Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!pro-exchange.cts.COM!rich
From: rich@pro-exchange.cts.COM (Rich Sims)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: "hackers" vs "users"
Message-ID: <8806111436.AA20848@crash.cts.com>
Date: 11 Jun 88 13:06:05 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: pnet01!pro-sol!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 56

There have been a couple of messages recently, bemoaning the fact that the
"interface" makes the computer too easy to "use" and to hard to "hack" on.  One
even went so far as to complain about having to use a compiler or a programming environment to do any serious programming.

I don't understand, but then, maybe I'm missing something.

Sure, the tools we use to create programs have become much larger, more
complex, and more sophisticated.  But then, so have the programs that are
created with them.

Why is there something wrong with freeing the users from the details of
operating the computer, and allowing them to spend their time concentrating on
the task at hand (which is *using* the program for it's designed output, not
as an exercise in "look what I can do with just 53 commands in 123star")?

The same applies to the development of the program.  Why shouldn't the person
developing the program be able to spend their time on making the program run
the way they want it to, rather than on keeping track of all the myriad little
details that are necessary, but don't add anything to the program's design or
functionality?

If you want to "hack", there's always the mini-assembler, and even on the Mac
you can get right down to the lowest level and punch in hex code to your
heart's content, then jump to it's beginning.  Of course, the rest of the
world is going to be finished their work and out playing golf (or whatever it
is that they do for recreation) while you're still trying to remember how far
back it was that you wanted to branch!!

The complaint about the requirements for more memory and larger storage
devices is just as silly.  Want to run off of a 100k floppy disk?  Fine! The
Radio Shack Model 100 used them, and I still have one of those, with it's
drive.  But (for example) the 4th Dimension database on my Macintosh needs
750k of storage for the *application*.... never mind the data files.  I think
I'll just keep that on the hard disk, thank you!

Of course, if one of you dedicated, hard-core, "hackers" will use all that
skill to create a program that will do all the things I've come to expect from
today's software, and will make it run effectively in 48k, I'll cheerfully
bring my old Apple ][+ out of retirement and plug the cassette recorder back
into it.

As for those of you irresponsible folks who are continuing to design all the
new hardware with the added capabilities, and you evil guys who are writing
all that terrible software that takes advantage of it.... well, all I can say
is "Keep it up!!  I love it!!"  (And I'll buy those extra memory chips when I
need them!!)

(By the way... I used the word "hacker" in it's apparent context from the
content of the earlier messages.  I always thought it described someone who
was trying to push the machine to (or even past) it's limits, not just those
who were only interested in doing things by the hardest possible method!!)

UUCP: [ ihnp4 cbosgd sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!pro-exchange!rich
ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil
INET: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com
pro-exchange:  305-431-3203  :  300-1200-2400-9600/ARQ  :  login as 'register'