On 16 June 2010 12:39, Kurt H Maier <[email protected]> wrote: > There's no 'psychological interaction' > with computers, unless the user is profoundly insane.
You're seriously claiming that psychology doesn't come into an individual's interaction with tools? Have you ever read anything on psychology? > the fact that you consider Acme's interface > 'well-designed' indicates at best a lack of consensus in the matter. On 16 June 2010 09:23, Connor Lane Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure whether Pike was right with > regards to rio and acme, which is why I use dwm and (bitterly) vim. > I think you've mixed up the sides in that match. vi and Sam lie on > one end of that road, and Acme and Emacs are at the other end. Vi is a modal clusterfuck. I mean, the crazy shit that thing does? It's different on every machine. Even Bill Joy doesn't use vi anymore. > I note you dismiss ed, probably because of its underdesigned "User > Experience." I use ed more often in my work than vi and sam combined. I dropped ed for sam -d. But you know what? One could say, "I use DOS more than Unix!" Your using X more than Y means jack. > I agree that programmers need well-designed > interaction I'm glad you agree. Well, turns out programmers should "give a shit about 'user experience'" then. That's cleared that one up. (Perhaps we should take this off-list if you want to continue it, I suspect it bores spectators.) Thanks, cls
