4 ms·
This question seems to point in this direction of changing our shell syntax from `vo` to `ov`, based on Jef Raskin's Humane Interface http://ux.stackexchange.co
by mitchtbaum 11y ago
This question seems to point in this direction of changing our shell syntax from `vo` to `ov`, based on Jef Raskin's Humane Interface http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/48051/how-to-extend-the-noun-verb-paradigm-to-multiple-nouns http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/48051/how-to-extend-th... .. I imagine pluggable shell grammars would allow open ended exploration this way.
- agumonkey 11y agoI see this strongly related to many combinators in FP too. (system command arguments) flip -> (system arguments command) curry -> (system arguments) command # and for the humane touch: thread (system (completing-read)) (completing-read) etc etc Oh, and BTW, GUIs didn't buy ergonomy, sometimes you need to open an application then the data (aka /tweet "bla"), early systems had a simple 1:1 map 'type' 'program' with an 'open-with' intermediate. Then they added 1:N ... One day it will be a tiny Hindley-Milner unifier ;)