[openbeos] Re: scheduler/reminder

  • From: "Simon Taylor" <simontaylor1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:10:29 +0100 BST

> From: "Scott Mansfield"
> > >> BeOS is not about only GUI.
> > >> It's about GUI which makes things easy, but doesn't hide them
> > >> just for the sake of it.
> > >
> > >     I disagree here... Hiding some things makes it more easy. 
> > > Compare
> > > GNOME
> > > to KDE for example.
> >
> > Huh?  How is comparing GNOME and KDE relevant to our project?  Did 
> > I
> > miss something here?

I agree that certain stuff is best hidden.

> > OBOS?  It's about empowerment.
>     Right! By simplicity!
> > Correct me if I'm wrong here and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't be shy
> > about it.
> >
> > Generally speaking from a LONG-time experience as an embedded
> > U*ix/Linux/OSS and recent initiate to OBOS developer:  I can carry 
> > out
> > whatever tasks I see fit within any "Desktop's" sandbox that are at 
> > my
> > disposal.  I don't give a large rodent's posterior about what's
> > different in the execution, as long as the the end results are
> > consistent.  Give me a pointy-clicky thing that I can grok and a 
> > large
> > black window with readable monochrome-green text to type stuff in 
> > to
> > and I'll crank out code till the end of time, so to speak -- IOW: 
> > I'm
> > one happy developer.
>     :-))) Do you think a user cares about that!? I think Linux is 
> your
> environment! BeOS is to gentile for you...
>     BTW, you like gdb more than DDD, don't you? :-)
> > Carrying this metaphor to conclusion, we shouldn't try to constrain 
> > our
> > customers to what we as a group perceive as the "Best Way" to do 
> > things
> > -- something that I feel you seek to attain by restricting our
> > customer's tasks by abstraction through a GUI.
>     If you don't, users will get confused! A balance MUST be found 
> between
> usability and availability.
>     For a CLI geek that you are, I not surprised you think that way. 
> I bet
> you love dot files! :-) Users don't!

I certainly agree with that Adi. One of the major problems with all 
software products, but especially OSS ones, is "feature creep". Have 
you seen the default context menu in the latest tracker - it just keeps 
growing and growing. I for one would love to see the view options taken 
out of that (how often are they really used? They already have an entry 
on the "Window" menu, and keyboard shortcuts!!)

There are certain things only of interest to a minority in any OS - 
they should not be given the same precidence as more common options - 
that just ends up confusing the user.

Look at the number of options easily accessible in BeOS compared to KDE 
(or even Windows) - it was very much about picking the "Best Way" - I 
hope OBOS does the same.
> > >> If you have a look at the Terminal,
> > >> you'll see many things have a CLI counterpart, even the CD
> > >> player. (hint: /bin/play)
> > >
> > >     Does Windows have such a thing?
> >
> > Yes windoze does.  Please pardon me, I feel dirty for even the
> > slightest M$ advocation here, but one can launch any 'doze program 
> > from
> > the CLI.  [Ugh.  Feel dirty.  Must shower now.  *shudder*]
>     Really? I didn't know about that! Can you please give me the path 
> to
> that file!?
>     Regarding Microsoft... beside their monopoly policy... they did 
> lots of
> good things.
> > >> Dont forget CLI isn't only about geeks who want to make it
> > >> hard.
> > >
> > >     :-) Sorry, that the way I see it!
> > >
> > >> It's also about scripting...
> > >
> > >     Yeah, for lazy programmers! :-)
> >
> > Playing the devil's advocate here...
> >
> > Hey!  Wait a minute!!!  I make my living by making other 
> > programmer's
> > jobs easier.  What's wrong with using a script to carry out a
> > repetitive, complex task?
>     Nothing, really! ... if you use special scripting support like 
> offers.
>     But if you use a background session to carry out operations 
> through CLI
> apps, THEN I can say that what you do is a POOR/CHEAP product, and 
> more... a
> lazy programmer.
>     That can be done, and work real nice... but I DON'T want to see 
> that in
> OBOS!!!
>     I see in BeOS, a remarkable design, made from scratch, and for 
> that I
> LOVE IT; it's NOT like Linux where a lots of apps are built one above 
> other.
>     ...remember the discussion we had 2-3 weeks ago about making the 
> nicer! We all agreed that for making a thing for OBOS you must do it 
> the
> right way!

Myself and Michael are still discusing the GUI stuff offlist ;-)

>     OBOS is will be USER friendly, NOT geek friendly!

I hope so. Nowt wrong with having decent scripting support though. 
Windows is hardly "Geek Friendly" - but you can write VBScript if you 
so desire.
> > Is reproducibility cast to the four winds?
> > WTF?  Do you run 'jam' and parse its output from a GUI app during 
> > your
> > course as an OBOS developer?  A script has the potential of being
> > easily digestible and maintainable in a clear-text kind of way.  
> > FWIW:
> > "Lazy" programmers don't survive long in the field before they're
> > called to task and subsequently terminated; M$ employees
> > notwithstanding.
>     Hey! That's what I don't like about some people. You say 
> something, and
> then one comes and digest all meanings of that phrase.

Calm down a bit. Just a suggestion, don't bite my head off! ;-)

The beauty of discussion is that people pick holes in what you said, 
and then you reply and put them straight.
>     How the hell could I be referring to complex tasks like 
> compilers!?
>     I was talking about GENERAL apps! Do you consider good a OBOS 
> program
> that uses:
>         "ls -l | grep xxxx"
>      to find some files via a criteria, or use PERL regular 
> expressions
> support, etc.

Personally, I wouldn't see any problems with that - if it's a 
reasonable solution to the problem.

TrackerGrep is one of the most useful little apps on my system.

>     I consider this POOR programming. If you want to do one thing 
> right you
> might want to search the net for a, possibly free, library that 
> supports
> easy manipulation of strings or one that works very nice with regular
> expressions! That's a good product; a product that comes with 
> incorporated
> features, not relying on outside help.

Isn't one of the whole ideas of C++ and OOP in general being code 
reuse, ie "relying on outside help"? What's different, conceptually, 
using features a CLI app provides in a script, to using features a C++ 
library provides in a C++ app?

Anyway, scripting is very well suited to certain tasks, like it or not.
> > A *smart* developer uses the best tools at her/his disposal to 
> > carry
> > out said dev's final objective in the most efficient, reproducible
> > manner possible without prejudice to the vehicle used to reach the
> > finished product.
>     I *totally* agree! But, if one's "most efficient, reproducible 
> manner"
> is scripting with CLI apps, then... he's not "A *smart* developer ".

Surely he's smart if he can write a script in about an hour, for the 
task that you spend 3 months on writing a modular reinvention of the 
same thing.

A developer is less smart if he blindly defends his preferred 
methodology as the best way to do everything, without realising that 
other methods also have merits. 


Other related posts: