From: johnsd2@jec312.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Macintosh bigots
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec312.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:17:28 GMT

In article 722440416@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>In <#d21w=#@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>
>>In article 722375872@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>In <v911w2p@rpi.edu> johnsd2@jec327.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article 722358730@gmd.de, strobl@gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:
>>>>>In <vgz1s6p@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Nonetheless Windows folk do argue that the Mac has no CLI,
>>>>>>and consider this important. If you don't, good for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't argue that each Macintosh should come with a built-in
>>>>>CLI, just because *I* would't touch a machine without a CLI.
>>>>>It should come with a decent keyboard interface, however. :-)
>>>
>>>>:/ Oh, lemme guess. You feel there should be keyboard shortcuts for
>>>>all menu items, and keyboard based way to move/resize windows. Right?
>>>
>>>And a few other things (for example: keyboard "shortcuts" for all
>>>dialog boxes), in addition.
>>>
>>>The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines require a conforming
>>>program to allow a program to be operated using the mouse only,
>>>keyboard usage is allowed for typing text (including naming
>>>of objects) and for *additional* shortcuts, only.
>
>>This sounds like you are complaining that the Mac UI can
>>be operated by mouse alone. The strikes me as quite irrelevant.
>
>I complain that the Mac UI cannot be operated by keyboard
>alone.

Well, that's not quite what you said above. I dont really care
about it myself.

>
>>>The Windows UI guidelines contain a similar requirement,
>>>but applied to the keyboard: a conforming program has to
>>>be useable on a computer which doesn't have a pointing
>>>device, i.e. all functionality has to be accessible via
>>>the keyboard. This doesn't prevent a program from
>>>havin a decent mouse interface - not at all. But that
>>>mouse interface may not replace the keyboard interface.
>
>>And the Mac UI requires that the keyboard interface may not
>>replace (or hinder) the mouse interface. I prefer that, myself.
>>I have no objection to additional keyboard shortcuts on top of that,
>>so long as they dont interfere with the mouse interface.
>
>I have a similar preference, but with keyboard and mouse
>interchanged.

Then we are not going to get anywhere.

>
>>I dont consider it a big deal myself.
>
>I do. It'ts the main reason why I don't use Macs.

I am surprised you consider it that important.

>
>>>>[deletie- we agree. Wow.]
>>>
>>>Wow.
>>>
>>>I would like to impose a third requirement: a user 
>>>interface and all programs written to it should have a
>>>full script interface.
>
>>"requirement"?
>
>Rule. All programs are required to fully implement an
>interface to the systems script language. 

And ->you<- would like to impose it? Im still not clear on what
you mean. It sounds like "I am declaring that any system which does
not have this feature is trash, because I say so."

I hope you don't mean that.

>
>>> I.e. all functionality of the
>>>system and its programs should be accessible from
>>>within a program or from a script, by accessing
>>>named and well defined access points (i.e. functions,
>>>subroutines, variables and the like).
>
>>I agree this would be a good ->feature<- and the mac
>>would do well to have it (but doesn't, alas), but I
>>question your calling this a "requirement". A requirement
>>for what? A good UI? Its not even involved in that issue.
>
>Isn't a script language part of the interface to the user?
>
>I indeed consider it to be a requirement for a good UI to
>allow its user to plan and to delegate their actions.

Its a good feature for the system to have- but the scripting
ITSELF is ->not<- part of the UI; rather the UI applies to it
as to any other function of the system. (say, file management)

>
>>>Besides other things, this would make adding a CLI
>>>to a system almost trivial.
>
>>That may be true. Im not convinced; it sounds like it would
>>depend on how its done. I suspect something could be contrived
>>that didnt' conform well to a CLI.
>
>For example? I suspect you think of graph languages and such.
>I doubt that these will be very successfull without some
>definition based on a linear language.

I could probably think of graphic lanaguages and such. How they
are defined internally doesn't matter.

>
>>>Windows doesn't have such a capability, yet. From my
>>>limited knowledge about the Amiga, I believe that it
>>>has it - they use an modified version of REXX (a 
>>>script language for IBM mainframes which originated
>>>on VM/CMS. Well written Amiga programs have something
>>>called an AREXX port, which allows controling a program
>>>from a AREXX script. I really would like Windows to 
>>>have a similar feature.
>
>>Good Mac program are SUPPOSED to have it (w/ apple events)
>>but rarely do.
>
>Why? Is it so difficult to implement?

No, but theres no standard scripting language, so there's
not much point in implementing it.

>[...]
>
>
>>>After Windows NTs release, the situation may change, 
>>>but even then both serve disimilar purposes. OS/2 was
>>>and still is IBMs integration platform, while Windows
>>>is sold by Microsoft for the rest of us ;-), i.e. as
>>>the GUI and/or OS to be used on non-proprietary hard-
>>>ware. They are not alone in trying to get that market,
>>>at least NeXT (with NextStep) and Sun (with Solaris)
>>>have a similar target.
>
>>IBM WANTS to sell you OS/2 as Der Generic OS. Those features you
>>mentioned are supposed to help.
>
>>>>>Of course there is a lot of overlap, just like in the area of
>>>>>applications. 
>>>
>>>>They nearly totally overlap, as near as I can tell.
>>>
>>>I don't expect to be able to run OS/2 on my Indigo 
>>>in the forseeable future.
>
>>:) That's probably true. But I dont expect to run Windows (not NT)
>>there either.
>
>I expect to run my Windows programs (both NT and non-NT,
>the distinction will soon disappear, anyway) there.

Indeed? I doubt very much the distinction will disappear until
the features of NT arrive in 3.x...

Anyway, on the Indigo NT will be competing with Unix not OS/2.

[deletia- Shimano joke]

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.