Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!cod!rupp
From: rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. rupp)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Danger of IIgs+
Message-ID: <1114@cod.NOSC.MIL>
Date: 8 Jun 88 21:42:32 GMT
References: <8806061536.AA11762@crash.cts.com> <4Weq3jy00V4GMJ80NC@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. rupp)
Organization: Computer Sciences Corp., San Diego
Lines: 26

I think some people may be missing an important point in this
discussion.  The "hackers" seem to feel that if a computer is easy (We
should say "realatively easy") to use, it is somehow less fun or
rewarding, or something, than a computer that is more difficult to use.
This is nonsense.

Ease of use is, in and of itself, *always* a virtue.  Would you prefer
to enter hex code with front panel switches instead of entering English
language commands on a keyboard?  I think not.  Ease of use is not the
most important question.  What really matters is this: what can be done
with the computer (or camera, or drill, or any other tool)?  

I don't think we would sneer at today's Air Force pilots just because
taking off and landing an F-15 is not the uncertain adventure that was
experienced with a World War I biplane.  I don't think we would laugh
at a concert violinist just because he or she doesn't not know how to
build and modify violins for greater performance.

Let's keep our eye on the ball.  Namely, what the tool can do for the
user.  And also what the user needs to bring to the task, no matter how
user-friendly the computer.  The friendliest spread sheet in the world
will not help a user who cannot conceptualize a matrix of data.

Bill

(This is just my own opinion; I do not claim to speak for anyone else.)