jdarcy@pinocchio.encore.com (Jeff d'Arcy) (12/24/89)
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau): > There are easier graphics environments to program around than the Mac. The > moral of the story is that the Mac is hell on the software developer, but > heaven on the novice user. The point is not whether the Mac provides a good programming environment. What I saw in the post to which I responded was a hacker whining about how it took so much of his goddamn precious time to develop an application on the Mac (as compared to UNIX). There was no mention of which platform did more for the *users* in terms of training time or productivity, and that was what got me going. The "technological priesthood" to which I referred includes all programmers who fail to realize that the purpose of their work is to make it possible for non-programmers to do *their* jobs either better or faster. There are far too many techno-weenies out there who think that the users exist for the programmer's benefit, and who are more interested in playing with the "sexiest" technology than in producing anything useful. Many of the people who've expressed dislike or disdain for graphical interfaces have argued that they make programmers' lives more difficult, as if that were some sort of crime. The poor babies! How dare we demand that they take time away from their pursuit of the Ultimate Hack to make things easier for the mere mortal *users* who sign their paychecks? There's nothing wrong with hacking, but don't start crying when people expect you to *earn* your pay when you'd rather go play. For those who don't like to hear such criticism and can't read .sigs, I'd like to explain where I'm coming from. My business card says "Engineer", not "Manager" or "Sales Representative", and that's what I am. I'm not a student, I'm not a naive user, and I'm not an economist; I'm an ENGINEER. As such, I'm not saying these things from some semi-informed external perspective. I'm down in the trenches, hacking all sorts of code, and I damn well know how good it feels to pull off some nifty technical stunt. HOWEVER, I realize that nifty hacks are not what I'm paid for, nor should they be. I am paid to make systems *usable* and, like any true engineer (as opposed to outgrown hobbyists) I believe that the true measure of my ability is not how *amazing* my work is, but how *functional* it is. If I want amazement I should work on leading edge projects, not try to apply leading edge technology where it may not be appropriate. After all, who needs an FDDI interface to a 100 cps daisy-wheel printer? This is getting away from comp.sys.mac, and I apologize. I just think that *useability* is a very important part of what makes a Mac unique, and a lot of people don't seem to appreciate the power of that idea. Jeff d'Arcy OS/Network Software Engineer jdarcy@encore.com If Encore endorsed my opinions, they couldn't afford to pay me
tay@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Mike Taylor) (12/27/89)
Aren't programmers also computer users? What is wrong with making some improvement on the Mac programming environment?
ADAM.FRIX@f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (ADAM FRIX) (12/27/89)
Jeff Darcy writes:
JD> The "technological priesthood" to which I referred includes
JD> all programmers who fail to realize that the purpose of
JD> their work is to make it possible for non-programmers to do
JD> *their* jobs either better or faster. There are far too many
JD> techno-weenies out there who think that the users exist for
JD> the programmer's benefit, and who are more interested in
JD> playing with the "sexiest" technology than in producing
JD> anything useful. Many of the people who've expressed dislike
JD> or disdain for graphical interfaces have argued that they
JD> make programmers' lives more difficult, as if that were some
JD> sort of crime. The poor babies! How dare we demand that they
JD> take time away from their pursuit of the Ultimate Hack to
JD> make things easier for the mere mortal *users* who sign
JD> their paychecks? There's nothing wrong with hacking, but
JD> don't start crying when people expect you to *earn* your pay
JD> when you'd rather go play.
JD>
JD> I'm down in the trenches, hacking all sorts of code, and I
JD> damn well know how good it feels to pull off some nifty
JD> technical stunt. HOWEVER, I realize that nifty hacks are not
JD> what I'm paid for, nor should they be. I am paid to make
JD> systems *usable* and, like any true engineer (as opposed to
JD> outgrown hobbyists) I believe that the true measure of my
JD> ability is not how *amazing* my work is, but how
JD> *functional* it is. If I want amazement I should work on
JD> leading edge projects, not try to apply leading edge
JD> technology where it may not be appropriate. After all, who
JD> needs an FDDI interface to a 100 cps daisy-wheel printer?
JD>
JD> I just think that *useability* is a very important part of
JD> what makes a Mac unique, and a lot of people don't seem to
JD> appreciate the power of that idea.
Let me take the time out to mention that as a user, I do indeed appreciate
your efforts in improving your programs for my useability and
productivity. Your statements are right on the button. Might I add that
this goes not only for computer programs but for CD players, televisions,
stereos, etc? When was the last time anyone saw a remote control that was
actually useable? Just because something _can_ be done, does NOT mean
that it _should_ be done, necessarily. Think things out to the end user
level before you do them.
--Adam--
--
ADAM FRIX via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200!ADAM.FRIX
INET: ADAM.FRIX@f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG