To add to the powerful points which Rajarshi (and his philosopher friend) had made: CLI and GUI are evolutionary steps in Human Computer Interaction. The GUI as we know it today seems to be winning the Darwinian war against the CLI, but is bound to give way to a newer way to interact with computers (perhaps an "Immersive Interface - IUI" ;-) )
That said, here are a couple of points that seemed kind of obvious to me after working with computers for a while: a)GUIs make accountants a lot more productive than with CLIs. Excel and Calc let people focus on their core competency without their having to learn obscure computer concepts. This is "Computer as an Appliance". You would normally want to leave the finer details of the working of your appliance to your engineer. Think of the Computer as an appliance just the way your Mixer/Juicer or Microwave is an appliance. b)GUIs may make programmers more productive as well in the short term, but at a serious loss to them - Programmers who work solely with GUIs will tend to think within the limitations the GUI provides them. For example, someone who uses (gcc, ld, make, gdb) on Linux has a much better idea of how the compilation process works than someone who uses an IDE like Visual Studio. And thus the CLI person has a much better chance of being able to figure out obscure problems in his program. This is not to deny the utilities of the GUI for a programmer, but a judicious mix of both GUIs (for efficiency purposes) as well as working on the command line is a must for a programmer. Prashant Verma On 11/25/05, Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 05:02 +0530, A. Mani wrote: > > On Wednesday 23 November 2005 23:58, Rajarshi Guha wrote: > > > > The goal of the GUI is to hide lower functionality. For the majority of > > > people that's enough. As for the 'human understandable' CLI, thats a > > > pretty far stretch: cat, cd, ls are not human understandable, without > > > study. > > > > > That 'enough' is condemning people to less productive states. > > So are you saying that somebodies mother who wants to write an email > should have to learn the use of the shell and pine, rather than using a > GUI like Evolution, KMail or even Outlook (!!!) > > > Pure picturesque > > reasoning makes people vague and dangerously so in the PC context. How > > much computation do you think people do to learn their native language ? > > GUIs hide higher functionality too. A reasonably "complete GUI" for most > > applications will not leave any space on the desktop. > > What I don't understand is - why should people who only use a computer > as tool (say like a screwdriver) have to develop the skills to program a > computer? > > I mean, if I do woodwork I may use a power drill - why on earth would I > have to learn about motors, gears etc, to be able to learn to use the > drill to make holes? > > > > GUI makes software people into clerks unless they make the effort against > > it. > > Once again, a lot of people use computers merely as tools. They are > interested in a computer to the extent that pressing the button in the > GUI gets them the intended result. Then they go on with the rest of > their work. > > Why does a checkout cashier need to know a CLI? Why does an nurse at a > hospital need to know a CLI? Why does a doctor need to know a CLI? Why > does an accountant need to know a CLI? > > > But still CLI will certainly mean people will know more about > > specifications. > > Seriously, the members in this group are a minority. There is a lot more > in life than sitting down and learning a CLI! > > I find it hard to believe that a person who is not in the CS/IT field > has any inclination (or need) to learn a CLI. > > Its the job of the software designer to design an application that is > sufficient in terms of usability, for the domain it is entended for. If > this level of sufficiency requires a CLI, then so be it. But > correspondingly such a domain would most probably be very specialized > (or undefined). However for other domains which are well defined, why go > to a CLIwhen it can be encapsulated in a GUI? > > > > > It is in fact true, that most people will simply want to 'run' programs. > > > I don't see whats wrong in doing that with a GUI. > > > > > You need to distinguish between the different types of values of the GUI. > > For > > a big majority of the middle class PCs are still objects of entertainment. > > Yes. And is this a problem? Are the majority of middle class PC owners > aiming towards the CS/IT profession/ If not, then why not use the PC as > an entertainment box? > > > > > If somebody introduces a new language and if that is adopted then they can > > introduce more propaganda or 'make believes' in the language for possible > > change of priorities in the target population. > > I'm not sure what you mean by 'language' in this context. In the most > general linguistic terms, language can be used to manipulate or modify > thinking (eg. Orwell's 1984). > > But as you note, this requires widespread adoption. > > Now if you refer to a GUI as a 'language' - yes it is widely adopted. > But it's not a specific set of symbols or actions. The basic idea behind > a GUI is that a picture --> action. > > Given that a GUI can be arbitrarily designed how does a GUI become a > propaganda vector? > > Rather, what is a GUI telling us? 'Click this to do that'? - I suppose > so. Whats so wrong in this? > > > > I suppose my point is that for the majority of people a GUI is fine for > > > what they use the computer for. The minority who need to know more will > > > get what they need. > > > > > The point is psychological. Many become stupid slaves by working in the > > language of the GUI, which simultaneously affects reasoning power. > > If I weren't in the field of computing but happened to use a computer > for some other reason, I would find that statement elitist and > insulting. Unfortunately I see this in a number of places amongst CS/IT > people. > > Really, there is a world outside of the computer. Most people like that > world. > > If a computer interface is so dumbed down that it 'affects reasoning > power' - that is the fault of the UI designer. Not the user > > Yes, a future programmer student who sticks with Visual Studio and can't > write a Makefile has been dumbed down by the GUI. Thats his fault, not > the GUI's. > > I find it hard to believe that a doctor who just enters patient data > through a GUI has been dumbed down. Maybe you should take care when you > visit a hospital! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://jijo.cjb.net> > GPG Fingerprint: 0CCA 8EE2 2EEB 25E2 AB04 06F7 1BB9 E634 9B87 56EE > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > All power corrupts, but we need electricity. > -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body "unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line. FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/node.php?id=3
