Re: Switch to .ruby extension? [OT]

Ben Giddings wrote:

[snip]

> Tyler Zesiger wrote:
> 
>> Someone once told me to "RTFM" when I couldn't figure out how to work 
>> a *nix text editor. I felt insulted, that he insinuated that *I* was 
>> the one with the problem, not the text editor. In fact, text editors 
>> are dang near the oldest software technology we have. I've used 
>> dozens, maybe even hundreds of them, and not once have I ever had to 
>> "RTFM" before starting to use it, because they've all adopted the same 
>> intuitive UI conventions that have worked well for a decade - Except 
>> for *nix editors. They're 20 years out-of-date.
> 
> 
> Unix editors are not "out of date", they're just different.  Saying that 
> Unix editors are out of date is like saying that Chinese is out of date. 
>  So many countries now use a roman alphabet, that China should "get with 
> the times" and use a roman character set, and complaining that it's hard 
> to read Chinese.

Actually, Unix editors aren't different - they're the same as every 
other text editor was 20 years ago. That is to say, obsolete. (or should 
I say obsol33t?)

It's ironic you should sarcastically mention Chinese as being out of 
date, because that's *exactly* how it's viewed in China. China has 
always had a literacy problem because the Chinese language, the 
characters specifically, were just too difficult to master. So, in 
modern times, the Chinese government has pushed for it to be simplified 
in an effort to improve literacy rates. It's impossible to build a 
technologically advanced populace when the primary barrier to entry 
isn't higher education, it's mastering your own language.

> I agree, the first time you use vi or emacs you'll definitely need a 
> manual close by or you'll be completely lost.  On the other hand, how 
> many career programmers do you know that use Notepad as their primary 
> editor?

I prefer TextPad. I don't think anyone uses Notepad anymore, not for 10 
years at least. Your comparing to something that's long since been 
superceded.

> The ideal for usability is something that has a gradual learning curve, 
> and has extremely advanced features that are slowly exposed.  Very 
> things meet that ideal, however.
> 
> Notepad has an extremely shallow learning curve, but it plateaus very 
> quickly.  Emacs and vi have very steep learning curves, but it could be 
> argued that they never plateau.

I don't think having a shallow learning curve means it can't be 
sophisticated. We're talking about text editors here, it's the easiest 
work you can possibly do with a computer, it almost takes effort to 
figure out how to make it hard to do.

In any case, when I open up textpad, or any of the thousands of other 
modern text editors, it works just like notepad until I dig into the 
menu options. Typing letters makes new letters, using backspace or 
delete gets rid of them.

[snip]

>> If a black screen with a blinking cursor is not cryptic, I don't know 
>> what is. Windows has a "Start" menu. Why can't the command line say 
>> "type 'man' for help" the first few times it boots up? I can't tell 
>> you the grief I suffered in the IRC chans when I first asked for help. 
>> All people would say is simply "man". What is "man"? I didn't know.
> 
> 
> Oh, it can!  It would be really easy to modify the shell startup files 
> to print this sort of message out, or to set up a bunch of useful 
> aliases.  By default, 'zsh' tries to correct you when you mistype 
> something.  Isn't that friendly?

That's just great, I spend a month figuring out how the OS works, then 
another month figuring out how to do that, and I've accomplished nothing 
with my time, and by the time I'm done, I no longer need what I've just 
spent so much time and money doing. Oh, and the best part is, once I'm 
done doing all that, and I no longer need it for myself, and I've lost 2 
months worth of working time, I can't recoup my losses because of the 
GPL...(this thread will never die if someone replies to this).

> The thing is, people who care about usability have focused on the 
> graphical environment.  The nice thing about open source, however, is 
> that you're free to fix anything you feel is open.
> 
> If you think that the default shell startup files should print out a 
> page of introductory text explaining how to use the shell, create those 
> files, and either find a distribution that wants to use them, or start 
> your own 'CommandlineFriendly' distribution.  If it really bothers you, 
> but you're not willing to put any time into fixing it, then why are you 
> complaining?

Let's assume for the time being that I'm a user, not a Unix hacker, and 
that I wouldn't even know where to begin.

> However, knowing that a commandline is difficult, why would you start 
> using it unprepared?  There are lots of books out there that will help 
> you learn Unix, so why not use them?
> 
> To me, complaining about the user-unfriendliness of the commandline is 
> like complaining about the user-unfriendliness of a jet cockpit.  It 
> probably could be made much more intuitive, on the other hand, the vast 
> majority of people who find themselves in jet cockpits are experienced 
> pilots.  Rather than needing a simple, friendly interface, they need 
> something that gives them full control.

Another ironic comment, just like the one about the Chinese language. 
Have you ever flown a multimillion-dollar, incredibly sophisticated, US 
military jet fighter? They're designed to be very easy to use, even 
under the most stressful circumstances (like moments before death). It's 
designed to be as simple to use as possible, with the UI intervening at 
every step. Nothing of the power and sophistication is lost in making it 
user-friendly, but quite a lot is gained. The pilot can still adjust 
every parameter on that machine, without interference from the UI, 
simply because it's well designed.

> Anyhow, this is either trolling or just way offtopic, so I say we stop now.
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
>