I'm still not seeing how what you indicate as "the OSX design" makes
sense for any interpreted programming environment which allows user
defined menus.
--
Raul
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Ian Clark wrote:
> No, @Raul, I was answering Bill's question re OS X features.
>
> The "proper" desig
@Raul - answer me this first: is a (collection of) "user-defined menus"
(a) an app in its own right? or-
(b) an extension of the J app?
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm still not seeing how what you indicate as "the OSX design" makes
> sense for any interpreted programm
Do you have formal definitions of these concepts?
If not, I'd be tempted to say; neither. It seems to me that menus by
themselves do not make an application, nor do they make an extension.
I believe instead that they are something which can be used in either
case.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Sep 1
Touché.
Before the iPhone came along, Apple developers (which in spirit I
still am) used "app" as short for "application". That's how I meant
it. Here's your formal definition:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/application.html
Nowadays "app" has come to mean exclusively an iPhone application - o
Ian wrote:
> A properly designed menu system is a huge help for a novice user.
Tangentially related: I ignore menus as often as I can. On websites, for
example, I universally opt to use the search feature. And if the search feature
is absent, or sucks, I use a site-specific search in Google. I
While I can agree that user interface consistency can be a good thing,
I think that that user interface concepts themselves are at least as
much "fashion" issue as anything else in computing.
If there were a really such a thing as an adequate "consistent"
(non-kludge) menu system there would be no
I believe that the general problem with menus is semantics. In many
disciplines, common words have been re-purposed and given new meanings,
which makes menus or documentation very difficult to use for a newbie.
For that matter, one of the biggest problems with J help is semantics. J
has re-purpose
Presumably the solution then would be to write a document using the
terms you expect which links them up with J?
(Much like Henry Rich's J for C Programmers?)
That said, I think there's other problems issues with search (perhaps
related to search engines placing too much load on J's website?). It
The NuVoc Glossary, and the text of NuVoc, tries hard to give the
scalar-programmer's word for J terms. I don't think we have a document
going the other way. That would be a helpful project for someone to
take on.
Henry Rich
On 9/15/2015 6:28 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
Presumably the solution
