Re: Great SWT Program
- From: blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Oct 2007 18:23:08 GMT
In article <1191656180.588814.13400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<bbound@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 am, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This explains sticking with tools learned before the invention of the
GUI, but not learning similar tools later,
Well, except that if you know one such tool, the next is easier to
pick up than one that uses a different UI paradigm.
Eh? That would be true, if their UIs had anything significant in
common (e.g. a standard widget kit was used by both), but that is
simply not the case with the particular tools under discussion here;
every one of them is idiosyncratic to the point that their UIs appear
to have been (and probably were) each developed /de novo/. I challenge
you to tell me *one thing* that would transfer over from vi experience
to make emacs easier to use, or vice versa, and isn't a negative (e.g.
"don't waste your time with the mouse" or some such) or superficial
("both can be started from the command line open to a particular file
with executable_name text_file_name" or whatever); it has to be
something significant involving interactive use of the thing.
Both assume that you're willing to do a certain amount of learning
before being able to operate them. I think that really is kind of
the bottom line here -- in my pre-Windows experience, I expected
that with every new program I would need to learn a little
about its user interface before being able to do much with it.
This seemed normal. It's not the norm any more, true, but ....
vi versus emacs may be a worst-case comparison; all the
other interactive programs I can think of share at least some
keybindings with one of those two popular-in-context editors.
Admittedly the original versions of vi and emacs probably didn't
have many keybindings in common (not that come to my mind anyway).
But the current versions of vim and emacs do both seem to use some
of the more common cursor-movement keys in the way most people
would expect. I realize you insist on comparing decades-old
versions of these programs to current GUI software, which seems
unfair to me, but -- whatever.
There's also the matter of configuring things by editing text files
rather than pointing and clicking, and -- probably some other
commonalities I'm not thinking of right now. It's really more
a matter of mindset, I think, than of specifics of the interface.
[ snip ]
Tall order; most "exposure" to those tools of anyone not already
expert with the tool in question will give a bad impression, pretty
much without fail.
Quite. Which is why in my role as local expert with these tools
I'm apt to be a bit of an evangelist.
Just watch you don't become viewed by all and sundry as a symbol of
everything they don't like about those tools (and particularly the
need to frequently reach for the help, plus the only decent help
available being of the "live" variety).
If this is happening, I'm not aware of it. I'm sure some people
in my environment regard me as eccentric, but that's true for some
of my colleagues as well, and I don't think it's a bad thing.
My idea is that it's a good thing to broaden the horizons of
people who at least in theory are trying to get an education.
Insisting that my ways of doing things are the best or only ways --
that would be obnoxious and might backfire as well. But I don't
think I'm doing that; rather, I'm saying "here is another way,
here is why I like it, if you want to learn more it helps a
great deal to have a local expert at first, and I'll play that
role if you like." As a rough estimate, I'd say maybe 5% to 10%
of the students I talk to show some interest in learning more,
which I think is not bad.
Again I'll say that I think you underestimate the difficulties
of learning the platform you seem to find most familiar and
comfortable. Very young children might be able to figure out
Windows completely without assistance -- I'm thinking that maybe
whatever mental flexibility allows them to acquire language
effortlessly might somehow come into play in other areas as well --
but as best I can tell, adults new to the platform/paradigm need
some live help in getting the basics. You mentioned Star Trek in
another post, so perhaps you remember the scene from one of the
movies, in which the crew of the Enterprise goes back in time,
and Scotty tries to use a Mac by picking up the mouse and talking
into it? And we've all heard the stories about (l)users using
CD drives as cup holders. I have some good stories from my own
very early exposure to Windows. Want to hear about the time
I wiped out the whole Windows system directory by clicking on
the wrong icon? and not one that said anything about installing
stuff or formatting drives either.
Once you figure out the general paradigm, sure, it's relatively
easy to pick up new applications. But what I'm saying is that
that's true in the old-time-tools world too -- and in both worlds
there are tools that you can't use without actually learning
about the underlying concepts. (And my opinion is that GUIs
hide that fact under a pretty interface, which I find somehow
worse than tools that make it clear from the outset that they
aren't going to be usable by total novices. But that may well
be sheer prejudice on my part.)
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: bbound
- Re: Great SWT Program
- References:
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: bbound
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: blmblm
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: bbound
- Re: Great SWT Program
- Prev by Date: Re: POST request to SSL/HTTPS URL
- Next by Date: Re: Great SWT Program
- Previous by thread: Re: Great SWT Program
- Next by thread: Re: Great SWT Program
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
