Re: [dev] Interesting post about X11

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Connor Lane Smith <cls_AT_lubutu.com> wrote:
> You're seriously claiming that psychology doesn't come into an
> individual's interaction with tools? Have you ever read anything on
> psychology?

Yup. And you're overstating the importance of inappropriate
application of a masturbatory niche branch of a soft science.

>> I think you've mixed up the sides in that match.  vi and Sam lie on
>> one end of that road, and Acme and Emacs are at the other end.
>
> Vi is a modal clusterfuck. I mean, the crazy shit that thing does?
> It's different on every machine. Even Bill Joy doesn't use vi anymore.

Sorry, some of us don't mind modal interfaces. I stick to one vi
implementation across systems, and it works great.

>> I note you dismiss ed, probably because of its underdesigned "User
>> Experience."  I use ed more often in my work than vi and sam combined.
>
> I dropped ed for sam -d. But you know what? One could say, "I use DOS
> more than Unix!" Your using X more than Y means jack.

Even Bill Joy doesn't use vi anymore.

>> I agree that programmers need well-designed
>> interaction
>
> I'm glad you agree. Well, turns out programmers should "give a shit
> about 'user experience'" then. That's cleared that one up.

You're conflating your ill-defined garbage concept with 'interaction'
in general. No thought to 'user experience' needs to be given.
Programmers should design tools to be useful to themselves. Anyone
who doesn't like the interface can change it. Anyone who doesn't like
the user interface and can't (or won't) change it can get stuffed.

> (Perhaps we should take this off-list if you want to continue it, I
> suspect it bores spectators.)

Okay, I'll stop. The idiots advocating cramming everything into web
browsers seem to have shut up, so the thread is better off now anyway.

-- 
# Kurt H Maier