3 ms·

Well, if we are talking about computer interfaces, the more sophisticated graphic and music programs have some kind of scripting capabilities. Think Photoshop,

by hernan7 16y ago

Well, if we are talking about computer interfaces, the more sophisticated graphic and music programs have some kind of scripting capabilities. Think Photoshop, AutoCAD, C-Music... If you are talking about computer vs non-computer interfaces, yes, you are not going to play a piano concert with a mouse either.

jacobolus 16y ago
Who said anything about a mouse? The three interfaces I was thinking about were (a) a piano (that is, the keys and pedals), (b) a brush, a canvas, and some tubes of paint, and (c) a joystick and a few walls of dials and switches and buttons. If you want to put things directly in a computer, you probably want a digital piano keyboard, a graphics tablet, and a joystick + keyboard. Scripting it is an alternative way to interact with, e.g., Photoshop, but you wouldn’t want to “paint” a digital picture by typing in some JavaScript to direct it.
- bad_user 16y ago
  > but you wouldn’t want to “paint” a digital picture by typing in some JavaScript to direct it A painting you cannot, but the architecture of a building is better if it's built by using a CLI interface ... because you need control over every detail of your construction. Just look at AutoCAD sometimes. Also, for playing on a piano you first need to read a sheet of music that describes your melody.
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    > [...] the architecture of a building is better if it's built by using a CLI interface [...] Bullshit. The architecture of buildings is refined from models made in clay, drawings made on paper, people walking around the physical site, and annotations to photographs. Eventually, the building is realized with cranes and hammers and two-by-fours and drywall. There’s potentially one step in there where each part is precisely specified numerically, and you could maybe make that step easier by typing into a CLI. But saying that’s “the interface”, or “a better interface” to the design or construction of the building is an almost impossibly myopic analysis.

by hernan7 16y ago

jacobolus 16y ago

Who said anything about a mouse? The three interfaces I was thinking about were (a) a piano (that is, the keys and pedals), (b) a brush, a canvas, and some tubes of paint, and (c) a joystick and a few walls of dials and switches and buttons. If you want to put things directly in a computer, you probably want a digital piano keyboard, a graphics tablet, and a joystick + keyboard. Scripting it is an alternative way to interact with, e.g., Photoshop, but you wouldn’t want to “paint” a digital picture by typing in some JavaScript to direct it.

bad_user 16y ago
> but you wouldn’t want to “paint” a digital picture by typing in some JavaScript to direct it A painting you cannot, but the architecture of a building is better if it's built by using a CLI interface ... because you need control over every detail of your construction. Just look at AutoCAD sometimes. Also, for playing on a piano you first need to read a sheet of music that describes your melody.
- jacobolus 16y ago
  > [...] the architecture of a building is better if it's built by using a CLI interface [...] Bullshit. The architecture of buildings is refined from models made in clay, drawings made on paper, people walking around the physical site, and annotations to photographs. Eventually, the building is realized with cranes and hammers and two-by-fours and drywall. There’s potentially one step in there where each part is precisely specified numerically, and you could maybe make that step easier by typing into a CLI. But saying that’s “the interface”, or “a better interface” to the design or construction of the building is an almost impossibly myopic analysis.