On Monday 29 December 2008, Trent W. Buck wrote: > > I fail to see why the fact that there are both 'no' and 'dont' > > options is an issue. > > My real problems are that 1) "dont" looks bloody silly without an > apostrophe; and 2) it'll require more code to handle two cases, > --[no-]-foo and --[dont-]foo.
The purpose of the user interface is to _facilitate_ interaction between a human and a computer, not to make the programmer's life simpler. Of course it's very difficult to see that when one has a lazy programmers' point of view, where the user interface is just another necessary evil appendix that one has to live with and (God forbid!) maintain it. > I mean, if you extend this argument to its logical conclusion, we'll > end up with something like fetchmailrc or intercal's "please x = x" > noop! If there is something I constantly saw abused over the years is the user interface. Apparently every programmer out there has a strong belief that if he can write some code in a programming language, he is more than qualified to design a good user interface. > > >twb starts frothing at mouth< Then I must be wrong. Since you came up with this supreme argument, I must bow my hat to you and crawl back to my hole... -- Dan _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
