From: "s.ross" <cwdinfo@...>
Date: 2009-08-06T15:04:11+09:00
Subject: Re: How Come Ruby is Text-Oriented?

--Apple-Mail-23-648506354
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Aug 5, 2009, at 9:07 AM, David Masover wrote:

> On Wednesday 05 August 2009 03:58:34 am Mike Stephens wrote:
>> David Masover wrote:
>>> You can see some of that with Visual Basic, though it isn't truly
>>> "visual" in
>>> the sense being discussed here
>>
>> Visual Basic is a good example of an attempt to be more integrated -
>> automatically naming methods, syntax help, screen painting, debuggers
>> etc. I guess all these are available for Ruby but it's a bit like
>> building a plane in your garage just from some drawings, rather than
>> picking it up from the salesman.
>
> On the other hand, Visual Basic also requires these things. At the  
> very least,
> I know of no way to write a simple console app in Visual Basic, and  
> even if I
> could, I doubt it would be very portable.
>
> Also, I would argue the main advantage ruby has here is syntax that  
> doesn't
> suck. I can say this with some confidence, as I don't know anyone  
> who actually
> prefers VB, and the only people who really seem down on Ruby syntax  
> are either
> people sophisticated enough to actually critique syntax design, or  
> they just
> prefer Lisp.
>
>> I doubt visual systems are faster than an expert textual programmer  
>> but
>> it's interesting that the expert is still the focus of attention
>
> I think it's mostly because this is the kind of thing that demands  
> expertise.
>
> Put another way: Specific programming, like Excel or Access, can be  
> made
> accessible. General-purpose programming does require a bit of an  
> expert -- to
> take everyone's favorite analogy, it's possible that building real  
> software is
> like building a car engine -- for the most part, you're talking  
> about experts
> and enthusiasts. No one's going to build a car in their garage, just  
> to take
> them down the block and avoid buying a real car.
>
>> Mind you, I don't know why I'm saying this - all our jobs are going  
>> to
>> India as it is; we don't want to lose any more.
>
> I think for the same reason I would -- to improve things generally.  
> To advance
> the state of the art. Maybe we'll lose our jobs, and have to invent  
> new ones,
> but overall, over time, things get better.
>
> One of the ways things get better is by eliminating jobs we don't  
> need. Hiring
> a secretary just to look pretty and type is pretty much obsolete,  
> now that
> _everyone_ can type.
>
> I don't think it can be done, easily. I think that every attempt at  
> it is a
> disaster waiting to happen. Here's an example:
>
> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Customer-Friendly_System.aspx
>
> More relevantly, even tools you might consider sane, like a  
> spreadsheet,
> inevitably get horribly abused:
>
> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Excel_Worm.aspx

The question, "where's the UI?" (paraphrasing) that began this thread  
makes me reflect on a day at the office when some new Canon copiers  
were delivered. Mind you, I'm standing around with a bunch of guys who  
build compilers and stuff for a living. Above room temperature IQ.

The service tech fires up the machine and proudly points out all the  
new user friendly icons. One of the devs looks and the service tech  
and then at the other devs and says, "This sucks. There isn't a  
command line interface."

All in the eye of the beholder, eh?
--Apple-Mail-23-648506354--