Re: Graphical shells

From: Unit 4 (
Date: Wed May 10 2000 - 09:46:58 CEST

On Wed, 10 May 2000 06:48:50 GMT, Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote:

}On 10.05.00, 08:38:01, Martin Doering wrote:
}> Ok!
}> Someone could code programs by concatenating icons and
}> for example configure their parameters, but this would
}> take 10 times as long as writing it just down in a shell.
}Of course you are right but there could be a situation
}where speed doesn't matter: imagine a student who tries
}to teach herself/himself the syntax of BaSH skripts and
}by using that module she/he would ba able to plug together
}the modules and at the same time SEE THE RESULTING SKRIPT
}appearing step by step in a little command window.
}> If you need to code, you need to code - no way 'round.
}Perhaps the graphical BaSH command generator could make
}people understand the way code such should be written
}and probably (after a short training phase) they would
}soon ignore the existence of that tool and write their
}own code - once they have learned how to do it.
}Karl-Heinz (privat unterwegs)

The NeXT machine had such a code generator. It generated C code that
would compile. The code was large, but it worked, which is what
everyone wants. This is useful for those who knows what they want to
happen, but don't know enough yet to do it from scratch.

Such a thing is also useful for people like myself. I can't code at
all hardly (unless you want some AppleSoft BASIC or 6502 machine
code), but I can look at nearly anything coded, see how it works, and
with some guidance on syntax, rebuild it to do what I want.

With such a thing, many people will never learn to code from scratch,
but some will find that the graphical system won't do something they
want, and they will learn to make it themselves.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:14 CET