Re: simple vs complex languages

Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:


> I really think it is a pity that no language offers a fancier
> interface than plain textual files, typed thru an editor. The syntax
> directed editors of the late 1980's are gone.


I never had the priviledge of using one of them. But since I favour
the strongly typed algol family of languages (latest is oberon), and
since programming should mainly consist of modifying/refining existing
code it seems to be the way to go.


Early software hits: spreadsheets were menu driven. One of the
greatest software pieces IMO is the DOS originated 'norton commander'
which has been nicely cloned for linux.


Although I can't live without it, it is apparently not widely used.
My theory is that the kiddies like to learn the criptic commands which
they can pound out on the key board. It promotes the illusion that
they are 'talking to the little man in the box'.


Having a limited *selection* removes their illusion of power. With
the 'visual/menu-driven' Norton commander or its Linux clone, I don't
(want to) know the text string to change permission of a file. Or
when I want to move 2 files from one directory to another I can see
the contents of both directories and see the files disapear from the
source directory and appear in the destination directory. The same as
when I move a cup from one side of the table to the other. It's great !


The 'dumbing down' of user interfaces to cartoons a la M$ is
regretable, but visual and menu-driven is admirable.


-- Chris Glur.

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.