> You're confusing a single application with the whole command line
> and *everything* it can invoke. In your picture that whole set of all
> commands available now or in the future is the 'the application' for
> which you'd need to design a GUI, would you want to have its
flexibility
> available in a GUI.
I don't understand this statement at all. I'm talking about a simple
wrapper. And it would be very easy in incorporate *everything*. Even
command that have not been added yet.
> Interaction with *other* applications (the trailer) isn't designed in,
> and can't be automated.
Again, if necessary it can be, very easy. However that is not the point
of the wrapper. If I want to build a car you can say but it can't fly.
And it can't float. You're right. It isn't supposed to. You can
always pick fault about something if you go beyond its scope.
> GUI applications are designed to interact with a user, and not with
> other applications
Again that is not true. Well the first part is. The second part (("not
with other applications") may or may not be true. Depends on the app.
I'm starting to learn who isn't a programmer because they have common
misconceptions about how programs are designed. I wonder if its from
watching TV? Or maybe designing a system is so rigid that its difficult
to comprehend the freedom allowed in designing a program. They are not
as limited as you believe them to be.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Krey [mailto:a.k...@gmx.de]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:57 PM
To: John Maher
Cc: Les Mikesell; David Chapman; Mark Phippard;
users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: general questions
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:02:51 +0000, John Maher wrote:
...
> line can except take more time to do something. You're confusing the
> steps to design an application with the steps to design a wrapper.
You're confusing a single application with the whole command line
and *everything* it can invoke. In your picture that whole set of all
commands available now or in the future is the 'the application' for
which you'd need to design a GUI, would you want to have its flexibility
available in a GUI.
> different animals and if you mix the two its like trying to pull a
> trailer with a corvette. It may work, it may cause problems. It
> definitely is not optimal.
That's because a corvette isn't designed for a trailer hook. That
is exactly the situation with all kinds of GUis: Interaction
with *other* applications (the trailer) isn't designed in,
and can't be automated.
GUI applications are designed to interact with a user, and not with
other applications, and that is their general deficiency for some
kinds of work.
Try to get you browser and photoshop to play together and download,
scale, and publish a webcam pic every hour, and you see the non-power
of the GUI.
Andreas
--
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
