Re: Great SWT Program

In article <4bd9c209-fd82-4c52-bab0-50ae133922ad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<nebulous99@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 6:38 am, b...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bent C Dalager) wrote:
You are, of course, the only one who didn't understand that sentence.

Oh, I understood it alright. I just didn't like what it said, seeing
as it was spreading foul lies about me as usual.

We /know/ that you hate it when you're proven wrong, but it's
something that is bound to be happening a lot and sooner or later
you're going to have to face up to it.

But such a list is far too clumsy to manipulate and use,

If you have a clumsy text editor, yes.

No, even in something modern and un-clumsy like Textpad or Notetab.
You have to copy and paste things around between the editor and the
shell,

Certainly not. If it's in a file, you just source the file from the
shell.

at minimum, if not just refer back and forth and type them out
longhand due to the editor having a completely cloistered clipboard or
none at all and the shell simply having none at all.

I can only imagine that this is a common problem with your chosen
tools. It is not with mine.

And corresponding software exists for Windows too.

So you claim.

And so it is true.

Except you have no idea what it is, so you're not actually getting
anywhere.

I can't name it offhand, but it does exist, ***.

Profanity implies insecurity - this surprises me, because if such a
tool existed, one would think it would be easy for you to find and
point to. Why are you so uncertain about the capabilities of your
chosen tool set?

If you drag some files onto a gif-outputting converter, it outputs
gifs.

How cumbersome.

No, it's simple and elegant.

So you have several dozen converter files laying around, and you - the
user - have to manually find the correct one to drop files onto? Are
users always treated like donkeys in your world?

In practise, the "gif-outputting converter" is probably actually
a shortcut with a command line for a more general purpose binary with
a command line switch for gif output.

So the /user/ actually has to determine which converter shortcut to
use? How can you live with such cruftiness?

This is ludicrous. You have a converter with no immediately obvious
indication of how to use it at all, or perhaps even that it exists. A
Windows user has a converter with several associated icons for various
conversion destination types.

Not only is the Windows converter also not immediately obvious - you
don't even know if a suitable piece of software exists at all!

And what good are the icons going to do anyway?

Once you figure out how to use your
converter you need to type the source file name, the destination file
name, AND some -foo option that you need to look up in a man page
somewhere, buried around page 53 of an overly-verbose document in all
likelihood.

"in all likelihood" meaning, of course, "because I imagine it".

convert blah.gif blah.pdf

is a suitable command line. I challenge you to spot the -foo option.

The Windows user needs to spot the one labeled "convert to
gif" and drop a file on it. By the time you've hit page down 53 times
the Windows user has converted a whole load of files and is already
well into their *next* task.

If the user /wants/ to hit page down (for whatever reason) 53 times,
Unix doesn't actually stop him from doing so. Do your tools? If so,
that is a serious bug that needs to be rectified.

Of course, you'll mention auto-complete:
a crutch, and besides, the file names in this case are arguments; the
shell has no idea what the arguments really are, so it's probably not
going to auto-complete them,

Amazingly, shells /do/ know how to auto-complete file names. The
wonders of the modern world! You can scarcely believe it!

What we do know, of course, is that you actually /do/ have to look at
your keyboard because you've said so yourself.

No, I didn't. I basically only do so to orient myself at the start of
typing something.

This isn't necessary if you use touch, of course.

You surely need to look at your keyboard when initially starting to
use it too;

No.

"Constantly" is just another red herring.

"Constantly" is what would be necessary to make it a slowdown and
therefore a problem.

It remains a problem when you keep using the mouse and therefore
repeatedly need to find your way back to the keyboard.

I use emacs, but I do not hate GUIs.

Then why do you bash them every chance you get, in a manner that
implies that nothing that involves a mouse is good enough for you?

I do not. My arguments are directed against current GUI apps and their
all too often being inefficient for professional use.

That wasn't just a placeholder name for whatever actual utility you
used?

It is the name of the utility.

Well, you failed to state that plainly; it was an obvious word to use
as a placeholder for a variable utility-name that would depend on
exactly what you were converting.

Because you admitting to yourself that you simply misunderstood what I
said would be a severe blow to your own self esteem and sense of self
worth. Ah, the price of infallibility . . .

I'm guessing here of course, but: you cannot actually name that
standard, can you?

No. That one is probably an unwritten one. Yet observed by all
conforming implementations nonetheless. :)

Of course it is. It's just too bad there /are/ no implementations that
actually conform to it because it's a really useless "standard".

I actually have to /find/ them and then /install/ them?

That's the alternative to creeping featurism: having to find and
install components that you wish to use but that a fair number of
users do not need. Choose your poison. :)

You need to do something about that feature-phobia of yours. Repeat
after me: more capability is better.

Cheers,
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@xxxxxxx - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
.

Quantcast