Re: Programming "efficiently" on given hardware - what does it mean really?
From: Programmer Dude (Chris_at_Sonnack.com)
Date: 06/30/04
- Next message: Robert STRANDH: "Re: What computer language is used a lot in the IT industry?"
- Previous message: Programmer Dude: "Re: Long term nuclear waste disposal (was: The Year 2038 Problem)"
- In reply to: Randy Howard: "Re: Programming "efficiently" on given hardware - what does it mean really?"
- Next in thread: Randy Howard: "Re: Programming "efficiently" on given hardware - what does it mean really?"
- Reply: Randy Howard: "Re: Programming "efficiently" on given hardware - what does it mean really?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:45:43 -0500
Randy Howard writes:
>> I LIKE Windows. I LIKE Office. I LIKE
>> SQL Server. I LIKE VB. I LIKE COM. Go figure, eh? (-:
>
> Ugh. I forgot about COM. and COM+. You are definitely a
> weird cookie,...
And I like weird cookies! (I prefer the molasses/ginger above all,
followed by "OR"s (Oatmeal-Rasin), and then maybe a choc-chip. :0)
> ...not to mention that you write your emoticons backwards. :-)
Well, I was told all the smilies had created a worldwide shortage
of closing parens, so I'm just doing my part to redress the
balance.
>> I think that's arguable. Maybe, what Neal Stephenson cutely calls
>> Finux (from the Finns, you see!) in CRYPTONOMICON, is evolving
>> towards GUI-osity because it's truly is a better way to interact
>> with a computer.
>
> Perhaps. When I say "eye candy" I'm referring to the things that
> don't make "human interaction" with a computer actually better,
> but rather hinder it.
Ah, I follow. I don't call that eye candy, I call that...crap that
gets in my way! (-:
Maybe it's having lived in California for 20 years (20 years ago!),
but I think "eye candy" is pretty, pointless and fun!
>> You'd have to pay me many times what I make now to get me to work
>> in a command line world again.
>
> Strange. I like to program, period.
Same here. I'm just at a point where I can pick my conditions!
> I cut my teeth on a command line,...
Ditto! <bait>I had training wheels on my bike once, too.</bait>
> and I actually find myself more productive that way than
> launching an app, selecting menu items, hoping it does what
> I want, then exiting that app, and launching another to do
> the next thing...
> the idea of command | command | filter | sort .... is really
> appealing.
For times when one's work consists of a series of processes, that's
great, and I agree, and the same exists (or can exist) in a GUI.
Consider this. Let's say you have a few of those pipelines that
you tend to use--perhaps with minor variations--frequently. But
spread out enough that you can't count on them being in your history.
In a GUI environment, use a RAD tool to whip up a quick, simple UI
that allows you to create, edit & store command lines, AND provides
you with a pick list and--once you pick one--pre-editor so you can
tweak the command prior to launch.
Closest you could come in a command line environment would be one
of those horrid prompt/response text apps, or maybe something ugly
in curses (and apt name, I always thought).
But,... I can't remember the last time I needed, or thought I needed,
a pipeline. And I can't help but wonder if the environment itself
doesn't present a solution (pipelines) for a "problem" IT creates
(sorta like Thomas' thread about typeless languages).
I don't miss pipelines in my windowing environment, because there is
no need for them--other tools exist that meet the need. (This is off
the cuff, so I'm not real committed to this line of thought! :-)
One other thing. Comparing "selecting menu items, hoping it does what
I want" is not a fair comparison to typing out a well-known pipeline.
In apps I know, I fly. With commandlines I know, I fly.
With apps I don't know, I hesitate and RTFM. Likewise commandlines.
I just remembered something: when I discovered a non-ugly, non-slow
GUI file browser in HP-UX, it opened up new worlds to me, because
it was MUCH easier to navigate and poke around the filesystem with
this than with endless cd and ls.
My bottom line is, you'll have to pry my windows (small w) out of
my cold, dead hands. (-: :-)
>> I can appreciate that. FWIW, I don't have a sense of doing that
>> much (but perhaps I'm just too used to it).
>
> It almost unavoidable in most modern GUI apps, so you must be.
Or perhaps I just have my toolbars and custom menus set up to eliminate
as much work as possible. One thing I place foremost when creating a
GUI app is paying a lot of attention to how easy it is to reach common,
frequently-used functions. I test constantly during development, and
as soon as the app is capable, I test as a "user". When I find myself
getting irritated at a function for being too many clicks, I change it.
> Example: How many keystrokes does it take to get to the screen
> (the first time, without being reminded) where the name or IP
> of your POP3 mail server is configured in MS Outlook.
No idea, I don't use Outlook. I'm on Agent right now, so let's see...
Options is on the menubar, good starting place, click #1.
Dropdown menu shows "General Preferences, sounds good, click #2.
That opens a big config dialog...therein I can SEE "Outbound Email
Server" and "Inbound Email Server", so clicks #3 and #4 should take
me there (and so they do). (Total time < 1 minute.)
Now...assuming you're on your favorite commandline email app and don't
know where to look, how long will it take you and what do you have to
do to discover it?
> Admittedly, it doesn't happen very often, but you have to *guess*
> where it is, because it doesn't happen very often.
But, as I just demonstrated, in a well-designed app, it's pretty easy
to find, because it's right in front of your face. Assuming you are
just as ignorant of where your settings are, how easy are they to find?
> Getting windows configured with all the stuff you need to be productive
> from the command line can take days to accomplish though.
Well, sure, you're fighting the paradigm. (-:
>> I'm not familiar with, I appreciate the menu system, since it lets
>> me "browse" for functions I know exist, but can't quite recall.
>
> This provides developers with an excuse for having minimal, crappy
> documentation.
I didn't realize developers needed an excuse for bad docs! I'm quite
sure it's more a developer thing than an environment thing.
And consider this: another way to look at this is that commandline apps
NEED good docs, because they are so hard to (learn to) use. A naked
prompt isn't very helpful. --help isn't very helpful (necessarily)
and if it is, you often need to type it twice, because you forgot to
more/less it the first time. (-:
GUI apps--if they happen to be poorly documented--at least give you a
chance to use them. Sounds like a win to me.
>> I don't miss all the typing just to navigate around the file system,
>
> Strange, I don't even notice it.
Kinda like I don't notice mouse navigation? Think that might mean these
aren't really the issues we think they are?
> Navigating the FS, especially with
> a modicum of .bashrc customization, makes it invisible to me.
Going to a directory deep in the FS you've never visited...and then to
another in a different place...doing ls|more.... reading files.... guess
I'll have to do a file|more to figure out what they might be (no handy
icons)....
Invisible? (-:
Gimme a GUI browswer. Please!!
>> I totally don't miss makefiles
>
> Insane.
Enlightened. :-|
>> I don't miss awk
>
> Hmm, I can't remember intentionally using awk for quite a few years.
> It's been dead since about the time Larry Wall got motivated.
True!
>> or sed
>
> Strange. You claim to love (g)vi(m). I find it hard to believe you
> don't use sed (disguised as regex commands within vi) more often
> than you think.
Of course. I was referring to those little 2-4 line sed scripts I used
to have cluttering up my FS.
>> Don't get me wrong, no disrespect towards the unices. It's just
>> that my personal preference no longer resides there.
>
> You can insult the unices all you like, I know where you are
> coming from, and if I had the job you have, I'd probably feel
> very similarly. Fortunately for me, there are multiple paths
> for a developer to take. Sounds like we both "won".
You betcha! You're a "bone doc", I'm an Ear/Nose&Throat man. (-:
>> I'm glad to have been a "friend" of Unix. And I've taken with me
>> the pieces I loved most: vim and perl and (Win)grep.
>
> If you love perl, then you definitely owe a small bow to sed. :-)
Absolutely! I loved Unix and remember it fondly. It's certainly not
a part of my world now, and I can honestly say I wouldn't return even
if the chance were offered. Just not interested.
Heh. Could say the same about the ex-wife. :-\
>> My heart belongs to Winnie now. (-:
>
> The antichrist is very happy now. LOL
Yeah, there is that. :-(
- Next message: Robert STRANDH: "Re: What computer language is used a lot in the IT industry?"
- Previous message: Programmer Dude: "Re: Long term nuclear waste disposal (was: The Year 2038 Problem)"
- In reply to: Randy Howard: "Re: Programming "efficiently" on given hardware - what does it mean really?"
- Next in thread: Randy Howard: "Re: Programming "efficiently" on given hardware - what does it mean really?"
- Reply: Randy Howard: "Re: Programming "efficiently" on given hardware - what does it mean really?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
