in particular I appreciate their using a modern personality test (the NEO-PI) rather than the ubiquitous but outdated (in my opinion at least) MBTI or 16PF.
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on one statement:
Almost everyone who has taken an introductory psychology course in high school or college has heard of B.F. Skinner. Skinner is an important figure in Behaviorism, and developed a learning theory known as Operant Conditioning. Skinner claimed that the frequency of a given behavior is directly linked to whether it is rewarded or punished. If a behavior is rewarded, it is more likely to be repeated. If it is punished, it becomes suppressed.
You will find this repeated in any one given introductory pscyhology text, but this is wrong all the same. Skinner would never have said this. The point is that Skinner defines his procedures functionally. That is to say that he would state that if a behavior's strength or frequency increases after the presentation of a stimulus, then that stimulus can be said to be a reinforcer for that behavior. In common language, a reward is anything that is considered pleasant, but many behaviors can be "rewarded" in thiss sense until you are blue in the face with no apparent effect on the behavior. Within Skinners parlance, a stimulus is a reinforcer only if it works.
In practice, behaviors tend to get repeated also in this cases where they are punished (this is one of the reasons why prison doesn't make people law-abiding). Behavior analysts, when doing behavior modification, tend to reward behaviors that they wish to strengthen, and ignore (in technical terms, extinguish) behaviors that they want to go away. In preparation for a behavior modification, the client needs to be examined to find suitable reinforcers, precicely because people differ and one person's reward can be another person's punishment.
Oh. I thought I made it obvious that that's not what I mean by exciting and radical. By radical, I mean something that is rooted in more recent ideas than the popular paradigms, not radical for radical's sake. By exciting, I mean something that feels good in actual use, not something that's got a lot of colors and sounds.
With a risk of repeating myself, a good user interface is familiar, but that does not have to mean familiar compared to other user interfaces, which seems to be a very common misconception. Rather, it means familiar in the sense that it is rooted in the experiences and the world of the user.
But pretty please, with cream and sugar and a cherry on top, go back to my original article, I think it adresses the issues you are touching and it lists some very interesting reading matters.
There once was a truly innovative new spreadsheet that was only available for the Macintosh called Spreadsheet 2000. It was originally made by Casady & Greene but was handed over to another company when it matured. It came out at the time when the Macintosh almost folded, and is now nearly forgotten.
It was truly amazing. It featured a canvas to which one could paste spreadsheets. Then one could draw relations between sheets, specifying mathematical operations to be done in the relations. Sets of relations could be grouped to build custom relations that worked just like the ones that came with the program. I don't know if it was very intuitive, I know I am no mathematician but I got the hang of it pretty quickly. It felt highly scaleable too.
I wish somebody would implement it for Linux (or the MacOS X:) That would not be innovation either I suppose since the idea is not new, but it sure would be a Good Thing all the same.
Time spent learning a new interface is not productive time.
It is if the new interface actually makes you faster. I address this issue in another slashdot article: Much more is known about user interface design now than ~ twenty years ago when the MacOS first arrived.
Can you point to any examples?
Again, no, and that's a pity. But please read my previous article - I think the questions you pose are answered there.
I'd like to reiterate what I wrote earlier in a similar thread which some moron scored down to -1.
I think people have had enough of user interfaces that are based on the twenty-some years old ideas that Windows, MacOS, Gnome and KDE are based on.
Where are the attempts at trying to create somehting exciting and radical?
It's hard enough to convince a Windows-user that MacOS makes you more productive - the interfaces are so similar that it's possible to approach both MacOS and BeOs with a Windows-infused mind and miss out all the good stuff. It's possible to build a user interface that is both obviously different and obviously better - even with Linux, but it seems to me that the Linux community lacks the competence. I would like to be proven wrong.
I don't buy the argument that Linux has come a very long way in a short amount of time. Well, I am impressed by development speed, but frankly I am a bit distressed by the apparent lack of originality in the Open Source community.
KDE and Gnome are based on the same ideas as Windows and MacOS. Ideas that took a long time to develop - coding them is, apparently, much easier. The same metaphors, the same look-and-feel. User interface design has come a very long way since 1984, but there is an overwhelming paucity of applications.
The arguments for Gnome and KDE are that people want to use metaphors that are familiar, and that's true, but this argument is misunderstood. The metaphors don't need to be familiar from other desktop user interfaces, they can be familiar from any aspect of the user's life!
As an example, in The Humane Interface, Jef Raskin describes a topological user interface where documents and applications are arranged topologically as "cities" and "villages" on a desktop. The user can surf the desktop looking for the right "pile" or "town", zoom in to view details, zoom out to get an overview. This desktop uses recent insights from the behavioral sciences (to be honest to both Raskin and myself, Raskin uses cognitive metaphors, but I am not a cognitive psychologist). This is just one example.
I have earlier defended Alan Cooper's right to his patent on one-click shopping, arguing that even if it is easy to implement, it must have been incredibly difficult to invent or even have somebody code. The same thing shows up, I believe, in Linux - good, new ideas are hard to come by! I was very disappointed by Eazel and Nautilus, for one thing - it was hailed as something new and exciting, but in reality this was just the same old story - twenty year old ideas, just a bit better-looking than the competition.
In order for MacOS X to "win", it's got to beat the Intel platform, which it won't. So Linux still has the chance to win on the most popular platform. But frankly, when I buy my next computer, I'd rather have Mac with OS X than a PC with Linux, unless Linux can be made to come with something that's obviously better than the current metaphor. I can't see how Linux can win the desktops unless the Linux GUI designers make some truly radical moves.
I see a lot of competence on coding there, but it seems that the Open Source community does not appreciate how difficult and competence-demanding it is to innovate in human interface design. Those who have the competence too often are in no position to contribute for free, spending all their time raising families and working. As sort of a piece of advice to Open Source GUI designers, I suggest you drop your coding for a while and read
Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things
Ben Shneiderman's Designing the User Interface
Alan Cooper's The Inmates are Running the Asylum
Jef Raskin's The Humane Interface
If you are familiar with these books and can recommend others in a similar vein, please do tell me!
Microsoft has been a success with vendors because of all the merchandising that goes with it (classes, courses, etc.) one of the reasons why Apple has been a failure with vendors is that because the Macintosh is easier to use, there is less support to sell.
no wonder that Linux is going the same way. it's much easier to make Linux look more difficult, in particular since KDE and Gnome suck so badly.
I am in the process of completing a research report on this very issue. the background is the engineering development project modelling software SimVision, which we have undertaken to modify for use with software development projects.
the answer is yes, but it depends on a lot of things, because programmers are not like other kinds of engineers and software engineering is not like other kinds of engineering, to wit:
programmers should use programming languages they know (if a programmer on the project does not know the relevant programming language, exchange him or her for somebody who does ).
the project should be planned with constant changes in the specifications in mind. There should be clearly defined procedures for handling specification changes.
it is not always true that adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.
it is important that the manager knows how far each programmer has come. Programmers often signal way too late that they won't finish on time. Make clear milestones and follow them up closely!
use programmers who are familiar with several different programming languages and/or paradigms.
programmers who score high on IQ tests are more productive than programmers who score lower. similarly with programmers who score high on conscientiousness on Big-5 oriented personality tests. (there are some important corrilaries, such that there should not be two hi-IQ programmers on the same subteam because they'll never quit arguing about the best way to do something).
good managers finish on time because they cut corners. find out as early as possible which features can be sacrificed
programmers are often not very good at communicating, especially at communicating fears, doubts and possible failures. rewards for being honest early should be emphasized.
it seems that managers improve their estimating skills by experience, so using experiences managers is a good tip.
there's a lot more to it than this of course. unfortunaltely our report is confidential just now.
actually, it's not a matter of _anybody_ being allowed to rip them off - Microsoft is allowed to, and that's because Apple _gave_ them that right in contract.
Jim Carlton's book on Apple gives the story: in order for Microsoft to port their apps to the Mac, they were given the right to copy Apple's look-and-feel. Apple sued because they felt Microsoft went too far in their interpretation of the contract, but they didn't - the contract, ubelieveably, essentially gives Microsoft unrestricted freedom.
the value of genes & disease I don't want to speculate about, but behavior analysis showd years ago (see e.g. behavior analysis web that genetic knowledge would contribute very little to understaning human behavior.
anyone who has invested some time in developing applications that don't make the user look stupid, knows that the efforts behind this are comparable to engineering feats of any magnitude.
it's OK by me if you boycott apple for protecting its design efforts. after all, serious convictions, however ill-founded, deserve to be honred. however, if you still use computers that use processors from Intel, despite the fact that Intel has patents, then you are a bigot.
as far as I recall (and it's all documented in Jim Carlton's book on Apple), Apple sued Microsoft for exploiting an error Apple had made in the license terms. this was after Jobs left Apple.
Apple licensed its look-and-feel to Microsoft to ensure that Microsoft would develop applications that Macintosh users would feel at home in. it may have been a good idea at the time.
Apple never had a chance because the contract spelled out in sufficient detail that Microsoft had an unlimited license to use Apples look-and-feel.
perhaps it would be better if there were two strains of Linux: one for non-geeks with a canonic Linux kernel that changed every three years or so, and one for strain for the geeks exactly as we have now.
this could be implemented in a number of ways, from the top of my head by way of a muliple boot solution. or a "standard" "stable" kernel at all distributsions were obliged to support, or something.
certainly it's possible. but is to doable?
There are lots of ways. The problem described - how to keep people
after they have learned a lot more and become more valuable - can be
attacked by refering to the English management author, R. Meredith
Belbin (see e.g. his company's home
page). (Belbin's ideas are interesting for a number of reasons: he
has a team role theory that in my opinion is more sutiable for
describing teams than the MBTI, and he has a tounge-in-cheek form in
his writing that I think should appeal to Dilbert fans. He refers, for
instance, to something called BS 9000. But I digress.)
Consider two dimensions characterizing an employee:
1. Eligibility (i.e. formal background for doing a job). Those
who take the course in question will hopefully become eligible for
the job. 2. Suitablity (i.e. the attitudes, habits, and other
personality characteristics required). Brought together, one may
discover sense into a pattern:
Eligible & suitableDisappointing
Ideal candidates
move to greener
pastures
Eligible but unsuitableThe real problems
The poor fits are
reluctant to move
and become difficult
Ineligble but SuitableSurprise fits perform
surprisingly well
In the job by
accident, contended
and staying put
Ineligible and unsuitableNo problem
Total misfits leave of
own accord
This in fact coinsides with the much more scientifically valid
writings of Mihaly Csikszetmihalyi (look him up in your favorite
web-bookstore, his most well-known work is called Flow: The
Psychology of Optimal Experience. His thesis is this:
In order for a task to be so interesting as to put the executor of
the task into a state of flow (by some known as Deep Hack
Mode), there must be an optimal mismatch between the skill
that the task requires, and the skill that the executor possessess.
This optimal mismatch is individual. Below this mismatch, the job is
boring, above this mismatch, the job is frustrating.
So what might the employer do? Lots of things of course. Increasing
wages and piling on gravy train benefits are obvious options (and
should not automatically be ruled out by alternatives). But the
employeer (any employer!) who wants to keep his or her staff
should make sure that the job always requires a little bit more. After
training, the employees match the task better. The employer better
make sure the job doesn't match the employees too well!
it must be problematic to be liberal in a republic where the choice of presidents is between an ultraconservative (that would be Gore) and a reactionary (that would be Bush).
but I wonder though - how much impact does the president really have on internal policy? with a 50% attendance, the presidential election cannot have all that much perceived importance to the average US citizen? or?
if, after the recounts are finished, Bush is elected, it's going to be mighty embarrasing to be an American.
I too was of the mind that one-click shopping is so easy to implement that the patent is absurd. but then I worked a bit with some programmers to implement a user interface, and I had a second think coming.
having a programmer (admittedly, they were very bright but not trained in user interface design) implement a user-friendly interface, not adhering to Microsoft's GUI standards and without confirmation buttons for every single move was a task! it seems programmers have a built-in affinity for implementing "Are you sure?"-directions, and that making them not do so is enormously difficult.
from the point of view of a non-programmer, one-click shopping, albeit a technically trivial concept, seems to be a massive intellectual feat, and as such worthy of patenting.
KDE and BASIC: A natural conclusion
on
KBasic
·
· Score: 1
what would be more logical than to complement a bloated and poorly designed user interface with a bloated and poorly designed programming language?
To me (a Mac user since 1984), both Linux and MacOS are valid options depending on purpose. Whereas MacOS is not technically superior, the user interface design is - much more so than Gnome or KDE, which suffer deeply for trying to be look-and-feel-compatible with that disaster of user interface design, Windows.
So what if the Mac is slow and unstable, as long as its design makes me faster and more productive? When I need a GUI, I want something that's good at it, not something that tries very hard and fails.
Linux will be a serious contender to the Macintosh when the KDE and Gnome people learn something about user interface design. It might happen. Then again, it might not.
I never feel that I need a command line interface when I'm on a Mac, as I do when I'm on Windows or Linux (OK, Linux is for those cases when I want the power of command line interfaces, when stability and sheer speed matter, etc).
For gaining control of a Mac there's a lot of stuff one needs to know. Getting under the hood is now problem if one knows how.
I've thought about this for a long time, but lack of spare time has kept me from it: build a machine that can learn. Not from any old learning principles though:
A computer controls a Lego Mindstorms robot. The computer makes the robot move around erratically. By rewarding the robot (program it with appropriate reactions to reinforcers and punishers), make it behave in specific ways.
Or maybe I've just reinvented the tamagochi (sp?;)
In a combined psychology/computer science class, this could be extended to making a computer-based maze-running rat. That would be something I wish I did in High School!
Lisp used to be slow and textbooks used to count at exercizes in advanced mathemathical theorem-proving, but it just isn't like that anymore.
Modern Common Lisp-based systems run fast enough (if you know what you're doing, sometimes faster) than C++, come with advanced graphical interactive environments, are not prohitiviely expensive (demo versions are often fully functional but don't support standalone applications)
Consider the lack of market share a competitive advantage: If you code in Lisp and your competitors code in C++, you have an advantage.
Common Lisp is not Lisp as one might have been used to, either.
The most recent textbooks are good enough to get started and learn.
And finally, programming Common Lisp is fun! Get started, do some programming in your spare time, get some of the recent textbooks and before you know it, you'll use Common Lisp when you can, or let ideas from Common Lisp influence your coding.
Slashdot Mirror
in particular I appreciate their using a modern personality test (the NEO-PI) rather than the ubiquitous but outdated (in my opinion at least) MBTI or 16PF.
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on one statement:
You will find this repeated in any one given introductory pscyhology text, but this is wrong all the same. Skinner would never have said this. The point is that Skinner defines his procedures functionally. That is to say that he would state that if a behavior's strength or frequency increases after the presentation of a stimulus, then that stimulus can be said to be a reinforcer for that behavior. In common language, a reward is anything that is considered pleasant, but many behaviors can be "rewarded" in thiss sense until you are blue in the face with no apparent effect on the behavior. Within Skinners parlance, a stimulus is a reinforcer only if it works.
In practice, behaviors tend to get repeated also in this cases where they are punished (this is one of the reasons why prison doesn't make people law-abiding). Behavior analysts, when doing behavior modification, tend to reward behaviors that they wish to strengthen, and ignore (in technical terms, extinguish) behaviors that they want to go away. In preparation for a behavior modification, the client needs to be examined to find suitable reinforcers, precicely because people differ and one person's reward can be another person's punishment.
nope, as I said, Casady & Greene. Lotus was never into it. look at the link, it's all there.
Oh. I thought I made it obvious that that's not what I mean by exciting and radical. By radical, I mean something that is rooted in more recent ideas than the popular paradigms, not radical for radical's sake. By exciting, I mean something that feels good in actual use, not something that's got a lot of colors and sounds.
With a risk of repeating myself, a good user interface is familiar, but that does not have to mean familiar compared to other user interfaces, which seems to be a very common misconception. Rather, it means familiar in the sense that it is rooted in the experiences and the world of the user.
But pretty please, with cream and sugar and a cherry on top, go back to my original article, I think it adresses the issues you are touching and it lists some very interesting reading matters.
There once was a truly innovative new spreadsheet that was only available for the Macintosh called Spreadsheet 2000. It was originally made by Casady & Greene but was handed over to another company when it matured. It came out at the time when the Macintosh almost folded, and is now nearly forgotten.
It was truly amazing. It featured a canvas to which one could paste spreadsheets. Then one could draw relations between sheets, specifying mathematical operations to be done in the relations. Sets of relations could be grouped to build custom relations that worked just like the ones that came with the program. I don't know if it was very intuitive, I know I am no mathematician but I got the hang of it pretty quickly. It felt highly scaleable too.
I wish somebody would implement it for Linux (or the MacOS X :) That would not be innovation either I suppose since the idea is not new, but it sure would be a Good Thing all the same.
Are you talking about rules that I specify here? Which rules are those?
Time spent learning a new interface is not productive time.
It is if the new interface actually makes you faster. I address this issue in another slashdot article: Much more is known about user interface design now than ~ twenty years ago when the MacOS first arrived.
Can you point to any examples?
Again, no, and that's a pity. But please read my previous article - I think the questions you pose are answered there.
I'd like to reiterate what I wrote earlier in a similar thread which some moron scored down to -1.
I think people have had enough of user interfaces that are based on the twenty-some years old ideas that Windows, MacOS, Gnome and KDE are based on.
Where are the attempts at trying to create somehting exciting and radical?
It's hard enough to convince a Windows-user that MacOS makes you more productive - the interfaces are so similar that it's possible to approach both MacOS and BeOs with a Windows-infused mind and miss out all the good stuff. It's possible to build a user interface that is both obviously different and obviously better - even with Linux, but it seems to me that the Linux community lacks the competence. I would like to be proven wrong.
some jerk then went ahead to prove every single point I made by scoring my submission down by -1.
sometimes I hate being right.
I don't buy the argument that Linux has come a very long way in a short amount of time. Well, I am impressed by development speed, but frankly I am a bit distressed by the apparent lack of originality in the Open Source community.
KDE and Gnome are based on the same ideas as Windows and MacOS. Ideas that took a long time to develop - coding them is, apparently, much easier. The same metaphors, the same look-and-feel. User interface design has come a very long way since 1984, but there is an overwhelming paucity of applications.
The arguments for Gnome and KDE are that people want to use metaphors that are familiar, and that's true, but this argument is misunderstood. The metaphors don't need to be familiar from other desktop user interfaces, they can be familiar from any aspect of the user's life!
As an example, in The Humane Interface, Jef Raskin describes a topological user interface where documents and applications are arranged topologically as "cities" and "villages" on a desktop. The user can surf the desktop looking for the right "pile" or "town", zoom in to view details, zoom out to get an overview. This desktop uses recent insights from the behavioral sciences (to be honest to both Raskin and myself, Raskin uses cognitive metaphors, but I am not a cognitive psychologist). This is just one example.
I have earlier defended Alan Cooper's right to his patent on one-click shopping, arguing that even if it is easy to implement, it must have been incredibly difficult to invent or even have somebody code. The same thing shows up, I believe, in Linux - good, new ideas are hard to come by! I was very disappointed by Eazel and Nautilus, for one thing - it was hailed as something new and exciting, but in reality this was just the same old story - twenty year old ideas, just a bit better-looking than the competition.
In order for MacOS X to "win", it's got to beat the Intel platform, which it won't. So Linux still has the chance to win on the most popular platform. But frankly, when I buy my next computer, I'd rather have Mac with OS X than a PC with Linux, unless Linux can be made to come with something that's obviously better than the current metaphor. I can't see how Linux can win the desktops unless the Linux GUI designers make some truly radical moves.
I see a lot of competence on coding there, but it seems that the Open Source community does not appreciate how difficult and competence-demanding it is to innovate in human interface design. Those who have the competence too often are in no position to contribute for free, spending all their time raising families and working. As sort of a piece of advice to Open Source GUI designers, I suggest you drop your coding for a while and read
If you are familiar with these books and can recommend others in a similar vein, please do tell me!
Microsoft has been a success with vendors because of all the merchandising that goes with it (classes, courses, etc.) one of the reasons why Apple has been a failure with vendors is that because the Macintosh is easier to use, there is less support to sell.
no wonder that Linux is going the same way. it's much easier to make Linux look more difficult, in particular since KDE and Gnome suck so badly.
what is good and what is not good, phaedrus, need we ask of that?
Plato: PhaedrusI am in the process of completing a research report on this very issue. the background is the engineering development project modelling software SimVision, which we have undertaken to modify for use with software development projects.
the answer is yes, but it depends on a lot of things, because programmers are not like other kinds of engineers and software engineering is not like other kinds of engineering, to wit:
it seems that managers improve their estimating skills by experience, so using experiences managers is a good tip.
there's a lot more to it than this of course. unfortunaltely our report is confidential just now.
actually, it's not a matter of _anybody_ being allowed to rip them off - Microsoft is allowed to, and that's because Apple _gave_ them that right in contract.
Jim Carlton's book on Apple gives the story: in order for Microsoft to port their apps to the Mac, they were given the right to copy Apple's look-and-feel. Apple sued because they felt Microsoft went too far in their interpretation of the contract, but they didn't - the contract, ubelieveably, essentially gives Microsoft unrestricted freedom.
the value of genes & disease I don't want to speculate about, but behavior analysis showd years ago (see e.g. behavior analysis web that genetic knowledge would contribute very little to understaning human behavior.
anyone who has invested some time in developing applications that don't make the user look stupid, knows that the efforts behind this are comparable to engineering feats of any magnitude. it's OK by me if you boycott apple for protecting its design efforts. after all, serious convictions, however ill-founded, deserve to be honred. however, if you still use computers that use processors from Intel, despite the fact that Intel has patents, then you are a bigot.
as far as I recall (and it's all documented in Jim Carlton's book on Apple), Apple sued Microsoft for exploiting an error Apple had made in the license terms. this was after Jobs left Apple. Apple licensed its look-and-feel to Microsoft to ensure that Microsoft would develop applications that Macintosh users would feel at home in. it may have been a good idea at the time. Apple never had a chance because the contract spelled out in sufficient detail that Microsoft had an unlimited license to use Apples look-and-feel.
perhaps it would be better if there were two strains of Linux: one for non-geeks with a canonic Linux kernel that changed every three years or so, and one for strain for the geeks exactly as we have now. this could be implemented in a number of ways, from the top of my head by way of a muliple boot solution. or a "standard" "stable" kernel at all distributsions were obliged to support, or something. certainly it's possible. but is to doable?
There are lots of ways. The problem described - how to keep people after they have learned a lot more and become more valuable - can be attacked by refering to the English management author, R. Meredith Belbin (see e.g. his company's home page). (Belbin's ideas are interesting for a number of reasons: he has a team role theory that in my opinion is more sutiable for describing teams than the MBTI, and he has a tounge-in-cheek form in his writing that I think should appeal to Dilbert fans. He refers, for instance, to something called BS 9000. But I digress.)
Consider two dimensions characterizing an employee: 1. Eligibility (i.e. formal background for doing a job). Those who take the course in question will hopefully become eligible for the job. 2. Suitablity (i.e. the attitudes, habits, and other personality characteristics required). Brought together, one may discover sense into a pattern:
Eligible & suitable Disappointing Ideal candidates move to greener pastures
Eligible but unsuitable The real problems The poor fits are reluctant to move and become difficult
Ineligble but Suitable Surprise fits perform surprisingly well In the job by accident, contended and staying put
Ineligible and unsuitable No problem Total misfits leave of own accord
This in fact coinsides with the much more scientifically valid writings of Mihaly Csikszetmihalyi (look him up in your favorite web-bookstore, his most well-known work is called Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. His thesis is this:
In order for a task to be so interesting as to put the executor of the task into a state of flow (by some known as Deep Hack Mode), there must be an optimal mismatch between the skill that the task requires, and the skill that the executor possessess. This optimal mismatch is individual. Below this mismatch, the job is boring, above this mismatch, the job is frustrating.
So what might the employer do? Lots of things of course. Increasing wages and piling on gravy train benefits are obvious options (and should not automatically be ruled out by alternatives). But the employeer (any employer!) who wants to keep his or her staff should make sure that the job always requires a little bit more. After training, the employees match the task better. The employer better make sure the job doesn't match the employees too well!
it must be problematic to be liberal in a republic where the choice of presidents is between an ultraconservative (that would be Gore) and a reactionary (that would be Bush).
but I wonder though - how much impact does the president really have on internal policy? with a 50% attendance, the presidential election cannot have all that much perceived importance to the average US citizen? or?
if, after the recounts are finished, Bush is elected, it's going to be mighty embarrasing to be an American.I too was of the mind that one-click shopping is so easy to implement that the patent is absurd. but then I worked a bit with some programmers to implement a user interface, and I had a second think coming.
having a programmer (admittedly, they were very bright but not trained in user interface design) implement a user-friendly interface, not adhering to Microsoft's GUI standards and without confirmation buttons for every single move was a task! it seems programmers have a built-in affinity for implementing "Are you sure?"-directions, and that making them not do so is enormously difficult.
from the point of view of a non-programmer, one-click shopping, albeit a technically trivial concept, seems to be a massive intellectual feat, and as such worthy of patenting.
what would be more logical than to complement a bloated and poorly designed user interface with a bloated and poorly designed programming language?
To me (a Mac user since 1984), both Linux and MacOS are valid options depending on purpose. Whereas MacOS is not technically superior, the user interface design is - much more so than Gnome or KDE, which suffer deeply for trying to be look-and-feel-compatible with that disaster of user interface design, Windows.
So what if the Mac is slow and unstable, as long as its design makes me faster and more productive? When I need a GUI, I want something that's good at it, not something that tries very hard and fails.
Linux will be a serious contender to the Macintosh when the KDE and Gnome people learn something about user interface design. It might happen. Then again, it might not.
I never feel that I need a command line interface when I'm on a Mac, as I do when I'm on Windows or Linux (OK, Linux is for those cases when I want the power of command line interfaces, when stability and sheer speed matter, etc).
For gaining control of a Mac there's a lot of stuff one needs to know. Getting under the hood is now problem if one knows how.
I've thought about this for a long time, but lack of spare time has kept me from it: build a machine that can learn. Not from any old learning principles though:
A computer controls a Lego Mindstorms robot. The computer makes the robot move around erratically. By rewarding the robot (program it with appropriate reactions to reinforcers and punishers), make it behave in specific ways.
Or maybe I've just reinvented the tamagochi (sp?;)
In a combined psychology/computer science class, this could be extended to making a computer-based maze-running rat. That would be something I wish I did in High School!
... or Apple could sue Cobalt for plaguarizing the NeXTCube.
Lisp used to be slow and textbooks used to count at exercizes in advanced mathemathical theorem-proving, but it just isn't like that anymore.
Modern Common Lisp-based systems run fast enough (if you know what you're doing, sometimes faster) than C++, come with advanced graphical interactive environments, are not prohitiviely expensive (demo versions are often fully functional but don't support standalone applications)
Consider the lack of market share a competitive advantage: If you code in Lisp and your competitors code in C++, you have an advantage.
Common Lisp is not Lisp as one might have been used to, either.
The most recent textbooks are good enough to get started and learn.
And finally, programming Common Lisp is fun! Get started, do some programming in your spare time, get some of the recent textbooks and before you know it, you'll use Common Lisp when you can, or let ideas from Common Lisp influence your coding.