Matthew Braithwaite wrote:
> I think it's a terrible thing to have a program that always produces
> output. Nothing draws attention to a program's output so much as the
> knowledge that it usually runs silently. I'm definitely in the ``if
> cvs update modifies no files it should produce no output'' camp.
I do believe you are in the minority. My experience is that people
want to know that the program is not hung. "user entertainment" is
crucially important. It is far easier (and better, methinks) for
the default to be noisy and be routed into a log file. I nearly always
run my make output through a log file. I *want* to be able to
*both* monitor progress *and* go back and examine carefully what
happened. I do NOT want silent defaults!
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:13 2006