Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!nic.MR.NET!shamash!tank!mimsy!tove.umd.edu!folta
From: folta@tove.umd.edu (Wayne Folta)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Mac Interface v. "Command Line" interface debates
Summary: Need to clarify terms?
Message-ID: <15213@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 31 Dec 88 00:04:09 GMT
Sender: nobody@mimsy.UUCP
Reply-To: folta@tove.umd.edu.UUCP
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science,gs
Lines: 63

There are several threads swirling around the Mac interface issue, so I
may be confused, but I think we might need to clarify what we mean by
"command line interface", as somehow opposed to the Mac interface.
There appear to be two meanings here:

1. Doing things, especially in an editor/word processor, without taking
   your fingers off of the keyboard.

2. Having a UNIX-like shell.

I hope that issue 1 has been laid to rest with my (and Microsoft's)
comments: you can do any word processing from the Macintosh keyboard that
you can do from the menus.  And it can sometimes be more efficient, as
Word can embolden characters with one keystroke, while you need several
to get the nroff codes.

But issue 2 is involved.  Obviously, a shell command-line interface is
useful for certain, concrete reasons.  What are they?  Maybe we could get
some concrete comments here, beyond "It is faster" (e.g. what is meant
by "it"?).

At work/school, I have used UNIX on platforms from Suns to Crays.  At
home, I have owned an IBM and an Amiga, but I now use Macintosh
exclusively.  My observations are:

1. The shell allows you to "move" faster, e.g. with
   "cd /usr/folta/src/proj1".  You don't have to move from folder to
   folder, as on the Mac.

2. The shell allows you to have shell scripts, which automate repetitive
   tasks.

3. The shell allows you to use pipes.  E.g.
   "cat x y z | sort  | uniq | pr | lpr".

Advantage 1 can be somewhat alleviated with such Mac programs as Power
Station (a Finder replacement, which gives you non-hierarchial access to
programs and data), and HFS Navigator (a replacement for the standard
"Open" dialog, which allows you to jump directly to oft-used directories
without navigating the Mac file hierarchy).

Advantage 2 can be alleviated (depending on your repetitive task) with
such macro facilities as MacroMaker and AutoMac.

Advantage 3 cannot really be answered, except by concentrating power
in individual applications, so that tasks commonly performed with
multiple programs can be done in one program.  This solution is not as
elegant as pipes, but Mac word processors do everything that you would
have to use about 3 nroff pre-processors to do.

[Speaking of speed advantages, nroff is no speed demon.  Someone complained 
about the Mac's slow printing on 500-page documents, but how long does it 
take to nroff a 500-page document?  I've had fairly simple 150-page nroff 
files take 20 minutes just to format.  Not to mention that your printer 
is the main speed factor: you want good-looking output on a PostScript 
printer?  You'll get 3 or 4 pages per minute.  Want fair-looking output 
on a stupid laser printer?  Maybe 6 pages per minute.  Want fast 
output?  Use someone else's lineprinter (and look like it, too) or maybe 
one of those laser lineprinters, whose output is measured in pages per 
second, and whose cost is measured in $K.]


Wayne Folta          (folta@tove.umd.edu  128.8.128.42)