4 ms·

Does it need any UX innovation? It's for entering text and control characters, what else does it need to do? I certainly can't think of a time I've ever said "

Does it need any UX innovation? It's for entering text and control characters, what else does it need to do? I certainly can't think of a time I've ever said "you know what my terminal needs? CSS!" and I have a browser to render webpages. They also seem to be unclear the difference between a terminal and a shell.

sime2009 10y ago
> Does it need any UX innovation? It's for entering text and control characters, what else does it need to do? It could, for example let you operate and reuse the text it just displayed: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/master/docs/edit_direct.gif https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/mas... or even provide a command to let you reuse previous output, such as here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/master/docs/from_command.gif https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/mas... More information and an implementation can be found here: https://github.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/blob/master/docs/tour.md https://github.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/blob/master/docs/t...
- deadbunny 10y ago
  So you can rewrite terminal output (really? I know people like rewriting history in git but in you terminal?) and emulate `echo`?
  - sime2009 10y ago
    The point in these examples is that it is often very useful to be able to reuse the previous output to craft another command, or to work in a more iterative way by massaging the text and getting feedback along the way.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      Isn't that what the pipe operator is for?
      - sime2009 10y ago
        True, the classic shell tools like the pipe can do a lot of this. But there are important differences. Firstly, to use the pipe you need to know in advance which output you want to keep/capture when you run the command. (e.g. by redirecting into a tmp file or using a pipe directly.) In this terminal you can decide afterwards if you want to do something else with previous output. Another difference is that this works across tabs, sessions and machines, but the classic pipe doesn't. It makes your interactive shell a lot more interactive. Classic pipes etc still work as expected too, so you are feel to mix and match.
lhnz 10y ago
I don't think there needs to be a discussion and central planning over whether there 'needs to be UX innovation'. It however does make it easier which increases the chances of useful innovation occurring naturally. * * * When software moved first from the shell to the desktop and then from the shell to the browser it became less accessible and less interoperable. Why shouldn't we be able to one day pipe Unix tools directly into our Web apps?
- deadbunny 10y ago
  You can, you use APIs.
  - lhnz 10y ago
    I wrote a reply to you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12655745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12655745 You can't do what I'm suggesting already. You're thinking of sending data to backend APIs which is completely different from sending data into a visualisation function.
markmontymark 10y ago
> "you know what my terminal needs? CSS!" Actually, editing colors in my term... I could use some CSS there.

sime2009 10y ago

> Does it need any UX innovation? It's for entering text and control characters, what else does it need to do? It could, for example let you operate and reuse the text it just displayed: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/master/docs/edit_direct.gif https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/mas... or even provide a command to let you reuse previous output, such as here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/master/docs/from_command.gif https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/mas... More information and an implementation can be found here: https://github.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/blob/master/docs/tour.md https://github.com/sedwards2009/extraterm/blob/master/docs/t...

deadbunny 10y ago
So you can rewrite terminal output (really? I know people like rewriting history in git but in you terminal?) and emulate `echo`?
- sime2009 10y ago
  The point in these examples is that it is often very useful to be able to reuse the previous output to craft another command, or to work in a more iterative way by massaging the text and getting feedback along the way.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Isn't that what the pipe operator is for?
    - sime2009 10y ago
      True, the classic shell tools like the pipe can do a lot of this. But there are important differences. Firstly, to use the pipe you need to know in advance which output you want to keep/capture when you run the command. (e.g. by redirecting into a tmp file or using a pipe directly.) In this terminal you can decide afterwards if you want to do something else with previous output. Another difference is that this works across tabs, sessions and machines, but the classic pipe doesn't. It makes your interactive shell a lot more interactive. Classic pipes etc still work as expected too, so you are feel to mix and match.

lhnz 10y ago

I don't think there needs to be a discussion and central planning over whether there 'needs to be UX innovation'. It however does make it easier which increases the chances of useful innovation occurring naturally. * * * When software moved first from the shell to the desktop and then from the shell to the browser it became less accessible and less interoperable. Why shouldn't we be able to one day pipe Unix tools directly into our Web apps?

deadbunny 10y ago
You can, you use APIs.
- lhnz 10y ago
  I wrote a reply to you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12655745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12655745 You can't do what I'm suggesting already. You're thinking of sending data to backend APIs which is completely different from sending data into a visualisation function.

markmontymark 10y ago

> "you know what my terminal needs? CSS!" Actually, editing colors in my term... I could use some CSS there.