Mallard wrote:
> You need to READ SOME MANUALS to be able to program a Mac. You may have
> to LEARN SOMETHING, and would probably have to spend as many hours as it
> takes to learn "vi".
I'm always somewhat amused by Neal Stephenson's "In the Beginning was
the Command Line", when he writes of the Macintosh Programmers Workshop
(basically a development environment);
"The first thing that Apple's hackers had done when they'd gotten the
MacOS up and running - probably even before they'd gotten it up and
running - was to recreate the Unix interface, so that they would be able
to get some useful work done ... the Mac's vaunted graphical user
interface was an impediment, something to be circumvented".
So you've got the developers of the Mac unable to do any useful
developing using the WIMP interface they designed (does nobody else
think that the term WIMP was invented by hackers who thought that by
using this interface users were wimping out of actually getting to know
their machines?) They needed a CLI to actually program the thing. But
then, I still sometimes wish the Mac had never been invented, and that
Apple had developed the II line - the IIGS was really quite an
incredible machine. Hell, it got sued by the *Beatles* (sort of) for the
Ensoniq synth chip - and AFAIK this is the only Apple computer
(including Macs) to ever ship with real hardware synth. *And* you can
run Unix on an Apple IIGS using GN/OME (not the X-windows thing, this
was developed far earlier).
> One thing is for sure, if you did write a program,
> it couldn't require all sorts of cool "switches" and some geeky define
> like program [erftgtgds] [file:tpty] [orthis-geekything]
> [gre/ggdd/d/df//d.f/d/f/] \ gjgj d\diirrpv
True, the Mac has a very user friendly interface. But when you click,
your pretty much setting the sort of switches you're complaining about.
The Mac is not a hackers machine - ie you can't easily get down into the
basis of the system and see what's happening, play with it - you can't
see exactly what switches are being set. And I recommend Macs for
anybody who doesn't want to do this - if you want a computer to actually
do work with and nothing else, I don't think you can do better than a
Mac. Check back with Linux in a year or so.
> If a Mac user has to read a manual, the program sucks!
True - but only so far as you're talking about a Mac *user* - not a
developer.
> GREAT! forces the geeks to not be geeks! Damn they hate that.
IMHO you can't use a Mac and be a geek/nerd/hacker etc. This is because
the Mac will not let you get inside it easily, and I think that anybody
who really want's to know how computers work will want to get into every
little thing that's going on. NB this is not saying the Mac is a bad
thing - just that it's better suited for people who don't want to play
with system internals.
> DOS? Like I said before, it's not 1983 ANY MORE! this command line crap
> is for the birds.
Don't you want to fly like a bird, rather than a flying toaster?
> You should be using some sort of GUI minimum to access
> remote machines (like servers). Talk about a waste of time.
I think it's all what you're used to. If you know the CLI then it
certainly isn't a waste of time - it will run faster than a GUI simply
because the machine doesn't need to use as much memory/processing power
to draw pictures for you.
> I think its all a way for geeks to keep their day jobs. make the exec's
> think you are worth something because you know some cryptic commands you
> can type in. The more crap you remember, the more you move up the geek
> ladder. Why do people hang on to VT100 80 X 24 1983 technology like its
> some sort of wonderful thing?
Because VTxxx *is* a wonderful thing in a lot of ways. Read up on it
before you say it's out of date. Can be very useful for hooking up old
machines that can't handle a GUI, but can still be useful.
> Get a life!
A nerd with a life? Surely that's an oxymoron. :-)
> Yes, I used to save my programs on paper tape, but if I did it now at a
> Linux meeting, I would be god like!
Damn straight! Just as cool as running Doom on a camera, for all you
Slashdot readers. :-)
Tom
