Linked by David Adams on Fri 5th Aug 2011 16:08 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces A couple of days ago I read a blog post by Stephen Ramsay, a professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a Fellow at the Center for Digital Research in the Humanities. In it, he mentions that he has all but abandoned the GUI and finds the command line to be "faster, easier to understand, easier to integrate, more scalable, more portable, more sustainable, more consistent, and many, many times more flexible than even the most well-thought-out graphical apps." I found this very thought-provoking, because, like Ramsay, I spend a lot of time thinking about "The Future of Computing," and I think that the CLI, an interface from the past, might have a place in the interface of the future.
Thread beginning with comment 483932
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by jollix
by Phloptical on Sat 6th Aug 2011 16:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by jollix"
Member since:

Why does it see that some comments arguing against CLI are modded down? Most are valid points of debate against a culture that is inevitably going the way of the AM radio because, face it...CLI is dying. Eventually all the dinosaurs that grew up banging away at keyboards for 2 minutes, just to begin a process that will last (at most) 30 seconds, will eventually retire/conform/die or simply go away.

Edited 2011-08-06 16:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jollix
by mrstep on Sat 6th Aug 2011 22:22 in reply to "RE: Comment by jollix"
mrstep Member since:

I'd guess that advocating a 'you only need a GUI' approach to people who actually need to do more with their computers is what's getting you modded down.

I happened to post this already above before seeing your comment, but as an example, I needed to generate multiple mipmap levels for a .pvr file the other night. The GUI tool outputs nicely dithered versions of those files, but doesn't give you multiple levels as an output option, and doesn't actually complete the 'chain' back up to the smallest size at all - the tool won't save the smallest sizes that are needed. There's a command line tool that will do those final sizes in a merged .pvr file. So I needed to merge the output from the GUI tool with the output from the other tool to get a complete .pvr with all mipmap levels.

Go GUI! Uh... no, not really. try 'cat 1.pvr 2.pvr 345.pvr > merged.pvr'. Done. The GUI tools don't do what I want in this case, and I wouldn't waste my time looking for a GUI app that will take a few files as drag-drop input to write out a merged file when I can do a command line hit in a second. And script it to make it part of my workflow if I need to do it repeatedly.

So it depends on what you're doing, but I can certainly guess why people disagree with you if you think one size really fits all. Not to mention that there are cases where the 30 second process that took 2 minutes to string together would take hours to do by hand or write in some other language.

Reply Parent Score: 1