4 ms·

Yeesh. The picture in readme is one running a fake program I was using for testing. If you'll notice, none of the options particularly make sense -- heck, the

Yeesh. The picture in readme is one running a fake program I was using for testing. If you'll notice, none of the options particularly make sense -- heck, the output of the program (shown toward the bottom of the readme) is "printing message at: {hash}" If you take another look at the readme, you'll see that it supports `choice` style params. Which reads in the options available and presents them to the user via a dropdown. So, friendly options are a'plenty! :)

jodrellblank 12y ago
If you'll notice, none of the options particularly make sense That's why I thought it was wrapping a real Linux command line program. ;) If you're wrapping a CLI, there's not much more you can do than take all the CLI options and shove them into a 1990's style window peppered with options. But it's not helping anything - anyone who knows what the options are and do, and who is not put-off by heaps of options, is likely fine with the CLI version. Anyone who is offput by heaps of options isn't going to want to face them in CLI or GUI versions. And anyone who doesn't like facing them, but who can deal with it, will wrap the CLI in a shell script that specifies the options they use most often and hides the rest. The whole thing is missing how and why CLI and GUI programs are different. Chrome isn't a wrapper for WGET, Finder and Explorer are not wrappers for ls/mv/cd, and PhotoShop is not a wrapper screen full of toggle and dropdown options around ImageMagick.
- goostavos 12y ago
  Hmm.. Guess we just have different experiences with the user base this is targeting.