From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI  (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:01:39 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct3.235607.14542@nwnexus.WA.COM>, kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
> 
> First of all, tcsh has filename completion.  That means, if I type    
> the first few letters of a filename and hit the TAB key, tcsh will
> fill in as many of the following letters as it can.  

Big deal. All it appears to do is save a bit of typing. Worse, it doesn't
help you unless you know how many characters to type to get a unique name.

A better interface would be one where you can SEE the file names and select
them from a list.

> For example, if I have files named "Letter to Bob" and "Letter to 
> Fred" I can type "Le<tab>B<tab>" to get "Letter to Bob".  If I only
> had one file that began with "Le" in the current directory, I could
> just type "Le<tab>". 

And what would happen if you had "Letter to Fred" as well as your
"Letter to Bob". This completion stuff wouldn't help you at all.

> If I forget what files I have, I can always type a couple letters and
> then type ctrl-D, which will show me a list of all the files that
> match.  

You shouldn't have to type ctrl-D. You should see the list automatically.

> Tcsh also provides command-history editing.  

Again, a shortcut to save typing. Big deal.

> There are dozens of other shortcuts which simply don't make sense in a
> GUI 

My point exactly. Rather than have all these tricks to attempt to make a CLI
more palatable by reducing redundant typing, a graphic user interface 
elminates the typing in the first place.

> The fact is, UNIX is so modular that you can do anything you can  
> imagine.  

I can imagine a Macintosh. I don't see how Unix can do that with shell
scripts. <grin>

> The Mac GUI is great for many things, but there are many areas where a 
> CLI is better.  

So far, we've heard from wildcard matching (which has been shown to be
no big deal), and techniques to save redundant typing (which the Mac
interface effectively eliminates).

You must be working with a different definition of "many areas" than I. By
these standards, I still see no motivation to move to a CLI.

> Apple recognizes this, which is why MPW has a CLI and why they are 
> developing AppleScript.

1) MPW has a CLI because of TRADITION, not because it is somehow superior.
   Apple saw that they could build MPW in this fashion and did. Every
   Apple developer recognises that MPW is a dinosaur. Apple's next development
   system won't look anything like MPW, and most likely will not have a CLI.

2) MPW's CLI is very un-CLI-like. You don't have to use it if you don't want
   to. Commando covers many ills.

3) AppleScript is *NOT* CLI. AppleScript is a collection of ordered
   AppleEvents. AppleScript doesn't even have to be represented textually.
   The interface is open to create graphical script editors and use them
   interchangably with traditional text based editors.

Apple's actions with MPW and AppleScript cannot be interpreted as an 
endorsement of CLIs. Indeed, their actions are clearly moving AWAY from CLIs.

> You'll note that, even though THINK C has a better compiler and linker,
> most serious programs are written in MPW because the CLI offers the
> power and flexibility necessary for large programming projects.

While many serious programs are written in MPW, the reason is not the CLI.
There are other factors that are much more important. (eg immediate
support from Apple, history of development, need for source mgt tools, etc)

> If you really think that the GUI is faster than a CLI in every case,
> try this:  Go into your favorite word processor.  Type a line.  Now 
> make 5 copies of the line using command-C and command-V.  

I think Command-X, C and V are a special case, since they are used so
universially. Users with more limited experience my feel otherwise.

> A keyboard shortcut is essentially the same as using a CLI, except you 
> don't need to hit return at the end of the command.  

I disagree. CLIs are MUCH more complicated than a single character, two
key shortcut. 

> CLIs may have a big disadvantage in terms of the time it takes to learn 
> the commands, but they often have a big advantage in speed, especially 
> when you were already on the keyboard anyway and don't need to make an 
> extra trip to the mouse and back.  

Any advantage gained because of limited motion is quickly overcome by the
cognitive losses in terms of the time needed to recall commands, plus the
large number of keyboard operations required to get a result.

This "big advantage in speed" has yet to be demonstrated.

> If you agree that the CLI is faster in this case, you have to agree that 
> there are essentially infinitely-many cases where the CLI is faster.

I don't agree CLIs are faster. 

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy