On 1 Jun 2000, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Jan Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For tar_x, tar_xv, tar_v kind of things people
> > invented objects, recognizing that "tar -x"
> > approach is not a user friendly technology.
>
> Oh? You realize there are Unix weenies on this list, don't you?
> Cryptic commands with equally cryptic options is very user friendly
> for an interactive command line. I'm a lot more flexible, effective
> and efficient with that, than with any "object"-branded user interface
> I've tried.
Well, I said that it was just mine opinion, to which
I stick. "De gustibus non est disputandum".
No need to feel offended about Unix. I use Linux
every day. But that does not change my opinion about
switches. This is the olden days technology.
I do not know what "object-branded" interfaces
you are familiar with, but NextStep for example
was able to hide all those unpleasent things quite
nicely and tar was (is?) quite friendly there.
[And you also had all fancy filters automatically
appearing in any application menu. Nice interprocess
communication. But you could still use scripts as
in any other Unix, of course.]
Tar command is really a very good example. I was quite
tempted to copy here a header of "man tar", but I guess
everyone knows how big this beast is. I certainly would
not wish to cope with anything like this in any language
I use -- unless I re-wrote it first to some friendlier
form.
Jan
