🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4510@xenna.Encore.COM> bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>From: holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander)
>>Typical Mac Word Processor:
>>
>>        Find:   word    Replace With:   new-word
>>
>>vi:
>>
>>        ^[:.,$s/word/new-word/g
>>
>>Can you tell which one is more intuitive?  Now, don't get me wrong.  I've used
>>vi since college and never had any problem with it, but I would never had
>>gotten started without a manual or a reference.  Simple yes.  Powerful yes.
>>Intuitive %$#@ no! I agree that UNIX is easy to use, ONCE YOU KNOW HOW!  My
>>four year old can use my Mac without help.  Don't tell me you son just sat
>>down and figured out vi (and NROFF!??).
>
>The issue is not which is more "intuitive" (whatever that means) but

The issue most certainly is which is more intuitive.  At least that is the
issue of the article to which I responded.  Since you chose to leave out the
quote, I'll include it here to refresh your memory.

>>My son is in high school.  He also uses vi and nroff without difficulty,
>>so please spare me the flames about difficult to learn and use.  He's been
>>using vi since the 5th grade.
>>
>>I never found the Mac (or other graphical and mouse) interfaces particularly
>>intuitive.  The command-line interface doesn't leave you guessing which button
>to push how many times once you learn to finish commands with a carriage return

Also, since you are wondering what intuitive means, I'll include an excerpt
from Webster's, "directly apprehended" and my own definition in this context,
"not requiring a manual or formal training".

>what your goals are (to hire your four year old?) You also
>conveniently fail to mention that the latter is far more powerful,

Apparently, you're not paying attention.  Read my response!  I explicitly
state that UNIX is more powerful.  I also agree that it is easy to use, ONCE
LEARNED.  Again it is simply NOT INTUITIVE.  Also, my goals vary as do the
goals of computer users in general.  At home, one of my gaols is to
familiarize my daughter with computers, not to hire her (yet).

>once learned. Or is taking a little time to learn how to use a tool a
>dirty word?

No, it's not a dirty word.  It's just not for everyone.  Not everyone needs
the power.  And there are people who simply don't have the time or interest
to learn and would gladly give up some power for ease of use.  The general
issue was "Why a metaphor?".  I'm simply making the point that a metaphor
makes the system more intuitive.  The learning time is significantly reduced,
an important issue for those who value their time!

>There seems to be a fascination in this field with catering to some
>mythical person with a two-digit IQ, total fear of computers, and not
>enough technical sense to operate a push-button phone.
>
>My suggestion is that when you find such people don't hire them as
>they will probably be poorly suited to the rest of the skilled white
>collar job they are being considered for, let them find more
>appropriate work (for both of you.)

I certainly wouldn't want you in the personnel deptartment in my company.
Would you place less of a value on the president of a multi-million dollar
company simply because he won't take the time to learn UNIX?  Besides, who
says computers are only for white collar workers.  Have you heard of factory
automation, to name just one counter-example?

>
>	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||

Fred Hollander
Computer Science Center
Texas Instruments, Inc.
holland%ti-csl@csnet-rela

The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.