On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:04:26 -0800 Tony Peden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'll certainly agree that the patch format is a good way to represent >the changes between two files -- but not to the extent that it is good >at communicating that information to humans. The simple fact is that >humans looking at it have to spend time decoding it first, Exactly. Primitive man used clubs on prey before they used spears. There was nothing inherently wrong with clubs, but spears afforded something that clubs didn't: you could kill from a distance. We've moved past the time when the only choice we had was to interpret cryptic (but comprehendable) codes. Recently the space shuttle moved from old tape displays in the cockpit for altitude, rate of change of altitude, etc. to multi-function boxes with quick-recognition color displays. The reason? Lines of cryptic black and white text are not conducive to quick recognition of data. My wife could have chosen to give birth without an epidural. But why? It's called Progress. Jon _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
