not of any value as a developer (and quite likely as a user). I suggest firing such pompous asses based on that criteria alone (I am serious). Though, since they only deal in graphics, I am not sure how they would read the pink slip :) Certainly, it would be nice if there was Commando, and a graphical interface, and a command line interface, a verbal interface, and full documentation, for every snippet of code ever written. But it's not going to happen, so get off your high horse and deal with reality - cause some of us have jobs with objectives and deadlines. I suggest porting the MPW shell interface (perhaps as simple glue and/or enhancements to the csh), as an alternative, and for backwards script compatibility, despite its redundancy of functionality with other shells. There is nothing to say a csh cannot have scrolling history, execution of any line anywhere (these are standard in XWindows systems), menus, plus more, and still be a csh. As for the "live buffers" in MPW, a neat feature, don't we have any imagination out there? Stop whining, and come up with a slick solution! EXAMPLE: people who complain about EMacs should consider that most EMacs implementaions may be configured to do everything your current editor does (perhaps with the exception of the live MPW buffers thing), with your editor's same keystroke bindings. And, yes, I have used many an EMacs with a graphics interface ADDED. NeXt is a real environment, no doubt versatile and extensible. Smart people would add the wonders of the Mac, and leave the great time-tested NeXt/unix (eeekkk! unix! I didn't invent that!) functionality shining through. Just think damn it, and strive for the entirety of both worlds! With the power and storage of today's machines, we do not have to choose. Stop thinking like a dictator. Just because it wasn't invented on the Mac, by your peers, doesn't mean it sucks. The inventors of DOS ruled the world, yet they have no more right to claim they found utopia than you do. In support of every interface, to get the job done, Cris Mooney