Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: readline bashing (was POSIX bashing)
Message-ID: <15746@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 7 Apr 91 02:14:00 GMT
References: <564@bria> <1991Apr04.025733.18462@decuac.dec.com> <1991Apr5.072447.4432@mtxinu.COM>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 17

In article <1991Apr5.072447.4432@mtxinu.COM> ed@mtxinu.COM (Ed Gould) writes:
>We worked a bit harder, not having multiple windows and all that, but
>we got a lot done.

All that is quite true.  However, having gotten used to spiffy user
interfaces I'm no longer sure I could be productive if forced to
revert to old methods.  One's personal standards change based on
experience.

>... most of the things that take more than that do so because they're
>bloated with excess goo, badly coded, or - most likely - both.

Don't forget another possibility, which is lack of integration in their
design.  What makes systems like the original UNIX and Plan 9 so slick
is the care that is put into conceptual integration; systems that are
"designed" with much less care tend to end up supporting several distinct
features where one properly-designed facility would have sufficed.