3 ms·

It needn't be this way: we /could/ have a well defined set of actions encompassed by an API and the GUI just allows one to tinker with the API, and we could hav

It needn't be this way: we /could/ have a well defined set of actions encompassed by an API and the GUI just allows one to tinker with the API, and we could have a detailed audit history of every API call that was made, and with which parameters, regardless of whether it originated from the GUI or from a script. This also means scripting support, of course. Finally you should be able to re-play a portion of history. This is approximately how photoshop works, as far as I remember. Perhaps it's slightly worse.

Twisell 9y ago
Recently I made a photoshop macro to crop border some documents in a standard way for our graphic designers. It took me 5 minutes to produce a working proof of concept with an approximate workflow... But it took me 2 more hours to figure out how to change numericals parameters to precisely set the initial selection box instead of defining it imprecisely by hand. The most frustrating part being that the GUI displayed perfectly theses parameters but offer no f..ing way to edit them. Export/re-import the macro to plain text for edition was not an easy option because of proprietary binary format. GUI are nice but when it obfuscate scripting capabilities it’s just another way to bind you to a plateform by making you learn plateform specific skills to work around limitations instead of learning universal coding principles. There are good GUI around however. Just have a look at QGIS project for instance, it can be used purely as a GUI but offer a lot of opportunities to input custom formulas when needed for small adjustment. Heavy scripting extensibility is also possible but more hidden from basic user. (NB: for Photoshop macro, I wasn’t using the latest CC release so I don’t know if it’s still the case)
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  Sure but I think you example shows that even a gui that produces the nicest possible text file for an exported macro is going to leave one with two activities; using the gui to accomplish the task and editing the output macro to create a batch for a repeated activity. The command line allows these two activities to be closer to one activity and so when you base your skill set on using the command line, you get both things and get easy switch between them. It seem clear that for the automating of little tasks, this is kind of necessary.
  - Twisell 9y ago
    Have a look at QGIS if you can. For me they really achieved the perfect balance. Some task are a hundred time easier with GUI like refining layout and trying out graphical style. But you can use variable and formulaes pretty much everywhere to override manual control using data defined attributes. And when you need to you can run the application without GUI for heavy scripting. But still the two approach are fully compatible so you can easily define a layout with the GUI and reuse it via CLI for instance. Maybe it’s common and I’m just a goof but this software workflow really impress me.

Twisell 9y ago

Recently I made a photoshop macro to crop border some documents in a standard way for our graphic designers. It took me 5 minutes to produce a working proof of concept with an approximate workflow... But it took me 2 more hours to figure out how to change numericals parameters to precisely set the initial selection box instead of defining it imprecisely by hand. The most frustrating part being that the GUI displayed perfectly theses parameters but offer no f..ing way to edit them. Export/re-import the macro to plain text for edition was not an easy option because of proprietary binary format. GUI are nice but when it obfuscate scripting capabilities it’s just another way to bind you to a plateform by making you learn plateform specific skills to work around limitations instead of learning universal coding principles. There are good GUI around however. Just have a look at QGIS project for instance, it can be used purely as a GUI but offer a lot of opportunities to input custom formulas when needed for small adjustment. Heavy scripting extensibility is also possible but more hidden from basic user. (NB: for Photoshop macro, I wasn’t using the latest CC release so I don’t know if it’s still the case)

joe_the_user 9y ago
Sure but I think you example shows that even a gui that produces the nicest possible text file for an exported macro is going to leave one with two activities; using the gui to accomplish the task and editing the output macro to create a batch for a repeated activity. The command line allows these two activities to be closer to one activity and so when you base your skill set on using the command line, you get both things and get easy switch between them. It seem clear that for the automating of little tasks, this is kind of necessary.
- Twisell 9y ago
  Have a look at QGIS if you can. For me they really achieved the perfect balance. Some task are a hundred time easier with GUI like refining layout and trying out graphical style. But you can use variable and formulaes pretty much everywhere to override manual control using data defined attributes. And when you need to you can run the application without GUI for heavy scripting. But still the two approach are fully compatible so you can easily define a layout with the GUI and reuse it via CLI for instance. Maybe it’s common and I’m just a goof but this software workflow really impress me.