That's just what I was thinking of as I was considering whether to submit the post.
And I'm still thinking about it. It would take a little doing, but I believe that the proper approach to designing a GUI system would result in a GUI system that could build itself, the way the cc compiler became able after a few iterations to compile itself. such a system, if extended to cross-compiling, could indeed produce object code that would result in a bootable GUI operating system allowing for variation, extension, and propagation.
It doesn't do to forget that we had to impress the words on the electronics. We were doing it all in 1's and 0's without a care before we decided we wanted it to communicate in our particular language (and not any other language). If instead we'd decided to do things in pictures, with words being mere data, I think we could have, if the ability to make a picture were as easy as making a word (which is in fact rather hard, because you have to make it from letters, which are...well...pictures).
if 'program' has a '--update' option in it, it's because someone thought to make that an option.
more often, it's "open.zip file, copy.foo file to the directory you installed program in, putting it in a subdirectory with the name 'bazz'"
meanwhile, the program i'm typing this into has a Help menu in the standard place with a "Check for updates" menu item. one click on that and then i do the obvious things and then not only don't i have to type in the name of 'data_src.db', i don't even have to know it, or the names of the 4500 other files i'd have to know and type in to update a browser the CLI way.
and there's that "and then i do the obvious things" thing. that just plain doesn't happen with CLI. to do it in CLI, I first have to find the documentation, then search it for something kind of like what I want to do, then try to figure out if that's really what I want to do...
GUI rarely loses comparisons to CLI, except in trivial cases. Get used to that.
You'd be amazed to find out how many factories are run using code "written" in G2.
You'd also be amazed to find out how many satellite ground stations are processing data in algorithms "written" in LabView.
Give me a GUI that has a feature set as rich as a programming language, and I'll use it. We'd have some, if we weren't all geeked-out on thinking like compilers.
No, we can admit that both GUIs and APIs have their uses.
CLI only exists because we didn't think of GUI first.
Take a look at the full listing of a modern program's --help output. Some have over a hundred options.
You're not doing that in CLI. You're constructing the command in an editor and then saving it in a file and running that from the CLI. Might as well run it from a button and let it get its options from a config file that it saved after you checked boxes in the preferences dialog.
CLI is not essential. It's a holdover from a time when we thought words were a good way to express function. And then left the 'e' off "creat" for kicks.
Everything can be done in a GUI. I don't see why not. We just haven't made that happen yet.
It will immediately be rejected as being unrealistic. Who sets up a camera, sets it to a stable angle, and gets a nicely-framed shot of an unexpected phenomenon? Even people who think a UFO hoax will work have enough foresight to realize that they have to make the footage look accidental.
There's also the implication that if the camera is moving that fast it's impossible to composite the UFO into it; thus it must be really in the space it appears to occupy.
Frankly, faking things on film has gotten damn near perfect. Footage won't suffice, even if it's of a real E.T. spacecraft or Bigfoot. It's going to take real-time interaction, with people we trust to be skeptical doing the play-by-play with their own eyes on the object.
Notes: 1 - this is debateable; if you ask those who own one, they will postulate "-riceburner" and refuse to show their work, but they are suffering from dogmatic myopia and depleted credit limit, and don't seem to know that Europe and Victory exist
If it didn't, what good would a -1 button be? By clicking -1 you are voting for the unique, diametrically opposed dual of the +1. Unless you don't really mean -1, but some smaller negative number. But if that's what you mean, then -1 would overcount your vote, and we can't have that.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just what I was thinking of as I was considering whether to submit the post.
And I'm still thinking about it. It would take a little doing, but I believe that the proper approach to designing a GUI system would result in a GUI system that could build itself, the way the cc compiler became able after a few iterations to compile itself. such a system, if extended to cross-compiling, could indeed produce object code that would result in a bootable GUI operating system allowing for variation, extension, and propagation.
It doesn't do to forget that we had to impress the words on the electronics. We were doing it all in 1's and 0's without a care before we decided we wanted it to communicate in our particular language (and not any other language). If instead we'd decided to do things in pictures, with words being mere data, I think we could have, if the ability to make a picture were as easy as making a word (which is in fact rather hard, because you have to make it from letters, which are...well...pictures).
if 'program' has a '--update' option in it, it's because someone thought to make that an option.
more often, it's "open .zip file, copy .foo file to the directory you installed program in, putting it in a subdirectory with the name 'bazz'"
meanwhile, the program i'm typing this into has a Help menu in the standard place with a "Check for updates" menu item. one click on that and then i do the obvious things and then not only don't i have to type in the name of 'data_src.db', i don't even have to know it, or the names of the 4500 other files i'd have to know and type in to update a browser the CLI way.
and there's that "and then i do the obvious things" thing. that just plain doesn't happen with CLI. to do it in CLI, I first have to find the documentation, then search it for something kind of like what I want to do, then try to figure out if that's really what I want to do...
GUI rarely loses comparisons to CLI, except in trivial cases. Get used to that.
You'd be amazed to find out how many factories are run using code "written" in G2.
You'd also be amazed to find out how many satellite ground stations are processing data in algorithms "written" in LabView.
Give me a GUI that has a feature set as rich as a programming language, and I'll use it. We'd have some, if we weren't all geeked-out on thinking like compilers.
No, we can admit that both GUIs and APIs have their uses.
CLI only exists because we didn't think of GUI first.
Take a look at the full listing of a modern program's --help output. Some have over a hundred options.
You're not doing that in CLI. You're constructing the command in an editor and then saving it in a file and running that from the CLI. Might as well run it from a button and let it get its options from a config file that it saved after you checked boxes in the preferences dialog.
CLI is not essential. It's a holdover from a time when we thought words were a good way to express function. And then left the 'e' off "creat" for kicks.
Everything can be done in a GUI. I don't see why not. We just haven't made that happen yet.
A system you can't break apart and repair is a system that's broken from the start.
And the only thing you can complain about is the cost, so they've done their job.
I meant /.
The UI script behaviors are haphazard and irritating and vary from platform to platform.
The rest of the year it's still good for wrapping fish.
They did. Four stories ago.
But we now know what they've been doing with their UI budget instead of fixing the fucking thing.
That's why the authorities are changing the name of things we can't identify that are up in the sky.
No, the idea that terrorists want to kill you is equally as plausible as alien spacecraft visiting Earth.
Correct. Google's algorithms should be telling me what's ++good.
And Fox News is news.
It will immediately be rejected as being unrealistic. Who sets up a camera, sets it to a stable angle, and gets a nicely-framed shot of an unexpected phenomenon? Even people who think a UFO hoax will work have enough foresight to realize that they have to make the footage look accidental.
There's also the implication that if the camera is moving that fast it's impossible to composite the UFO into it; thus it must be really in the space it appears to occupy.
Frankly, faking things on film has gotten damn near perfect. Footage won't suffice, even if it's of a real E.T. spacecraft or Bigfoot. It's going to take real-time interaction, with people we trust to be skeptical doing the play-by-play with their own eyes on the object.
The current myth-of-the day is UFO's.
UFOs were a lot bigger until about ten years ago.
The current myth is that Terrorists are out to get you.
What others?
and by "tell that to the caliche" I meant "clay ain't all that hard to dig in if you've ever dealt with rocky soil of any kind"
Hubble could get the picture when the Earth is between Hubble and the sun.
Unless Mercury itself is just too bright.
For the Record ALL tools are tools for trolls,
Damn. Your proof by example is unassailable.
amoeba = -appealing microbe
square = -cool
triangle = -triangular hole
pink = -blue
Harley-Davidson = -(affordable*quality) + dirtbag (Note 1)
cnn.com = -clue
conservation of angular momentum = -cartoon physics
Notes:
1 - this is debateable; if you ask those who own one, they will postulate "-riceburner" and refuse to show their work, but they are suffering from dogmatic myopia and depleted credit limit, and don't seem to know that Europe and Victory exist
If it didn't, what good would a -1 button be? By clicking -1 you are voting for the unique, diametrically opposed dual of the +1. Unless you don't really mean -1, but some smaller negative number. But if that's what you mean, then -1 would overcount your vote, and we can't have that.
Negative voting doesn't un-lead to that.
Hmm. Headline corruption. Hope the submitter kept a backup.
By pulling the back of my pants down a little more.