Your comments are interesting, Adrian, but I'm afraid I may have been
unclear in my original message. My observation was essentially
chronological; I certainly do not promote modernity for it's own sake.
On the contrary, I guess I might have added an emoticon to denote a hint
of sarcasm in my usage of "modern".
As I understand it, an essential test of an interface is the degree to
which choice of appropriate device (key-vs-pointer, menu-vs-button,
console-vs-graphic, etc.) is in the hands of the user. This I think is
completely consistent with APL's traditional flexibility and generality,
and somewhat at odds with the only-one-right-way mentality one finds
elsewhere.
For example, I was pleased to find access to the familiar readline
control keys in a J console/xterm under Linux, but I'm certainly not
above using KDE's Windows-ish "abominations" when the need arises. ;-)
At any rate, I have some sympathy regarding your remarks about
effectiveness and efficiency. But I assume your "several orders of
magnitude" must have been intended as a bit of hyperbole for emphasis.
It is quite inconsistent with my experience with recent Dyalog APL,
in particular. And, if by "fancy" you mean to imply "frivolous", I am
puzzled.
Joe
Quote:
> <A real old-time solution was to put this stuff on a function key,
> complete with carriage returns. One keystroke. I guess the modern
> equivalent is a menu item
> Old-time solutions are often more effective than the fancy new tools! Like
> David, I have various bits of useful stuff on function keys in +Win, and
> dl,')reset',er,'[]EX''.''',er,')save' on a very similar key in Dyalog (for <dl>
> read 'down limit' to get the cursor to the end of the session before typing
> anything). Similarly, I find that a good old 'WsLoc' which echos to the session
> is several orders of magnitude more efficient than poking about with the mouse
> in some fancy 'Search Workspace' tool.
> --
> Adrian Smith