[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GUI design
From: |
Robert T. Short |
Subject: |
Re: GUI design |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:02:30 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 |
On 03/23/2012 02:36 PM, Jacob Dawid wrote:
I am sorry to say that, but I think that all the discussion about the
GUI is complete non-sense. A GUI is simply a different way to access
octave's functionality that integrates better with the ideas and
concepts that a state-of-the-art program has to have. What I don't
understand is that people are so afraid of using something different
than their vi or emacs or whatever they are used to.
Can you click in the terminal and modify a matrix visually, by
clicking a cell and simply changing the content? No, you can't. Can
you type and - while you type - sort the history in a list, then
simply click the command and it will be inserted into the terminal?
No, you can't. Sure, you can find different ways to do that, but in
the end, a GUI offers many possiblities.
We're in the era of touchscreens and still fiddle with pseudo GUIs in
terminals and editors like vi and emacs that simply look terrible and
are a nightmare to use.
I wish we would stop using GUI when we mean IDE. GUI could (and should)
also mean the ability to create a graphical interface to a particular
simulation (or whatever you use octave for). Sloppy terminology and
sloppy thinking go together.
But for crying out loud, Jordi was just saying that people like "GUIs".
Many people want to use an IDE. Many people are very comfortable with
an IDE, and that is especially true of Windows users. If they want to
develop an IDE, go for it. I'm not doing it, Jordi isn't doing it,
Daniel isn't doing it. No skin off of our noses and I seriously doubt
it is taking significant cycles away from core development. Furthermore
nobody, and I mean nobody, on this list has any say over how people
spend their cycles.
All Jordi was trying to say (I think) was that if we are going to do it,
then we need to quit fussing about the interface, pick a concept that
works, and get on with it. That makes sense.
I personally hate IDEs, and I rabidly disagree with Jacob - anything you
can do in an IDE can be done with a reasonable suite of tools. Even
with an IDE, if the tools aren't there the things Jacob cites as
advantages aren't there either. One click? No way. The more
information you try to pack into a fixed environment the more time you
spend with the windows themselves. I am very comfortable with Eclipse,
the Altera suite, Visual Studio, and yes, even MATLAB. IDEs have big
advantages and for people who like them are a great approach to life,
but I would much rather have a suite of tools that I can use as needed -
and you MUST have the tools to use them in the IDE so the point is moot.
That said, in Microsoft Windows an IDE is the only way to fly. Command
line interfaces are just too clunky and the windows system too inflexible.
I am unable to understand the invective over this topic.
Bob
- GUI design, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Jacob Dawid, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Jacob Dawid, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Jacob Dawid, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design,
Robert T. Short <=
- Re: GUI design, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Jacob Dawid, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Jacob Dawid, 2012/03/23
- Re: GUI design, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/03/23
- Re: [OctDev] GUI design, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2012/03/25
- Re: [OctDev] GUI design, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/03/25
- Re: [OctDev] GUI design, Richard Crozier, 2012/03/25
- Re: [OctDev] GUI design, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/03/25
- Re: [OctDev] GUI design, Richard Crozier, 2012/03/25
- Re: GUI design, John W. Eaton, 2012/03/27