From: ibhan@husc8.harvard.edu (Ishir Bhan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Defense of CLI (there, I changed the subject ... )
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:03:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.ibhan.718394592
 <6082.2ac8918b@hayes.com> <1992Oct3.235607.14542@nwnexus.WA.COM> <ewright.718384012@convex.convex.com>

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>In <1992Oct3.235607.14542@nwnexus.WA.COM> kanefsky@halcyon.com (Steve Kanefsky) writes:

>>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.  

>Whereas, on the Mac, you'd have to go to *all the trouble* of typing
>cmd-F, a couple of returns, and the carriage return.  Yeah, that's a
>big advantage.

And on System 7, this command will also take you directly to the location
of this file.

>>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.

>Nope.  Not even close to be true.  I've heard that Think C outsells
>MPW by ten to one.  That sounds high to me, but it might be true.
>Symantec used to run an ad for Think C with a long list of the "serious"
>programs developed with it.  That was several years ago, but three I
>remember are PageMaker, Foxbase, and Macintax.  NIH Image was written
>in Think Pascal.  The Think compilers are even used at Apple. 

I agree.  I was under the impression that "serious" programmers use THINK.

>>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.  Now do the
>>same using the copy and paste menu items.  Time each one and tell me
>>which is faster.  

>Well, I won't go into all the reasons why it's impossible to 
>time yourself in an experiment like this -- I would have thought
>that was obvious.  However, if you set up a proper experiment,
>with an unbiased subject and unbiased observer, you will probably
>find the same thing as everyone else who has performed this experiment:
>using the menus is faster, although, to the user, cmd-C and cmd-V
>*seem* faster.

The point is that with a GUI you have the option of using either.  With a
new program, you don't need to memorize obscure commands.  You can rely
on the actual menus to get you started, and then learn the command-key
equivalents for them if they are faster.

>>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, 

>Why does your definition of speed exclude the time it takes
>to learn a command?  That statement is like saying, "The Rolls
>Royce may have a big disadvantage in terms of the money it takes
>to buy it, but it often has a big advantage over the Hundai in
>cost per mile." 

Also, if the GUI has command-key equivalents, which is faster?  The GUI
removes the steep learning curve and (in the Mac) allows for command-key
equivalents for frequently used commands.
-- 

             --      Ishir Bhan (ibhan@husc.harvard.edu)      --
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy