Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!RELAY.NSWC.NAVY.MIL!dsill
From: dsill@RELAY.NSWC.NAVY.MIL
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: R3 Selection Mechanism -- The emperor has no clothes!
Message-ID: <8905191417.AA01082@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 19 May 89 12:59:59 GMT
References: <1413@dukeac.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 27

>From: ecsvax!dukeac!bet@mcnc.org  (Bennett Todd)
>In article <3786@mit-amt> geek@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Chris Schmandt) writes:
>> ...
>>             Simplicity should be manifest in the user-interface,
>>   NOT in the underlying architecture supporting it.
>
>Is this sentiment common among X supporters?
>
>... But does
>*anybody* see anything wrong with the above statement, and the design
>philosophy it implies? Or am I just really strange in my head (probable:-).

To say that simplicity belongs only in the user interface is both
right and wrong.  It's right because the user interface is where
simplicity is needed and is often the only place where it's possible
to achieve.

It's wrong because it implies that developers aren't users.  The
programmatic interface to a window system or operating system is as
much a "user interface" as the interactive keyboard/display/mouse
interface that we usually consider *the* user interface.  Much of
UNIX's success is due to its programmatic interface (and, some would
say, in spite of its interactive interface).

I'll let you draw your own conclusions about how this applies to X.

-Dave (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)