Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:17537 comp.windows.misc:1101
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: Iconitis
Message-ID: <38948@think.UUCP>
Date: 9 Apr 89 15:39:37 GMT
References: <1930@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <11555@lanl.gov> <1360@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <38800@think.UUCP> <1364@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Followup-To: comp.windows.misc
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 22

In article <1364@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes:
>except that not all useful "extensions" can be usefully be done by
>adding options to menus.  That's why I said "programmable."

Any extensions that involve adding new keystrokes to an emacs- or
vi-style application, or adding commands to a CLI-based application,
can be done by adding options to menus.  If the extension doesn't
involve the command interface (e.g. it changes the behavior of
existing commands) then what difference does it make whether the
application uses commands, menus, icons, or direct brain interface?
Either it's programmable or it isn't.

Just because most Macintosh applications aren't programmable doesn't
mean that this is a requirement of menu-based applications.  Most Unix
applications aren't extendable, either (emacs is the exception, not
the rule).

Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar