Re: general questions

Guys, guys ... take a deep breath and calm down a little bit please.
This discussion doesn't seem to be all that useful. You both really
have vastly different opinions, I don't think all this arguing is
going to change much. And it has become mostly off topic for this
mailinglist.

-- 
Johan
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:10 PM, John Maher <JohnM_at_rotair.com> wrote:
> lol.  These rants are priceless!!  I talk about a simple wrapper and we
> get text stream processing!!  Tack on irrelevant things to make your
> point sound good!!  If you gotta reach that far then that is a clue your
> argument lacks merit.  I give up trying to explain it.
>
> Sorry I'm not reading anything on unix if I can help it.  Text based
> operating systems will be obsolete.  I know all you text gurus will
> argue to your death.  But JCL was junk while it was still in use.  It
> was used only because that had to, not because it was any good.  Command
> line interfaces, text based oses and the mouse are all going bye-bye.
> Its just a matter of time.  May be in my lifetime, may not be, I don't
> care.  I am focusing my attention on the future, not the past otherwise
> I could get a high paying job doing cobol since those guys are in
> demand.  But I don't want to work with a dead language even if it won't
> die in my lifetime.  I'm looking ahead.
>
>
> For example:
>> If a GUI offers any of those options
> you pretty much lose any point/click advantage it might have since the
> choices approach infinity.
>
> Wrong.  A gui has textboxes.  You only need to click some things, not
> evey single parmeter for every single command.  No wonder you don't like
> guis.
>
>
>
>> Things based on text stream processing don't
> have 'scopes' or associated limits.
>
> Wrong.  If a program doesn't have a scope its unlikely to come out well.
> And a program can easily accept a text stream and return one.  How do
> you think your commands work?  They are programs.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikesell_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:52 PM
> To: John Maher
> Cc: Andreas Krey; David Chapman; Mark Phippard;
> users_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: general questions
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM, John Maher <JohnM_at_rotair.com> wrote:
>>> You're confusing a single application with the whole command line
>>> and *everything* it can invoke. In your picture that whole set of all
>>> commands available now or in the  future is the 'the application' for
>>> which you'd need to design a GUI, would you want to have its
>> flexibility
>>> available in a GUI.
>>
>> I don't understand this statement at all.  I'm talking about a simple
>> wrapper.  And it would be very easy in incorporate *everything*.  Even
>> command that have not been added yet.
>
> On the command line, every piece of text, including the base command
> to run can be the expansion of shell variables, file wildcards, or the
> output of any other program.   If a GUI offers any of those options
> you pretty much lose any point/click advantage it might have since the
> choices approach infinity.  The input can be the output of any other
> program.  If the tool doesn't do the complete job, the output can go
> to any other tool.
>
>>> Interaction with *other* applications (the trailer) isn't designed
> in,
>>> and can't be automated.
>>
>> Again, if necessary it can be, very easy.  However that is not the
> point
>> of the wrapper.  If I want to build a car you can say but it can't
> fly.
>> And it can't float.  You're right.  It isn't supposed to.  You can
>> always pick fault about something if you go beyond its scope.
>
> That's the point here.  Things based on text stream processing don't
> have 'scopes' or associated limits.  Likewise for command lines based
> on text expansions.
>
>>> GUI applications are designed to interact with a user, and not with
>>> other applications
>>
>> Again that is not true.  Well the first part is.  The second part
> (("not
>> with other applications") may or may not be true.  Depends on the app.
>> I'm starting to learn who isn't a programmer because they have common
>> misconceptions about how programs are designed.  I wonder if its from
>> watching TV?
>
> Starting here worked out pretty well for me:
> http://books.google.com/books/about/The_UNIX_programming_environment.htm
> l?id=poFQAAAAMAAJ
> The concepts still save me time every day.
>
> --
>   Les Mikesell
>      lesmikesell_at_gmail.com