home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!yvax.byu.edu!physc1.byu.edu!goblec
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
- Subject: Re: Re: CLIs that teach; GUIs that don'ty
- Message-ID: <1992Jul23.180852.85@physc1.byu.edu>
- From: goblec@physc1.byu.edu
- Date: 23 Jul 92 18:08:52 -0600
- References: <1992Jul20.120019.73@physc1.byu.edu> <100760002@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com>
- Distribution: world
- Organization: Brigham Young University
- Lines: 118
-
- In article <100760002@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com>, jem@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Jim McCauley) writes:
- > Clark Goble writes:
- >
- >> But
- >> the Lisp like programming you gave still causes a few problems, unless
- >> you use it consistantly.
- >
- > Inconsistent use of any programmable interface is hazardous, to say
- > the least.
-
- Yes. But a good Mac based CLI or script language would have to be such that
- people could use it without having to know it well. The big advantage of a Mac
- is that I can use seldom used programs and still do what I want quicly and
- easily. On my Sun I spend quite a few minutes figuring out how to make the
- find command do what I want, or write a script for awk etc. The Sun has more
- power in many ways, and certainly more speed. yet I find that it takes a
- fraction of the time to get things done on my Mac. I think this extends to the
- CLI discussion. Should you need to learn a langauge to make the computer do
- what you want? Those who wish to can (C, Pascal, Forth, etc).
-
- >> If you have a good metaphor (data in a pipe)
- >> then it is easy for the user to quickly do things.
- >
- > The Lisp metaphor is quite simple: a function evaluates its arguments
- > and passes the results as an argument to a successor function. I
- > taught this notion to elementary-school children through the use of
- > the Lisp-like Logo language (and simpler terminology!), and they
- > grasped it without difficulty. The prefix notation of Lisp is no
- > challenge to learners if it is introduced in a reasonable way.
-
- Relative to what? C or Pascal? I learned C in a day. C++ took a little
- longer, but that was because you have to reorient your mind to object thinking.
- But no language is as easy to use as the finder, that I have seen.
- I'm not sure that functional metaphors are ideal for the script language.,
- This would be doubly true for Apple Events. Yet, unless I am mistake I think
- this is more or less the idea behind Frontier. (Never used it though)
- >
- > English is a wonderful language for people and a terrible one for
- > computers. Functional languages are reasonably comprehensible to both
- > parties.
- >
- Not necessarily. Having TAed a Math Modeling class for people who had had
- Algebra, I can testify that the concept of a function is not intuitive to many,
- many people. To people in the sciences it is obvious. But most people are not
- only not in the sciences, but are paranoid about things relating to the
- sciences. Remember, the Mac is the computer for the rest of us. I agree that
- fucntions are great. One reason why I use Unix and C. But I know my Mom would
- freak out if she had to use the computer this way.
-
- >
- >> But many people want a computer to
- >> be an invisible tool.
- >
- > It is worth pondering what this "invisibility" costs. One can argue
- > that freeing the user from any obligation to understand his computer
- > allows him to concentrate on other tasks. But consider the insidious,
- > ubiquitous and progressive "dumbing-down" of the user's technical
- > capacity and the consequences of the sequestering of computer
- > knowledge to an expert elite. The computers are out on the people's
- > desks, but the expertise is somewhere behind glass walls. This is not
- > what the personal computer "revolution" was all about.
-
- In my experience this is the fundamental difference between PC users and MAc
- users and probably why they will never understand one an other. Just look at
- the silly flame wars here. I consider myself a technical user, but I love
- having the computer invisible. Probably the closest I'll get to having a
- Zen-like experience. (-:
- >
- >> Doing the act should almost be unconcious.
- >>
- >> That is always my test of good mac software. Can I do it without thinking
- >> much beyond what I want to accomplish.
- >
- > Are users limited in any substantial way if they become expert in the
- > use of tools, but they remain ignorant of the nature of their tools?
- > That is the question of this age, and our fate is tied to it.
- >
- I breath quite well without knowing the details of the breathing process.
- Likewise I plug things into wall sockets without needing to know about AC
- circuits. Now I personally love to knwo these things. It is the reason I went
- into Physics. And I find that knowing helps me. But is it necessary? I do
- acknowledge though that many problems in our society are due to ignorance on
- the part of our populace. The science is magic syndrom. But I think knowing
- the details of the MacOS isn't required for computer literacy, any more than
- knowing Maxwell's laws is required to use a TV.
-
-
- >> And in a real sense Apple events are more
- >> powerful than anything under UNIX. Applications become the programming
- >> language.
- >
- > I must investigate Apple Events. I suspect that they owe something to
- > the "hairy control structures" that Carl Hewitt investigated for the
- > Actor language in the 1970s. Just as the classic Lisp paradigm of
- > "multiple inputs/one output" transcends the one-dimensional nature of
- > the Unix pipe, "hairy" control structures move beyond Lisp to allow
- > reasonable structuring of multiple (even conditional) outputs to a
- > variety of receiving functions. User-level representation of such
- > structures and communication channels in any interface (character or
- > bitmapped) remains a challenging problem in cognitive science.
-
- Yes. I am just waiting to see how they are going to be controlled. I have no
- problem with using them in a programming like language. I jsut wish for Q&D
- tasks that my pipe idea or something bettert is also available.>
- >
- > Functions are a better idea. Lisp, Scheme -- heck, even Logo --
- > present a fundamental improvement over pipes. If a GUI permits the
- > implementation of comprehensible control for "hairy" structures, then
- > I will enthusiastically include it in my own toolbox.
-
- Well I am not convinced that it is ideal for a CLI. However you have intrigued
- me about LISP. I must confess only a superficial knowledged of it. And that
- was gained mainly in designing a metaphor for an other language. But I am now
- looking into it again.
-
- Clark Goble
- goble@sofya.math.byu.edu
-
-