rich@pro-exchange.cts.COM (Rich Sims) (06/11/88)
There have been a couple of messages recently, bemoaning the fact that the "interface" makes the computer too easy to "use" and to hard to "hack" on. One even went so far as to complain about having to use a compiler or a programming environment to do any serious programming. I don't understand, but then, maybe I'm missing something. Sure, the tools we use to create programs have become much larger, more complex, and more sophisticated. But then, so have the programs that are created with them. Why is there something wrong with freeing the users from the details of operating the computer, and allowing them to spend their time concentrating on the task at hand (which is *using* the program for it's designed output, not as an exercise in "look what I can do with just 53 commands in 123star")? The same applies to the development of the program. Why shouldn't the person developing the program be able to spend their time on making the program run the way they want it to, rather than on keeping track of all the myriad little details that are necessary, but don't add anything to the program's design or functionality? If you want to "hack", there's always the mini-assembler, and even on the Mac you can get right down to the lowest level and punch in hex code to your heart's content, then jump to it's beginning. Of course, the rest of the world is going to be finished their work and out playing golf (or whatever it is that they do for recreation) while you're still trying to remember how far back it was that you wanted to branch!! The complaint about the requirements for more memory and larger storage devices is just as silly. Want to run off of a 100k floppy disk? Fine! The Radio Shack Model 100 used them, and I still have one of those, with it's drive. But (for example) the 4th Dimension database on my Macintosh needs 750k of storage for the *application*.... never mind the data files. I think I'll just keep that on the hard disk, thank you! Of course, if one of you dedicated, hard-core, "hackers" will use all that skill to create a program that will do all the things I've come to expect from today's software, and will make it run effectively in 48k, I'll cheerfully bring my old Apple ][+ out of retirement and plug the cassette recorder back into it. As for those of you irresponsible folks who are continuing to design all the new hardware with the added capabilities, and you evil guys who are writing all that terrible software that takes advantage of it.... well, all I can say is "Keep it up!! I love it!!" (And I'll buy those extra memory chips when I need them!!) (By the way... I used the word "hacker" in it's apparent context from the content of the earlier messages. I always thought it described someone who was trying to push the machine to (or even past) it's limits, not just those who were only interested in doing things by the hardest possible method!!) UUCP: [ ihnp4 cbosgd sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!pro-exchange!rich ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil INET: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com pro-exchange: 305-431-3203 : 300-1200-2400-9600/ARQ : login as 'register'
jm7e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU ("Jeremy G. Mereness") (06/15/88)
Rich Sims sez.... >Why is there something wrong with freeing the users from the details of >operating the computer...? Not much, unless something goes wrong, or you want to do something that involves a little more than the software-writer had in mind at the time he was writing it, or you get tired of some of the user-friendly messages that you've seen hundreds of times and would rather skip over them but can't. I like to change things so that they work best with the job I am performing. I like my machines to grow with me. I don't want them to start frustrating me because MicrosoftWord has never heard of some particaular kind of file and won't read it or Macwrite won't read anything but a Macwrite file exclusively, or God Forbid when you get that damned Bomb icon telling you a system error has occured and the only thing you can do about it is cry and turn the machine off. Big, fat, user-friendly interfaces don't bother me that much except that I get tired of them running on machines that can just barely handle them, like the Finder on the GS, or Multifinder on a Mac with only 1 Meg. >I think I'll just keep that on the hard disk, thank you! I prefer lots of RAM to lots of storage, only because Storage takes a little longer, doesn't help when a program requires space to work in, and sometimes they crash. And then there's the old question of how to pay for all this classy equipment...... Capt. Albatross jm7e+@andrew.cmu.edu ============ disclaimer: These opinions are mine and will remain so until more intelligent or insightful or informed people are kind enough to show me the error of my ways. Remember: A mind is a terrible thing to baste.
kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) (06/17/88)
In article <8806111436.AA20848@crash.cts.com> pnet01!pro-sol!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil writes: > >There have been a couple of messages recently, bemoaning the fact that the >"interface" makes the computer too easy to "use" and to hard to "hack" on. >One even went so far as to complain about having to use a compiler or a >programming environment to do any serious programming. You can *always* find a way to program in straight machine code! Even if you have to write a program to translate the machine code into compilable code! :-) >I don't understand, but then, maybe I'm missing something. You might very well be. Are you a "hacker" or a "user"? If you are either one, then you are missing something -- the other side of the picture. >Sure, the tools we use to create programs have become much larger, more >complex, and more sophisticated. But then, so have the programs that are >created with them. Try, but so has the complexity of the code, the time involved, and to some extent, the joy of coding has decreases from something you do because it's fun, to something you do because you're paid. I *like* to prgram my //e, but I get paid to write for a company. Not that writing code for this a company can't be fun, and many people enjoy it, as I do, but I wouldn't do it unless I got paid. >Why is there something wrong with freeing the users from the details of >operating the computer, and allowing them to spend their time concentrating on >the task at hand (which is *using* the program for it's designed output, not >as an exercise in "look what I can do with just 53 commands in 123star")? Nothing. But that's not what most programs *do*. You have no choice, you *must* operate the computer. As you become more and more "proficient", you desire to have more and more control of the computer. *that's* when you run into the wall. Just because some programmer somewhere (or more likely, *management team*) decided that the program has everything you'll ever need to do the job, doesn't mean it *does*. Talk to a big company. I mean a really big one. What do you think they do? They find out what their customers are asking for in their packages. What many companies have realized is that they can extend product life by making it more flexible than macwrite. (Just an example. But ask offices that do a lot of work: Do they use MacWrite, or MS Word? Hmmm? And which has more configurability?) >The same applies to the development of the program. Why shouldn't the person >developing the program be able to spend their time on making the program run >the way they want it to, rather than on keeping track of all the myriad little >details that are necessary, but don't add anything to the program's design or >functionality? What really happens is that the programmer no longer spends his time on the myriad little things, *nor on the task at hand*, but rather at the 652 page book on guidelines to the user interface. Now I ask you, go write a program, with a mac interface, on the GS, that input's a name. Now do it without the guidelines. . . You end up with a series of calls to the toolkit on the GS, and *one* call to getln in the monitor. Now, I'm not saying that getln is better, but it's a hell of a lot easier for me, the programmer, do deal with if all I want is a quick way to get a filename. (good example, that's just exactly what I do right now in Apencode.) >If you want to "hack", there's always the mini-assembler, and even on the Mac >you can get right down to the lowest level and punch in hex code to your >heart's content, then jump to it's beginning. Of course, the rest of the >world is going to be finished their work and out playing golf (or whatever it >is that they do for recreation) while you're still trying to remember how far >back it was that you wanted to branch!! Yeah, but try and fix a bug in 200,000 line of pascal. *Without* the source. Let's not get confused about what hacking is. Yes, part of it is *really low level* stuff, but that's not all it is. Hacking is basically this (in a nutshell): Getting something done, something usefull, in a very short period of time, that *works*. I can write you a "word processor" in BASIC on a ][ in less than an hour. It won't be very powerfull, but can you do the same on a Mac? Without buying a compiler? >The complaint about the requirements for more memory and larger storage >devices is just as silly. Want to run off of a 100k floppy disk? Fine! The >Radio Shack Model 100 used them, and I still have one of those, with it's >drive. But (for example) the 4th Dimension database on my Macintosh needs >750k of storage for the *application*.... never mind the data files. I think >I'll just keep that on the hard disk, thank you! Wait one minute there dude! *I* never said *STORAGE* should be dinky! NOT ME WHO WANTS TO BUY A 60 MEG SCSI DRIVE! >Of course, if one of you dedicated, hard-core, "hackers" will use all that >skill to create a program that will do all the things I've come to expect from >today's software, and will make it run effectively in 48k, I'll cheerfully >bring my old Apple ][+ out of retirement and plug the cassette recorder back >into it. Ok, yeah, but have you ever looked at the code for those programs? Jeeze, no wonder microsoft has such a horrible record when it comes to product introductions on time! Memory is cheap, yes, but that is no excuse for writing *ineffecient* *slow* code! Do you really think that 4th Dim. *REALLY* needs it's 750K of program space? As I look at programs today, I see about a two-fold increase in power (really!) with about 5-10 fold increase in program size. >As for those of you irresponsible folks who are continuing to design all the >new hardware with the added capabilities, and you evil guys who are writing >all that terrible software that takes advantage of it.... well, all I can say >is "Keep it up!! I love it!!" (And I'll buy those extra memory chips when I >need them!!) Fine. go right ahead. But I'm going to wait for something better. Something that does what you say: Better hardware with software that takes advantage of it. It's like the GS. Sure, it's got more power than the //e, but does the software take advantage of it? I guess you could say it does just that, just as a loan shark takes advantage of a complusive gambler, because the *SHARK* wins, not the gambler, not society. Do *you* win when it takes hours for P16 to load? Do you win when your GS takes five hours to redraw the screen? No. The software (well, some does, but not a lot) doesn't really show off the hardware, it exposes it. That's not what good software is supposed to do! >(By the way... I used the word "hacker" in it's apparent context from the >content of the earlier messages. I always thought it described someone who >was trying to push the machine to (or even past) it's limits, not just those >who were only interested in doing things by the hardest possible method!!) See above. Yes, it is pushing the machine to it's limits. Even if it means doing something just for the sake of showing it can be done. 80 columns in software *alone* was a wonderful example. >UUCP: [ ihnp4 cbosgd sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!pro-exchange!rich Sean Kamath -- UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs ihnp4}!tektronix!reed!kamath CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET || BITNET: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.BITNET ARPA: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.CS.PSU.EDU US Snail: 3934 SE Boise, Portland, OR 97202-3126 (I hate 4 line .sigs!)
rich@pro-exchange.cts.COM (Rich Sims) (06/22/88)
a response to Sean Kamath's comments: >>I don't understand, but then, maybe I'm missing something. >You might very well be. Are you a "hacker" or a "user"? If you are either >one, then you are missing something -- the other side of the picture. Are there no other possibilities for me? Am I doomed forever to be one or the other of the two choices? I've been on both sides of that fence, from time to time, so perhaps I do see some of "the other side of the picture" >>Sure, the tools we use to create programs have become much larger, more >>complex, and more sophisticated. But then, so have the programs that are >>created with them. >Try, but so has the complexity of the code, the time involved, and to some >extent, the joy of coding has decreases from something you do because it's >fun, to something you do because you're paid. I thought that's what I said! >I *like* to prgram my //e, >but I get paid to write for a company. Not that writing code for this a >company can't be fun, and many people enjoy it, as I do, but I wouldn't do >it unless I got paid. What's unusual about that? I enjoy my work too, but I wouldn't do it for recreation... I do it because I get paid to do it! About those programs you write-- they are either for your own use, or for someone else's, and in the *real* world, there are an awful lot of people who have to *use* the computer in their daily work, but who have no interest, nor aptitude for learning how to gain total control of it. Those people need the easy-to-use software that does whatever their specific task requires, and they don't have the skill (or the desire to learn it) to write their own programs. You do, so any programs for your own use can be done any way you feel like it.... write 'em in BASIC and translate 'em into Sanskrit for all the rest of the world will care. >>Why is there something wrong with freeing the users from the details of >>operating the computer, and allowing them to spend their time concentrating >>on >>the task at hand (which is *using* the program for it's designed output, not >>as an exercise in "look what I can do with just 53 commands in 123star")? >Nothing. But that's not what most programs *do*. You have no choice, you >*must* operate the computer. Not so... that's exactly what a number of currently available, or "in development" user interfaces do... relieve the user of just that requirement. I understand what happens when I type: copy a:\ws\docs\jun88.txt c:\docs\rpts\jun88.txt The secretary in the small office down the street, however, has only been on the job for a month, and she finds it a whole lot easier to point at a picture of a sheet of paper, with a name like "June 1988 summary" and drag it on top of a picture of a folder named "Reports" >As you become more and more "proficient", you >desire to have more and more control of the computer. *that's* when you run >into the wall. Only if you're the type who is more interested in being able to recite hex code at parties and speak extemporaneously for ten minutes on the subject of BIOS calls than you are in finishing the work at hand so you can (a) get home and get dinner for the kids, (b) get changed and go out to a party where such people are unwelcome, or (c) move on to the next project. >Just because some programmer somewhere (or more likely, >*management team*) decided that the program has everything you'll ever need >to do the job, doesn't mean it *does*. Talk to a big company. I mean a >really big one. What do you think they do? They find out what their >customers are asking for in their packages. What many companies have >realized is that they can extend product life by making it more flexible >than macwrite. (Just an example. But ask offices that do a lot of work: Do >they use MacWrite, or MS Word? Hmmm? And which has more configurability?) What kind of work? If they're doing extensive document preparation, they probably are using Word (I do, and I probably don't *need* it, but I *like* it as compared to MacWrite). On the other hand, you might be surprised at the number of people who do use MacWrite in situations where I think Word would be a better choice. >>The same applies to the development of the program. Why shouldn't the >>person >>developing the program be able to spend their time on making the program run >>the way they want it to, rather than on keeping track of all the myriad >>little >>details that are necessary, but don't add anything to the program's design >>or functionality? >What really happens ... [caca about human interface guidelines deleted] >Now I ask you, go write a >program, with a mac interface, on the GS, that input's a name. Now do it >without the guidelines. . . You end up with a series of calls to the toolkit >on the GS, and *one* call to getln in the monitor. Now, I'm not saying that >getln is better, but it's a hell of a lot easier for me, the programmer, do >deal with if all I want is a quick way to get a filename. (good example, >that's just exactly what I do right now in Apencode.) Why would I do that? If I want the Mac interface, I'll use the Mac, not try to simulate it on something as underpowered as the GS for that type of thing! And you're right, the way you're doing it is *much* easier for you... so go ahead and do it that way... in programs *for* you... but if the program is for someone else to run, your responsibility is to write it in the way that maes it best for the user, not for yourself. If you're doing anything other than that, you're in the wrong line of work, and someone's paying you way too much money!! "It's easier!" is *never* an excuse for delivering an inferior product, regardless of what that product is!! >If you want to "hack", there's always the mini-assembler, and even on the Mac >you can get right down to the lowest level and punch in hex code to your >heart's content, then jump to it's beginning. Of course, the rest of the >world is going to be finished their work and out playing golf (or whatever it >is that they do for recreation) while you're still trying to remember how far >back it was that you wanted to branch!! Yeah, but try and fix a bug in 200,000 line of pascal. *Without* the source. Let's not get confused about what hacking is. Yes, part of it is *really low level* stuff, but that's not all it is. Hacking is basically this (in a nutshell): Getting something done, something usefull, in a very short period of time, that *works*. I can write you a "word processor" in BASIC on a ][ in less than an hour. It won't be very powerfull, but can you do the same on a Mac? Without buying a compiler? awwkkk!!! Sorry, you've just gone way over my head!! I'm not aware of any way to patch 200,000 lines of Pascal, without a compiler, on *any* computer, whether it be a Mac, or anything else! As for that BASIC word processor, I must place a higher value on my time than you do. In that same hour, I can earn enough money to buy a word processor at least as powerful as the one you're going to write in BASIC, and have some change left over for a cup of coffee. The point here is that if a word processor is *needed*, why would anyone in their right mind take that approach? Either buy an existing one, or go ahead and buy the compiler and write one of your own design... but don't kludge together the kind of thing you described just because the computer will permit you to do so. >>The complaint about the requirements for more memory and larger storage >>devices is just as silly. Want to run off of a 100k floppy disk? Fine! The >>Radio Shack Model 100 used them, and I still have one of those, with it's >>drive. But (for example) the 4th Dimension database on my Macintosh needs >>750k of storage for the *application*.... never mind the data files. I >>think I'll just keep that on the hard disk, thank you! >Wait one minute there dude! *I* never said *STORAGE* should be dinky! NOT >ME WHO WANTS TO BUY A 60 MEG SCSI DRIVE! Whoops! Getting a bit testy, are we? I didn't single anyone out, just made some comments on the content and "tone" of several messages. Like they say, "If the shoe fits...." >>Of course, if one of you dedicated, hard-core, "hackers" will use all that >>skill to create a program that will do all the things I've come to expect >>from >>today's software, and will make it run effectively in 48k, I'll cheerfully >>bring my old Apple ][+ out of retirement and plug the cassette recorder back >>into it. >Ok, yeah, but have you ever looked at the code for those programs? Jeeze, >no wonder microsoft has such a horrible record when it comes to product >introductions on time! Memory is cheap, yes, but that is no excuse for >writing *ineffecient* *slow* code! Do you really think that 4th Dim. >*REALLY* needs it's 750K of program space? As I look at programs today, I >see about a two-fold increase in power (really!) with about 5-10 fold >increase in program size. hmmm... I'd disagree with your impression of the increase in power. The first real database I ever used was PFS File on an Apple ][+, and I suspect the current crop has something more than a "two-fold" increase in power over that! I wouldn't know how much space a program like 4D *really* needs, but I suspect there's some room for improvement (after all, they just improved it, and are working on it again). You're right, though, there's no excuse for writing sloppy, inefficient code. And anyone who does so deliberately should most likely be drawn and quartered. On the other hand, I'd rather have an imperfect but useable program this week, rather than wait five years for the ultimate, perfected, maximally efficient version to come out. Too much work is going to stack up while I'm waiting! >>As for those of you irresponsible folks who are continuing to design all the >>new hardware with the added capabilities, and you evil guys who are writing >>all that terrible software that takes advantage of it.... well, all I can >>say is "Keep it up!! I love it!!" (And I'll buy those extra memory chips >>when I need them!!) >Fine. go right ahead. But I'm going to wait for something better. >Something that does what you say: Better hardware with software that takes >advantage of it. Good idea! And when it comes out, you can look at the things that could be fiurther improved, and wait some more for that model. Then when it comes out, you can .... >Do *you* win when it takes hours for P16 to load? Do you win when your GS >takes five hours to redraw the screen? Sorry, wrong wavelength! ProDOS 16 takes roughly 30 seconds to load and put me at the command prompt (on my system). I have no knowledge of how long the GS takes to re-draw the screen, since I don't use it in graphics mode, but only in text mode. That re-draws fairly quickly :-) >> [reference to definition of "hacking"] >See above. Yes, it is pushing the machine to it's limits. Even if it means >doing something just for the sake of showing it can be done. 80 columns in >software *alone* was a wonderful example. You sound like one of the people responsible for foisting the GS's "desktop interface" on the American public! :-) Seriously, there's nothing wrong with that idea, just don't try to sell it to the world as the "right" way to do things in an environment where the object is to use the computer in a productive manner... it's strictly an exercise in personal satisfaction... nothing more! (80 columns in software alone?? sheesh... I've only seen 70!) What you, and the others who complain about the lack of the features that made the computers a lot of fun for hackers, are missing is very simple. They are not built for hackers, but for the general public. Computers are becoming as commonplace as many other appliances, and the way we see tham, as well as the way they work, must reflect that. It's too bad, but the "hackers" don't pay the bills, it's Mr. and Mrs. Jones, down the street, who do that. And what they want (and need) is something that's as simple and easy to use as the rest of their household appliances. The same goes for the business world. A computer that is slightly less "hackable", but a lot easier to use, will be much more productive than the other way around. Trust me!! There are a lot more people who *NEED* to run AppleWorks (or MacWrite) than there are who *WANT* to run ORCA/M!! UUCP: [ ihnp4 cbosgd sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!pro-exchange!rich ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil INET: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com pro-exchange: 305-431-3203 : 300-1200-2400-9600/ARQ : login as 'register'
kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) (06/28/88)
In article <8806220818.AA25810@crash.cts.com> pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil writes: >a response to Sean Kamath's comments: >[hacker vs. user] >Are there no other possibilities for me? Am I doomed forever to be one or >the other of the two choices? I've been on both sides of that fence, from >time to time, so perhaps I do see some of "the other side of the picture" Actually, no, I don't think any one really can see it from both points of view. Ideally, everyone would see it from both points of view. By being a programmer, you really are "corrupted" for a true novice "user", and therefore are never really going to fully understand what being one is like. Though you are sort of right. I'm sorry if I was a little harse, I really meant the above. All programmer have to face this fact, or they aren't very good programmers. >What's unusual about that? I enjoy my work too, but I wouldn't do it for >recreation... I do it because I get paid to do it! Sometimes, poeple would do thier jobs for free, if they could live on something else. :-) Jeez, do I sound like an idealist of *what*? >About those programs you write-- they are either for your own use, or >for someone else's, and in the *real* world, there are an awful lot of >people who have to *use* the computer in their daily work, but who have no >interest, nor aptitude for learning how to gain total control of it. Those >people need the easy-to-use software that does whatever their specific task >requires, and they don't have the skill (or the desire to learn it) to write >their own programs. You do, so any programs for your own use can be done any >way you feel like it.... write 'em in BASIC and translate 'em into Sanskrit >for all the rest of the world will care. A *very* good point. But *i* for one will by a program that is a little more user hostile because A) it has more functionality, and B) I don't like computer talking down to me (ex: "Are we *sure* we want to close that window? Doing so will loose all changes to your text! :-) :-) Come on, let me save it for you ;-)" Yuk.). >Not so... that's exactly what a number of currently available, or "in >development" user interfaces do... relieve the user of just that requirement. >I understand what happens when I type: > > copy a:\ws\docs\jun88.txt c:\docs\rpts\jun88.txt > >The secretary in the small office down the street, however, has only been >on the job for a month, and she finds it a whole lot easier to point at a >picture of a sheet of paper, with a name like "June 1988 summary" and drag it >on top of a picture of a folder named "Reports" If that is how the computer is operated, then they are using it. It's a different method of operation, but you *are* operating it. And believe me, when you aren't in the finder (I assume this is some mac-like environment), people get *very* confused about just what a folder is from the program's point of view. I *know* this, as I tried to teach peopl how to use Excel, and they just couldn't grasp that when they saved something to a folder, it was, like, one those folder thingies. . . I generally have a lot better luck teaching people about subdirectories than I do teaching them about folders, and that's how I teach folders. Then I explain it's just a graphical interface to subdirectories, and they aren't nearly as confused when the program says it's saving the file, and then they don't panic and say "where'd my 500K spreadsheet *GO*!". >Only if you're the type who is more interested in being able to recite hex >code at parties and speak extemporaneously for ten minutes on the subject of >BIOS calls than you are in finishing the work at hand so you can (a) get home >and get dinner for the kids, (b) get changed and go out to a party where such >people are unwelcome, or (c) move on to the next project. Bull cookies. If I told you to use *nothing* but pull-down menues for *every* selection when you edit something in say MS-Word, I think you'd understand what I mean. And *yes*, that means that after you've selected the region, you couldn't type "flower"-x to cut it. . . :-) >What kind of work? If they're doing extensive document preparation, they >probably are using Word (I do, and I probably don't *need* it, but I *like* >it as compared to MacWrite). On the other hand, you might be surprised at the >number of people who do use MacWrite in situations where I think Word would be >a better choice. Why do *you* think word is better? *that's* my point. >>What really happens ... [caca about human interface guidelines deleted] It was *not* caca. Well, not *all* of it. :-) >Why would I do that? If I want the Mac interface, I'll use the Mac, not try >to simulate it on something as underpowered as the GS for that type of thing! Aha! My point exactly. So why do people insist on doing it on a GS? And if you think a Mac is powerful, try using a Sun as a micro. . . :-) >And you're right, the way you're doing it is *much* easier for you... so go >ahead and do it that way... in programs *for* you... but if the program is >for someone else to run, your responsibility is to write it in the way that >maes it best for the user, not for yourself. If you're doing anything other >than that, you're in the wrong line of work, and someone's paying you way too >much money!! "It's easier!" is *never* an excuse for delivering an inferior >product, regardless of what that product is!! Almost by definition, a hack is "something to get you by" until you can either get by without it, or build a better user interface onto it. And don' *ever* mic my work with my pleasure. I *DO NOT HACK* at work. I write well documented code according to specification, except when I absolutely cannot. And I still feel like they are paying me way to much money. >awwkkk!!! Sorry, you've just gone way over my head!! I'm not aware of any >way to patch 200,000 lines of Pascal, without a compiler, on *any* computer, >whether it be a Mac, or anything else! I never said their was. That's not the point. Again, when you hack, sometimes you have to patch things as they go along, and that can get vary hard, vary fast, without a *very* nice developement system. > As for that BASIC word processor, I >must place a higher value on my time than you do. In that same hour, I can >earn enough money to buy a word processor at least as powerful as the one >you're going to write in BASIC, and have some change left over for a cup of >coffee. The point here is that if a word processor is *needed*, why would >anyone in their right mind take that approach? Either buy an existing one, >or go ahead and buy the compiler and write one of your own design... but >don't kludge together the kind of thing you described just because the >computer will permit you to do so. Sometime we don't have money to burn, and we really can't earn more. Sometimes we do. And frankly, I enjoy banging my head against you guys. . . :-) >Whoops! Getting a bit testy, are we? I didn't single anyone out, just made >some comments on the content and "tone" of several messages. Like they say, >"If the shoe fits...." And if it doesn't, get a shoe horn. (is there an 'e' on the end of that?) Frankly, I think too many people takes things just a tad too seriously. >hmmm... I'd disagree with your impression of the increase in power. The first >real database I ever used was PFS File on an Apple ][+, and I suspect the >current crop has something more than a "two-fold" increase in power over that! Yeah, well. . . Sometimes you exagerate to make a point. . . I thought it was a pretty obviouse exaggeration . . . >I wouldn't know how much space a program like 4D *really* needs, but I suspect >there's some room for improvement (after all, they just improved it, and are >working on it again). You're right, though, there's no excuse for writing >sloppy, inefficient code. And anyone who does so deliberately should most >likely be drawn and quartered. On the other hand, I'd rather have an >imperfect but useable program this week, rather than wait five years for the >ultimate, perfected, maximally efficient version to come out. Too much work >is going to stack up while I'm waiting! Agreed. Generally, sloppy code is put out because that's what they have. Not everyone can write good code quickly, and these days, programmers aren't given a lot of time to cleanup their code, just debug it. . . :-) (if you know what I mean. . .) >Good idea! And when it comes out, you can look at the things that could be >fiurther improved, and wait some more for that model. Then when it comes >out, you can .... Yeah, I was wondering how you'd respond to that. Basically, I upgrade to the best I can afford. I might just very well buy a second hand GS when the gs+ comes out. . . >Sorry, wrong wavelength! ProDOS 16 takes roughly 30 seconds to load and >put me at the command prompt (on my system). I have no knowledge of how >long the GS takes to re-draw the screen, since I don't use it in graphics >mode, but only in text mode. That re-draws fairly quickly :-) Aha! Yeah! Someone who admits it! Ok, I ate it big time when I said it takes a long time for p16 to load. You can tell I'm not *that* hung up about it, I'm willing to admit mistakes! >You sound like one of the people responsible for foisting the GS's "desktop >interface" on the American public! :-) That *that* I *do* take seriously! I would *never& do anything like *that*! :-) :-) >Seriously, there's nothing wrong with that idea, just don't try to sell it to >the world as the "right" way to do things in an environment where the object >is to use the computer in a productive manner... it's strictly an exercise in >personal satisfaction... nothing more! Begod, man! Remember how this got started! I'm not trying to sell it this way, just use it! If you want me to write a dissertation on how to *sell* software to the general public, I'll be glad: Keep it simple, stupid. >(80 columns in software alone?? sheesh... I've only seen 70!) > >What you, and the others who complain about the lack of the features that made >the computers a lot of fun for hackers, are missing is very simple. They are >not built for hackers, but for the general public. Computers are becoming as >commonplace as many other appliances, and the way we see tham, as well as the >way they work, must reflect that. It's too bad, but the "hackers" don't pay >the bills, it's Mr. and Mrs. Jones, down the street, who do that. And what >they want (and need) is something that's as simple and easy to use as the rest >of their household appliances. The same goes for the business world. A >computer that is slightly less "hackable", but a lot easier to use, will be >much more productive than the other way around. Trust me!! There are a lot >more people who *NEED* to run AppleWorks (or MacWrite) than there are who >*WANT* to run ORCA/M!! I'm getting a little lost rying to figgure out who's who here. I think that's you above. But I might as well have written it. I very much agree, Computers are more and more like VCR's every day. Checkmate said they had less than 50 orders for the 65816 addon to their memory card. . .But what a *fun* little hackers toy! >UUCP: [ ihnp4 cbosgd sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!pro-exchange!rich Sean Kamath PS Folks, let's try to keep business and pleasure apart. I don't hack to make money, I hack because it's fun. If I'm gonna sell the code, it'll be the best, more easily usable that I can write, believe me! -- UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs ihnp4}!tektronix!reed!kamath CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET || BITNET: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.BITNET ARPA: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.CS.PSU.EDU US Snail: 3934 SE Boise, Portland, OR 97202-3126 (I hate 4 line .sigs!)