Hang on, isn't Forth out of date? 
Author Message
 Hang on, isn't Forth out of date?

    Regnirps> I can't write such a routine either.  Earlier in this
    Regnirps> thread I suggested a delete key snooper would have to be
    Regnirps> combiner with painstaking examination of a log of
    Regnirps> everything typed in the test period (a week or more?).
    Regnirps> This is why I think it is so much easier to go with the
    Regnirps> human factors people who have been paid to sit and count
    Regnirps> all the errors and productivity stuff.

Well, you still haven't posted what results you are referring to.
There is evidence on both sides of the fence, you know.

As for the delete key snooper - it just shows your ignorance.  You
can't write one for many computers with CLI, because with the terminal
in cooked mode, the delete never even reaches the machine, all the
line editing is done in the terminal.  Bruce has already told you that
hitting the delete key proves nothing about an actual error made and
you seem to agree, so I won't go on about this again.

    Regnirps> My interest here is not in proving Mac over CLI as much
    Regnirps> as my morbid fascination with people who are convinced
    Regnirps> that their intuition about a single case (their own)
    Regnirps> disproves the results of exhaustive measurements.  This

Again, there are a lot of usability labs (for GUI) out there, and
their findings can be summarized as this: New users tend to be
confused by the GUI of todays programs and spend a lot of times
searching for information that literally stands before their eyes -
it's just not as intuitive as often claimed.  Experienced users hit a
ceiling on their productivity because even if you know exactly what to
do, you still have to move the mouse around and click those buttons.
Which is incidentally why macro recorders and macro languages exist
for all but the most simple programs.

Anyway, what you probably really care for is not GUI vs. CLI but UI
design.  It would be good if you forget about the implementation for a
while and just think about the requirements of an UI when user refers
to a human (some seem to forget this bit of trivia).  Read all that
stuff about human factor and psychology again.  Repeat until you see
that there's nothing generically about graphical vs. text based.

    Regnirps> is how airplanes crash or artillery shells go off in the
    Regnirps> tube or Arriane fails (again) or billion dollar Mars

In the case of Ariane they got it basically right, they just
underestimated the magnitude.  The failure was reportedly in a part of
the program that was already in the earlier models (which is why it
wasn't tested as thoroughly - big mistake).  They failed to realize
the the acceleration and mass of the new Ariane is much greater than
the former models and triggered an overflow.


Now if you think this was all off topic (you're almost right), I'll
try to get back to the charter of this newsgroup.  There is one thing
that Forth got right from the start: You don't write a program, but
rather a language to describe your problem domain.  The question is,
needs this language necessarily be text based?

Which closes the circle to the original question: Hang on, isn't Forth
out of date?  Can we create graphical languages describing the problem
at hand where it fits with Forth as it is or not?  I've revived the
original subject for the purpose of this discussion.

Achim Gratz.

--+<[ It's the small pleasures that make life so miserable. ]>+--
WWW:     http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~ag7/{english/}

Phone:  +49 351 463 - 8325 (new number as of 7/14/96)

Thu, 18 Mar 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Hang on, isn't Forth out of date now?

2. Mac vs PC FLAME BAIT Par EXELENCE, was Re: Hang on, isn't Forth , out of date now?

3. Faster than assembler (Was: Hang on, isn't Forth out of date now?)

4. isn't there a Palm Pilot Forth

5. Why Forth isn't popular...

6. Why Forth isn't popular...

7. Why isn't Haskell mainstream?---A newbie's view

8. GNU Script isn't fixing something that's broken, so is doomed

9. COBOL isn't dead, but I'm learning C++

10. GNU Script isn't fixing something that's broken, so is doomed

11. GNU Script isn't fixing something that's broken, so is doomed


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software