Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!sri-spam!mordor!jdb
From: jdb@mordor.ARPA (John Bruner)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac,net.unix
Subject: Re: Porting UNIX Applications to the Mac
Message-ID: <15530@mordor.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 17:11:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: mordor.15530
Posted: Mon Sep 22 17:11:27 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Sep-86 21:27:52 EDT
References: <1572@cbdkc1.UUCP> <1091@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: jdb@mordor.UUCP (John Bruner)
Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL
Lines: 60
Xref: mnetor net.micro.mac:7129 net.unix:5583

I seem to have started something that I had really hoped to avoid.  I'm
probably only making things worse by submitting this, but since the net
seems to be a medium devoid of restraint....

I am very dismayed at the general direction that this discussion has
taken -- whether or not "vi" is a good editor.  The line from my posting
which set off all of this discussion was:

> I am far more productive with "vi" on UNIX than with any of
> the mouse-based editors I've run across on the Mac.

This statement is true -- *I* like "vi" and *I* edit *very rapidly* with
it.  It does *not* say "Everyone would be far more productive with 'vi'",
nor does it even say "Everyone would be far more productive with a
keyboard-oriented editor".  I mentioned "vi" because it is the screen
editor that *I* use.  It was a concrete example which I cited only to
expand upon my general statement: *some* people prefer a keyboard
interface (for some tasks) to a mouse-based interface.

I cited other examples which noone seems to disagree with -- why didn't
someone ridicule me for preferring a command interface with history
and aliases to a mouse-based interface?  Perhaps this lack of response
resulted from my failure to mention specific programs which provoke
strong emotional responses in some people, although noone took me
to task for my preference for "dbx" over "dbxtool".

My sole objective in the paragraph containing the "vi" reference was
to state my belief, based upon my own personal experience, that
*some* users prefer a keyboard interface for *some* tasks to a
mouse-based interface (or worse yet, a hybrid interface that makes
one waste lots of time moving one's hands between the keyboard and the
mouse).  I realize now that I should have said "I am far more productive
with my *keyboard-based editor* on UNIX".  Of course, then there
probably would have been flames about "vi", every flavor of EMACS,
the Rand Editor, "ed", "qed", "ex", and who knows what else.

A mouse-based interface is appropriate for many situations and users.
I claimed that a keyboard-based alternative is appropriate for some.
That is all I said.  (I find some support for my opinion in the
existence of command-key equivalents on the Mac and their popularity
among so-called "power users.")

I am *not* knocking Apple's user interface guidelines.  I am *not*
suggesting that the *only* interface be a keyboard-only one.  I am
*only* suggesting that (at least for *some* things) *some* users
desire such an interface as an *alternative*.  Preferences for
user interfaces, like preferences for editors, vary, so I naturally
don't assume that everyone believes as I do.  Unfortunately, too often
it seems that advocates of mouse-based interfaces are not equally
willing to accept that other people may not agree that a mouse is
"the only way."

I do have some ideas on the original subject: adapting UNIX programs to
a Mac interface (both for transport to the Mac and for the implementation
of a Mac-like interface on top of UNIX), but as this posting is getting
rather long I'll put that material off until later.
-- 
  John Bruner (S-1 Project, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
  MILNET: jdb@mordor [jdb@s1-c.ARPA]	(415) 422-0758
  UUCP: ...!ucbvax!decwrl!mordor!jdb 	...!seismo!mordor!jdb