Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #151315 > unrolled thread

OT: Getting into Mac software development

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  OT: Getting into Mac software development Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-14 00:06 +0000
    Re: OT: Getting into Mac software development Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-13 21:48 -0400
    Re: OT: Getting into Mac software development Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-14 09:43 +0000
    Re: OT: Getting into Mac software development Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:37 +0000
    Re: Getting into Mac software development "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-14 15:17 -0500
      Re: Getting into Mac software development Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-15 11:56 +0000
        Re: Getting into Mac software development Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-15 17:48 +0000
          Re: Getting into Mac software development Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-15 21:25 +0200
            Re: Getting into Mac software development Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-15 17:15 -0400
              Re: Getting into Mac software development Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 22:00 +0000
                Re: Getting into Mac software development Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:58 +0000
                  !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-17 00:40 -0500
                    Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-17 05:59 +0000
                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-17 01:10 -0500
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-09-17 07:10 +0000
                          Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 11:51 +0000
                    Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 08:57 -0400
                    Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-17 13:34 +0200
                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-17 13:45 +0000
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-09-17 16:38 +0200
                          Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-09-17 11:34 -0400
                          Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-17 16:10 +0000
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-17 20:29 +0200
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-17 20:35 +0000
                          Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-09-17 21:39 -0400
                            Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-09-18 11:36 +0000
                              Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-09-18 12:45 +0000
                              Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-09-18 15:20 +0100
                                Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-18 18:31 -0500
                                  Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-19 00:06 +0000
                                    Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-09-19 04:50 +0000
                                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-19 10:01 +0000
                                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-09-21 19:28 -0400
                                  Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2015-10-21 15:47 -0400
                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 16:15 +0000
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-09-17 16:28 +0000
                        Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-09-17 20:33 +0200
                      Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-09-18 18:33 -0500
          Re: Getting into Mac software development hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-17 09:47 -0700
            Re: Getting into Mac software development Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 19:51 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#151511 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Morten Reistad wrote:

> In article <d5vufcFdc1bU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Huge  <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-17, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <mtdjlv$vhg$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>>>>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         [snip...]                       [snip...]
>>>>> [snip...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
>>>>> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
>>>>> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
>>>>> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
>>>>> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing
>>>> conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because DRAM
>>>> was far in the future!!!
>>>>
>>>> The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past will
>>>> *not* be properly understood.
>>>
>>> I still like to have vi available,
>>
>> Me too. How else are you going to edit files when you've ssh'd into a server
>> from your 'phone?
>
> emacs.
>
> Makes all computing simpler.
>
Didn't Apple take care of that when they had an eMac?

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151512 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On 2015-09-17, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <d5vufcFdc1bU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Huge  <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>>On 2015-09-17, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <mtdjlv$vhg$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
>>>>news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>>>>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         [snip...]                       [snip...] 
>>>>> [snip...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
>>>>> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
>>>>> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
>>>>> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
>>>>> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing 
>>>>conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because DRAM 
>>>>was far in the future!!!
>>>>
>>>>The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past will 
>>>>*not* be properly understood.
>>>
>>> I still like to have vi available, 
>>
>>Me too. How else are you going to edit files when you've ssh'd into a server
>>from your 'phone?
>
> emacs.

Not necessarily installed. vi's more-or-less standard.


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 41st day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151519 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:
>
> Me too. How else are you going to edit files when you've ssh'd into a server
> from your 'phone?

Install emacs on your PHONE and use tramp-mode

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151528 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:45:16 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2015-09-17, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <mtdjlv$vhg$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>>>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         [snip...]                       [snip...]
>>>> [snip...]
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
>>>> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
>>>> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
>>>> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some
>>>> people why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing
>>>conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because
>>>DRAM was far in the future!!!
>>>
>>>The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past
>>>will *not* be properly understood.
>>
>> I still like to have vi available,
> 
> Me too. How else are you going to edit files when you've ssh'd into a
> server from your 'phone?

I use ed for those situations. When I started using UNIX, that was all we 
had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151535 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes:

> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:45:16 +0000, Huge wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-17, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <mtdjlv$vhg$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>>>>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         [snip...]                       [snip...]
>>>>> [snip...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
>>>>> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
>>>>> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
>>>>> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some
>>>>> people why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>"vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing
>>>>conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because
>>>>DRAM was far in the future!!!
>>>>
>>>>The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past
>>>>will *not* be properly understood.
>>>
>>> I still like to have vi available,
>> 
>> Me too. How else are you going to edit files when you've ssh'd into a
>> server from your 'phone?
>
> I use ed for those situations. When I started using UNIX, that was all we 
> had.

That's all I had too.
I believe that was sometime around '79.

But I heard about this thing called Emacs and got a copy
from Bell Labs Indian Hill.  So, no real time spent
fooling with ed.

Started using it and never looked back.
Soon after I heard about Bill Joy and VI, but I already
had Emacs and wasn't interested.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151538 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On 2015-09-18, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:45:16 +0000, Huge wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-09-17, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <mtdjlv$vhg$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>> I use ed for those situations. When I started using UNIX, that was all we 
>> had.
>
> That's all I had too.
> I believe that was sometime around '79.
>
> But I heard about this thing called Emacs and got a copy
> from Bell Labs Indian Hill.  So, no real time spent
> fooling with ed.
>
> Started using it and never looked back.
> Soon after I heard about Bill Joy and VI, but I already
> had Emacs and wasn't interested.
>

AFAIK, vi is a superset (kinda) of Ed?


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151542 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

Greymaus  <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| AFAIK, vi is a superset (kinda) of Ed?
+---------------

Still is, at least in the BSD version:

    $ man vi
    ex, vi, view - text editors
    ...
    Vi is a screen oriented text editor. Ex is a line-oriented
    text editor. Ex and vi are different interfaces to the same
    program, and it is possible to switch back and forth during
    an edit session.
    ...
    The following options are available:
    ...
    -e Start editing in ex mode, as if the command name were ex.
    ...
    -v Start editing in vi mode, as if the command name was vi or view.
    ...

In "ex" mode, you can use all the old "ed" commands,
plus a few new ones:

    $ vi -e
    /tmp//vi.5cQvTx1JEC: new file: line 1
    :i
    This is a first line.
    And another line.
    Here's a third line.
    .
    :1,$p
    This is a first line.
    And another line.
    Here's a third line.
    :2d
    Here's a third line.
    :1,$p
    This is a first line.
    Here's a third line.
    :

And so on...

In "ex" mode, the "vi" command switches to "vi" mode;
in "vi" mode, the "Q" command switches to "ex" mode.


-Rob

p.s. I just looked, and "vim" seems to still have "ex" mode, too.

-----
Rob Warnock		<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue		<http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151545 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On 18 Sep 2015 11:36:40 GMT
Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:

> AFAIK, vi is a superset (kinda) of Ed?

	Ex not ed (both are still in FreeBSD), ed came from AT&T Version 1,
ex from 1BSD. Ex and vi are two interfaces (line and screen) into the same
editor.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151564 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
news:20150918152037.5c107e7bab82ac61f9383392@eircom.net...
> On 18 Sep 2015 11:36:40 GMT
> Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, vi is a superset (kinda) of Ed?
>
> Ex not ed (both are still in FreeBSD), ed came from AT&T Version 1,
> ex from 1BSD. Ex and vi are two interfaces (line and screen) into the same
> editor.

"ed" was a line editor designed to work over a slow phone line connection.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151569 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:31:12 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:

> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20150918152037.5c107e7bab82ac61f9383392@eircom.net...
>> On 18 Sep 2015 11:36:40 GMT Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, vi is a superset (kinda) of Ed?
>>
>> Ex not ed (both are still in FreeBSD), ed came from AT&T Version 1,
>> ex from 1BSD. Ex and vi are two interfaces (line and screen) into the
>> same editor.
> 
> "ed" was a line editor designed to work over a slow phone line
> connection.

Well, it was designed to work over a slow serial TTY connection too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151578 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

Bob Eager  <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
+---------------
| Charles Richmond wrote:
| > "ed" was a line editor designed to work over a slow phone line
| > connection.
| 
| Well, it was designed to work over a slow serial TTY connection too.
+---------------

As was TECO before it. Ahhh, TECO!! The only thing that made
software development on an ASR-33 (barely) tolerable...  ;-}


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock		<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue		<http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151584 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 04:50:31 +0000, Rob Warnock wrote:

> Bob Eager  <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Charles Richmond wrote:
> | > "ed" was a line editor designed to work over a slow phone line | >
> connection.
> |
> | Well, it was designed to work over a slow serial TTY connection too.
> +---------------
> 
> As was TECO before it. Ahhh, TECO!! The only thing that made software
> development on an ASR-33 (barely) tolerable...  ;-}
> 
> 
> -Rob
> 
> -----
> Rob Warnock		<rpw3@rpw3.org>
> 627 26th Avenue		<http://rpw3.org/>
> San Mateo, CA 94403

I love TECO. And its natural successor, EMACS!

There was an editor for the assembler ROM on the BBC microcomputer - and 
it turned out to be a subset of TECO. I was so pleased!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151690 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:

> Bob Eager  <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Charles Richmond wrote:
> | > "ed" was a line editor designed to work over a slow phone line
> | > connection.
> | 
> | Well, it was designed to work over a slow serial TTY connection too.
> +---------------

> As was TECO before it. Ahhh, TECO!! The only thing that made
> software development on an ASR-33 (barely) tolerable...  ;-}

Technically, TECO was designed to work on the console Flexowriter on a PDP-1,
not on a serial line, but it got better.

-- 
Rich Alderson                                   news@alderson.users.panix.com
    the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
    to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153176 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

On 2015-09-18 7:31 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20150918152037.5c107e7bab82ac61f9383392@eircom.net...
>> On 18 Sep 2015 11:36:40 GMT
>> Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, vi is a superset (kinda) of Ed?
>>
>> Ex not ed (both are still in FreeBSD), ed came from AT&T Version 1,
>> ex from 1BSD. Ex and vi are two interfaces (line and screen) into the same
>> editor.
>
> "ed" was a line editor designed to work over a slow phone line connection.
>
It was a sort of stripped down implemention of Ritchie's Gcos QED.
It lacked some important features
1) multiple buffers
2) full regular expressions
3) programmability
     no buffers
     no flow control and conditional actions.

Since I still use Gcos, I still do a lot with the QED descendant
FRED.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151514 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <mtdjlv$vhg$1@dont-email.me>,
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>         [snip...]                       [snip...] 
>>> [snip...]
>>> 
>>> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
>>> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
>>> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
>>> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
>>> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>> 
>> 
>> "vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing 
>> conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because DRAM 
>> was far in the future!!!
>> 
>> The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past will 
>> *not* be properly understood.
> 
> I still like to have vi available, even though I have been an emacs
> affictionado since January 1979. Likewise, I like to have some simple
> emacs clone; presently jove; available for the simpler edit jobs.
> 
> I like the regexps in vi. They rock. But I hate the mode-me-in
> keyboard command layout. So, I edit this in emacs.
> 
> See my post about having the *n*x development enviromnent as an ide.
> 
> -- mrr

Vi is like Edlin.  I hate it, but it has the advantage of being nearly
universal.  I only use it when all else fails.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151515 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:

>> I like the regexps in vi. They rock. But I hate the mode-me-in
>> keyboard command layout. So, I edit this in emacs.
>> 
>> See my post about having the *n*x development enviromnent as an ide.
>> 
>> -- mrr
>
>Vi is like Edlin.  I hate it, but it has the advantage of being nearly
>universal.  I only use it when all else fails.

 Most modern vi users have switched to vim, which has capabilities
far and beyond classic vi.  Similar emacs without the lisp.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151520 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Vi is like Edlin.  I hate it, but it has the advantage of being nearly
> universal.  I only use it when all else fails.

Twenty years ago, I used to quip "I know only enough 'vi' to edit
the Makefiles to build an emacs"

There actually was a brief time when my only 'mine, mine, all mine' Unix
box was a 3B1, which could run [crawl] a micro-emacs build, but was not
studly enough to run a real Gnu emacs in any usable way.  During that
brief period, I did get rather proficient with vi, but immediately
forgot it all when I switched to Sun gear.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151565 — Re: !!!Re: Getting into Mac software development

"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
news:i3lqcc-g59.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <mtdjlv$vhg$1@dont-email.me>,
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:mtddor12qjb@news7.newsguy.com...
>>> On 2015-09-16, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>         [snip...]                       [snip...]
>>> [snip...]
>>>
>>> Actually, I believe in using whatever works best, and sometimes a GUI
>>> can do things more efficiently than a keyboard.  Unfortunately, there
>>> seems to be a lot of software that tries to force your hands off the
>>> keyboard.  I wonder whether it's even possible to explain to some people
>>> why vi commands were designed the way they are.
>>>
>>
>>"vi" was designed for the time it was developed and the prevailing
>>conditions then.  Why use mercury delay line memory units???  Because DRAM
>>was far in the future!!!
>>
>>The past has to be understood in its own context.  Otherwise, the past 
>>will
>>*not* be properly understood.
>
> I still like to have vi available, even though I have been an emacs
> affictionado since January 1979. Likewise, I like to have some simple
> emacs clone; presently jove; available for the simpler edit jobs.
>
> I like the regexps in vi. They rock. But I hate the mode-me-in
> keyboard command layout. So, I edit this in emacs.
>
> See my post about having the *n*x development enviromnent as an ide.
>

Accolyte:  Master, does Emacs have the Buddha nature???

Master:  Why not??? Emacs has damn near everything else!!!

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151516 — Re: Getting into Mac software development

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 1:47:24 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I'm not saying that I'm totally averse to change.  But I've seen too many
> examples of change for its own sake - and the negative consequences of it -
> to not be skeptical when someone sings the praises of some new methodology.
> (I love Tom Gilb's term "mythodology".)

There have been many business managers--including Tom Watson Jr of IBM, who did believe in change for the sake of change.  They felt that 'shaking things up' was healthy for an organization--they felt it stimulated people to think and not be complacent.

Business writer Alvin Townsend, "Up the Organization" wrote about the downside of rapid changes.

Personally, I think that is total B/S.  If something is broken, or external conditions require change (e.g. new laws, competition, significant efficiency improvements), then, yes, you gotta make changes.  But if things are going along just fine, then change is bad.  It unnecessarily stresses people out and costs considerable resources.  Evolution is generally better than revolution.

As mentioned before, two new rapid transit systems were built in the late 1960s, BART and PATCO.  BART was all new technology, and suffered considerable--and very expensive--teething pains until it finally got up and running.  In contrast, PATCO used existing technology and got up to speed much faster and was more cost efficient.

I had a great I.T. professor in college who never accepted "more efficient" as a justification for change.  He always insisted that any new computer system justify itself with quantified specific improvements.  That is, specific numbers were required--"reduce transaction processing time from 6 hours to 4 hours".  It turned out that it took a lot of work to come up with specific numbers, and sometimes we would find that a new system wouldn't be that cost effective.

Back in high school, they computerized our report cards.   But I remember several teachers complaining that their old manual system of posting grades was, in the end, faster than dealing with computer forms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151524 — Re: Getting into Mac software development

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 1:47:24 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> I'm not saying that I'm totally averse to change.  But I've seen too many
>> examples of change for its own sake - and the negative consequences of it -
>> to not be skeptical when someone sings the praises of some new methodology.
>> (I love Tom Gilb's term "mythodology".)
> 
> There have been many business managers--including Tom Watson Jr of IBM,
> who did believe in change for the sake of change.  They felt that
> 'shaking things up' was healthy for an organization--they felt it
> stimulated people to think and not be complacent.
> 
> Business writer Alvin Townsend, "Up the Organization" wrote about the
> downside of rapid changes.
> 
> Personally, I think that is total B/S.  If something is broken, or
> external conditions require change (e.g. new laws, competition,
> significant efficiency improvements), then, yes, you gotta make changes. 
> But if things are going along just fine, then change is bad.  It
> unnecessarily stresses people out and costs considerable resources. 
> Evolution is generally better than revolution.
> 
> As mentioned before, two new rapid transit systems were built in the late
> 1960s, BART and PATCO.  BART was all new technology, and suffered
> considerable--and very expensive--teething pains until it finally got up
> and running.  In contrast, PATCO used existing technology and got up to
> speed much faster and was more cost efficient.
> 
> I had a great I.T. professor in college who never accepted "more
> efficient" as a justification for change.  He always insisted that any
> new computer system justify itself with quantified specific improvements.
>  That is, specific numbers were required--"reduce transaction processing
> time from 6 hours to 4 hours".  It turned out that it took a lot of work
> to come up with specific numbers, and sometimes we would find that a new
> system wouldn't be that cost effective.
> 
> Back in high school, they computerized our report cards.   But I remember
> several teachers complaining that their old manual system of posting
> grades was, in the end, faster than dealing with computer forms.

Then they probably changed again to direct computer entry on peecees. 
Great for the school, since they no longer needed someone to keypunch the
data, but it left the teachers to struggle with trying to get the system to
work.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web