Re: Great SWT Program
- From: blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Nov 2007 01:00:25 GMT
In article <6a8b78ae-3de8-4d56-87e8-2766d0dfb0fb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<nebulous99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 22, 10:32 am, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
[ snip ]
I guess you missed the posts in which I've said that I thought emacs
and vi users needed to put aside the religious wars of the past
Why, to unite temporarily against their common enemy -- me? Why, I'm
flattered!
:P
Don't be (flattered). You're just the local/current representative
of / advocate for the dark forces against which we should unite.
And that stuff about peeing on something one doesn't like -- maybe
it's a guy thing. <shrug>
If you'd ever read much Stephen King you'd know that it wasn't just a
guy thing. :)
Could be. Not being familiar with Mr. King's work, I've missed the
reference you presumably intend.
[ snip ]
Could be. It could also be that, having worked with these tools
for a couple of decades, the set of things I know how to do with
them is fairly large.
Java hasn't even existed for much more than half that long, so this
claim of yours appears to be rather dubious to me.
What claim is that?
Oops, you've gotten confused again. Here's a refresher:
Do you rarely need to consult the Javadoc on the lawyerly details
of what some library call will do? Perhaps you just don't code
anything very ambitious, or go outside a very small core set of
commands much.
Could be. It could also be that, having worked with these tools
for a couple of decades, the set of things I know how to do with
them is fairly large.
Java hasn't even existed for much more than half that long, so this
claim of yours appears to be rather dubious to me.
What claim is that?
There. Now the context is restored.
Well, no, I think you need to back up one more post to get the
full context for my "Could be" reply. I said:
You mentioned (in another subthread) having to get out
the manual to write a shell script, oops, .bat file. I rarely
have to consult the documentation for my shell of choice.
I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that when you mentioned not coding
anything very ambitious you were talking about programming in
general, including shell scripts, rather than Java in particular.
I was addressing that point (what I do or don't code) ....
Silly misunderstanding, apt to happen when days go by between posts.
If it matters, I don't do enough Java coding to have much of the API
in my head.
[ snip ]
The punch line seems to be "n='echo $b | sed s/^......//'", which
appears to begin with piping something into something else and end
with line noise. The output expected by a naive user therefore being
"NO CARRIER". :P
Quite. My little on-the-fly bit of shell scripting would probably be
unobvious to a naive user. So what?
So how in the BLUE HELL is a naive user supposed to get anything done
in your world, hmm? :P
By becoming a less-naive user.
(I could nitpick about the fact that you misquoted backquotes as
single quotes, but -- nah.)
Excuse me?
You misquoted backquotes as single quotes here:
The punch line seems to be "n='echo $b | sed s/^......//'",
I wrote
n=`echo $b | sed s/^......//`
Do you know about "apropos" (a.k.a. "man -k")? Admittedly it's not
perfect, but it's sometimes useful in finding out what command would
help with a particular function. (It lists all commands whose
short descriptions match a given string -- e.g., "apropos rename"
to get a list of commands that might have something to do with
renaming things. Yes, "mv" does show up.)
And this feature is advertised by the help system where, exactly?
I have no idea. Maybe you have to find it in a tutorial on basic
commands. I don't think I've ever claimed that one can advance from
novice to expert status with Unix using only man pages.
Even then ... no hyperlinks ... no index-with-summaries (I assume that
"apropos" just gives you a terse list of command names without
descriptions, so it would be followed by several "man foo"s ... no
direct jumping to the help on shell built-ins like "ls" ...
Unix help is not perfect. We agree on that, though apparently not
about much else.
[ snip ]
it's very unusual. There's also the matter of
scrolling degrading much more gracefully when the user's knowledge is
imprecise than search does.
Not my experience. Apparently yours. I wonder which is more common.
<shrug>
Mine, obviously.
Which is in more widespread use for navigating text worldwide, after
all, scrollbars or incremental search?
Even if you're right that more people use scrollbars -- and I'm
curious about what evidence you have for that -- I don't agree that
it proves anything. It's as likely that it hasn't occurred to
most people that they could navigate via search, and maybe if it
*had* occurred to them they'd prefer it. Or not. People do like
to stick to what they know, even when it might not be the best way.
--
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: twerpinator
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: blmblm
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: nebulous99
- Re: Great SWT Program
- Prev by Date: Re: Can Java access more than 2GB of memory on WIndows 32
- 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
|
