Re: Great SWT Program

On Nov 24, 9:30 pm, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
wrote. I can't imagine finding a natural workflow with a tool that
forced me to artificially structure it into separate and delineated
blocks of "inserting new text" versus "fixing typos and other
***". :P

I can believe that your description might be accurate for a
new user.

I cannot believe that it won't continue to be accurate for any user,
purely due to the existence of the insert/command mode distinction.

however, it bears little resemblance to my perception of what
I'm doing.

Because you're no longer as conscious of it. You're still
micromanaging these modes and other gratuitously-complex editing
mechanics, and it's still exerting a toll in mental burden (7 +/- 2
remember?) and plain old time and effort, but you're not noticing it
as much.

I guess it's possible that it's
actually costing me lots of brain power, in ways I'm not even
aware of, but I'm not sure how one could measure that.

Exactly. As for measuring it, stopwatch-timing you versus a comparably-
capable typist using something normal and typing comparable things
(e.g. 5000-word essays) might show the effects.

This is so silly .... I said that ":" indicated something about
what came after it, you said "nothing came after it", but clearly
something ("n") did .... Whatever.

Nothing came after the token containing the ":" though.

Well, there you go then.

Right. I don't have the entire Java API in my head. So?

So any interface whose use bears a closer resemblance to programming
the computer to do your job than it does to just doing your job
yourself is going to make most users suffer and have to frequently
visit the documentation, and search based navigation won't in general
beat scrolling.

[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

I also am not aware of anything for Unix analogous to Sun's Java
tutorial -- i.e., something widely recognized as canonical.

And it would have to ship with the system, remember -- at least,
enough of it to get a user to the point of being able to set up a
working internet connection and reach sites like Google.

Still awkward compared to the natural visual-selection way of doing it
that my tools support, while still enabling more archaic methods, of
course, if I decided to use CLI commands instead of Explorer for some
strange reason. In practise, even if I need the CLI (e.g. to do a ren
*.foo *.bar) for something I'd use Explorer's search to find the
files, then move the matches to a working directory,

"Working directory"? Isn't this as clunky as those temporary files
I sometimes use to get around not having easy access to a clipboard?
Just askin'.

Perhaps so, but unlike the clipboard examples, also not very
avoidable. Temporary files with lists of path names came up elsewhere
in this thread, but that's certainly *very* clunky.

perform the CLI
command there, and move the files back. This is easy if they all come
from one source directory. It's a bit trickier if they don't, but I
can exploit the fact that Explorer's undo doesn't see operations done
from the CLI and doesn't see undeletes either:

So you're exploiting the fact that the interface lies to you.
Uh-huh.

Bull -- the interface doesn't lie, there's just inconsistency in
what's considered an undoable action. I've seen such behavior
(generally misbehavior) all over the place; it's frequently a
nuisance, though here it sometimes comes in handy.

I'd have to boot up a Windows system and try stuff, and I can't be
bothered right now. Maybe some other time. The fact that "undo"
puts renamed stuff back into its previous location -- interesting.

Actually it probably won't, which is why the workaround is to move the
files that won't be renamed, rename the ones that will in a way that
doesn't put a new undo item in from of the "undo move", and then undo
move.

You're so used to the complexities that you no longer notice them as
much.

Probably so. But this has never been about what's easy for a
newbie -- or at least, that's not what *I've* been arguing about.

:P

You seem to be similarly adept with features that wouldn't
be obvious to a newbie -- or at least, not to this newbie.

On Windows. However, one can get by without knowing all the hairier
ropes here. Not on your side of the fence, unless you use a Gnome-
style window manager and modern graphical apps in it, in which case I
rest my case. :P

"For a while"? that seems a little, um, imprecise and
unpredictable?

It is; that's one of the bigger nuisances with Windows. But not an
inherently unavoidable flaw.

.