3 ms·

We acquired language so that we could express ourselves better than we could pointing and grunting. Learning a new word was always tricky- we could sometimes mo

by geocar 7y ago

We acquired language so that we could express ourselves better than we could pointing and grunting. Learning a new word was always tricky- we could sometimes model it with existing words we already knew, but sometimes we would only learn it by practicing its use in different ways to see what works. When we might meet another person with another language, we may resort (at some point) to pointing and grunting again, but knowing language we feel the pains trying to convey anything beyond the most basic wants and wishes when resorting to such a crude tool. So it is with text-based interfaces like unix. I learned unix over thirty years ago, and thirty years of practice with a language gives me a great deal of comfort learning the occasional new word in unix. Conversely, every time I point and grunt, I don't feel like it's an even remotely "acceptable level of productivity". I do however think these TUI things are abominations combining the worst of both worlds.

gmfawcett 7y ago
Surely TUIs for editing text (nano, vi, emacs) are better than using something like `ed`. There's something to be said for having two dimensions to navigate in!
- smhenderson 7y ago
  Not the parent but I took his comment to be a response to a comment above that mentioned DOS apps that had menus, used standard function keys, had "form controls" (e.g. buttons, lists), etc. I think of a TUI not so much as a 2D text interface but more like text interfaces that work with a mouse, use similar constructs as GUI's like menus and form controls and standardize on conventions for displaying information in a uniform way across different applications. Like I said, not the parent, so I may be wrong but there's my two cents...
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Vim still qualifies as a TUI under that definition (since it supports using the mouse to select text, change or resize windows, etc), though I think Vi would not.
    - smhenderson 7y ago
      Agreed, although I'm glad Bram, et el. have not tried to add a text based "toolbar" or menu to Vim like in GVim. But yeah, to this day after using Vim for years and years I still get a little surprised when I absent mindedly click on a Vim session in a terminal window and it moves the focus to whatever buffer I happened to click on. I'm so used to ^W-^W that I forget this is even possible. Same with moving the cursor, selecting text, scrolling up and down, etc...
  - gmfawcett 7y ago
    Ah, that might be what he meant. Still not sure I agree, but it makes more sense than the "real men use ed" alternative! :)
  - cmroanirgo 7y ago
    There is le editor. F10 brings up a menu. Shortcuts all around. It's nearly like an old turbo c/ pascal app, but it's available with a simple apt install le.
perl4ever 7y ago
I've read many comments like yours over the years, but I've never understood how a GUI precludes using a language, whereas a text based interface means giving up the features of a GUI. I wonder if there are many people that are as young or younger than the personal computer, who are stuck on the idea that a GUI is somehow inferior. Because I was about 7 when the first ones were available, so anything before that seemed like an obsolete relic.
- geocar 7y ago
  I think you're trying to read me too narrowly and make a strawman out of what I said: My finding incredible value in text doesn't mean that I see no value in pointing and grunting. Besides the example I gave (having no common language), another good use is when precision isn't desired: I can freehand draw with a greater approximate precision than I can write a program to draw what I have in-mind. There are others as well. But our grandparent poster said: > > > GUI and mouse-based interfaces have the advantage of not requiring you to remember how to use a program. ... Is it even worth it to waste your precious (human) memory space in such a thing? And my point is, if I spend my time learning a graphical workflow, I will undoubtedly have wasted it, for learning a textual workflow isn't much more work and the knowledge will pay dividends. I believe I am not unique in these regards, so yes, I don't think it's just worth it to me, but to lone_haxx0r (and you) as well. Here's an example: I watched a graphic designer once doing a lot of work manipulating assets. He had spent the last hour translating all these artefacts for the web, so over the next 5 minutes or so, I learned some new unix words and wrote a little shell script to do that translation. The script ran quickly taking maybe another minute or so to do what would've been at least another hour of work the other way. > stuck on the idea that a GUI is somehow inferior. A GUI (and these TUI) will always require a coding of every workflow, and that workflow is undoubtedly written in text: Despite many efforts over many decades to tell the computer what to do purely graphically, we haven't begun to approach within an order of magnitude, the precision and productivity of textual interface. It's not turtles all-the-way-down! So yes, it's definitely inferior in this way.

by geocar 7y ago

gmfawcett 7y ago

Surely TUIs for editing text (nano, vi, emacs) are better than using something like `ed`. There's something to be said for having two dimensions to navigate in!

smhenderson 7y ago
Not the parent but I took his comment to be a response to a comment above that mentioned DOS apps that had menus, used standard function keys, had "form controls" (e.g. buttons, lists), etc. I think of a TUI not so much as a 2D text interface but more like text interfaces that work with a mouse, use similar constructs as GUI's like menus and form controls and standardize on conventions for displaying information in a uniform way across different applications. Like I said, not the parent, so I may be wrong but there's my two cents...
- darkpuma 7y ago
  Vim still qualifies as a TUI under that definition (since it supports using the mouse to select text, change or resize windows, etc), though I think Vi would not.
  - smhenderson 7y ago
    Agreed, although I'm glad Bram, et el. have not tried to add a text based "toolbar" or menu to Vim like in GVim. But yeah, to this day after using Vim for years and years I still get a little surprised when I absent mindedly click on a Vim session in a terminal window and it moves the focus to whatever buffer I happened to click on. I'm so used to ^W-^W that I forget this is even possible. Same with moving the cursor, selecting text, scrolling up and down, etc...
- gmfawcett 7y ago
  Ah, that might be what he meant. Still not sure I agree, but it makes more sense than the "real men use ed" alternative! :)
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  There is le editor. F10 brings up a menu. Shortcuts all around. It's nearly like an old turbo c/ pascal app, but it's available with a simple apt install le.

perl4ever 7y ago

I've read many comments like yours over the years, but I've never understood how a GUI precludes using a language, whereas a text based interface means giving up the features of a GUI. I wonder if there are many people that are as young or younger than the personal computer, who are stuck on the idea that a GUI is somehow inferior. Because I was about 7 when the first ones were available, so anything before that seemed like an obsolete relic.

geocar 7y ago
I think you're trying to read me too narrowly and make a strawman out of what I said: My finding incredible value in text doesn't mean that I see no value in pointing and grunting. Besides the example I gave (having no common language), another good use is when precision isn't desired: I can freehand draw with a greater approximate precision than I can write a program to draw what I have in-mind. There are others as well. But our grandparent poster said: > > > GUI and mouse-based interfaces have the advantage of not requiring you to remember how to use a program. ... Is it even worth it to waste your precious (human) memory space in such a thing? And my point is, if I spend my time learning a graphical workflow, I will undoubtedly have wasted it, for learning a textual workflow isn't much more work and the knowledge will pay dividends. I believe I am not unique in these regards, so yes, I don't think it's just worth it to me, but to lone_haxx0r (and you) as well. Here's an example: I watched a graphic designer once doing a lot of work manipulating assets. He had spent the last hour translating all these artefacts for the web, so over the next 5 minutes or so, I learned some new unix words and wrote a little shell script to do that translation. The script ran quickly taking maybe another minute or so to do what would've been at least another hour of work the other way. > stuck on the idea that a GUI is somehow inferior. A GUI (and these TUI) will always require a coding of every workflow, and that workflow is undoubtedly written in text: Despite many efforts over many decades to tell the computer what to do purely graphically, we haven't begun to approach within an order of magnitude, the precision and productivity of textual interface. It's not turtles all-the-way-down! So yes, it's definitely inferior in this way.