On Sunday 18 September 2016 14:53, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 4:11:49 PM UTC+12, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>> The term "automation" is frequently used in the Windows world to mean
>> programming something that you would otherwise do manually through a GUI...
> Which is not something that GUIs are designed for. Therefore it is at best an
> unreliable exercise, at worst futile.
Cheese is not designed to be grated and put on spaghetti. Therefore grating
cheese is at best an unreliable exercise, at worst futile.
Can you see the fallacy in your assertion yet? Do I have to spell it out for
In any case, there are many software applications for automating GUI apps.
Contrary to your assertion, it works reliably.
It would be astonishing if it didn't -- after all, GUI apps interact with the
user not by magic, but via an event queue of mouse movements, clicks, key
presses, etc. This queue is entirely under the control of the computer, which
means a program can simulate a user moving the mouse, clicking, pressing keys,
etc. There's no magic here.
git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic
endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space.