Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

insightful post on gui design, and why it can be faster than the command line

<< < (2/3) > >>

Stoic Joker:
I think CLIs have a definite place, so for me it's more a matter of "what's the rite UI for the job?". The issue I have really is anyone casting one or the other as *the* better solution *all the time*. I just don't see how that can be true.-JavaJones (September 07, 2011, 09:25 PM)
--- End quote ---

+1 - I do 99% of any network trouble shooting from a command prompt. Configuration OTOH is all via GUI, which is due to the article's point of being able to scan past (see) all the other settings involved and assess their correct-ness.

The right UI for the job varies based on the job most assuredly

40hz:
+1 w/ StoicJoker and JavaJones.

For some people it's: GUI if you can; CLI if you must.

For others it's: CLI if you can; GUI if you must.



Geek posturing aside, a well designed GUI is a major productivity booster for one-off and small day-to-day things. Especially when it serves as a memory jogger for things you don't do often enough that you remember the exact command syntax.

For me, the fundamental difference is that CLI will always be more flexible. Because no GUI can anticipate every scenario.

And the single biggest advantage CLI holds is that it's scriptable. And that alone is what guarantees the continued existence (and need for) the command line.

Generally, that flexibility is less an issue in the Windows world, where user-generated scripting isn't a widely practiced art. Or at least not on the desktop level.



It's a totally different story in the server room. But everybody knows BOFHs like me and JJ and Stoic are evil six-fingered mutants. So they don't allow us to have our own GUIs. For obvious reasons. (see above)

In the NIX world however, scripting is a very important productivity tool. So users, who are serious about getting all that the Unix derivatives have to offer, soon make the modest effort that's required to learn basic shell scripting. Those that really miss a GUI sometimes also wrap a quick & dirty visual interface around a collection of commands so that the user isn't even aware that the GUI they're running is just a wrapper. In the Windows world, the well-known Super media file utility does exactly that.

The other big advantage to CLI (for me at least) is that it can be scheduled. Because a CLI command is not "interactive" (i.e. it just does the one thing it it says) once it's written - it's written! And once it's saved, it can be easily scheduled (via scheduler, chron, etc.) to run at set times or in response to a system event. For people like me who spend far too many hours in front of a monitor, anything that let's me quickly and easily pass important (but boring and repetitive) work off to a machine is a godsend.



GUIs generally don't let you do that. They're 'interactive' critters. Kinda like one of our dogs. It has to be his time, and his time alone, if you want to play with him.

So while I think the author of the article has made some interesting points, I don't think he made a convincing case for his core argument that CLI is no longer necessary or desirable.

Just my tuppence. 8)

steeladept:
Great points, and I don't disagree.  Truly, in my experience, ANY GUI is just a CLI wrapper anyway.  There is no such thing as an interface doing something, it is just buttons, sliders, etc, that pass commands and/or arguments to a CLI interpreter to do the work anyway.  At least that is the perspective I was coming from.  That doesn't make GUI scriptable or schedulable (necessarily) but it does make it easier to use.  CLI is ALWAYS scriptable or schedulable, at least to a certain extent, whereas GUI programs need to provide object/method documentation before they can be scripted or scheduled.  While this *should* be trivial (if time consuming), few GUI programs actually go that far, and it is unfortunate.

I hope it was obvious, but the productivity gains I spoke of in the previous post only referred to interactive programs.  If you are doing repetative work, a script and scheduler make you orders of magnitude more productive, if for no other reason than you don't ever have to do that again unless/until the script breaks/fails.

rjbull:
As an old-time DOS person, if I had to do something once... GUI.  If I had to do it repeatedly, make a batch file wrapper for CLI tools and just run the batch, or indeed via a scheduler.

And as I understood it, early versions of Windows were just a GUI wrapper for DOS anyway 

Stoic Joker:
It's a totally different story in the server room. But everybody knows BOFHs like me and JJ are evil six-fingered mutants. So they don't allow us to have our own GUIs. For obvious reasons. (see above)-40hz (September 08, 2011, 09:30 AM)
--- End quote ---

Forget somebody?

My version of the BOFH DIY Excuse Generator:


Step One. Generate Excuse.
Just run Excuse.exe (CLI...) For particularly unintelligent users, adding (any switch) the optional fourth
parameter may help to clarify that this isn't a situation that should be celebrated...

Example: Inherent Software Corruption
Dumb Example: Inherent Software Corruption - Error

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step Two. Compose a story to backup this Excuse.
Remember, the more outrageous the story, the more likely
the user is to NOT understand it - and therefore believe it.

Unbelievable Explanation (for above excuse) "Well it appears that part of our
software is corrupted - possibly because of some hardware error"
Believable Explanation:
"It seems that the Inherency of the Software is corrupt - not the actual software
itself. We're looking at getting some artificial Inherency in to solve the problem..."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step Three. Get the user to become part of the problem.
Example "..But the Artificial Inherency costs about 50 bucks a user.
If you could just send us the money, we'll get you sorted out"
Another Example "..But the Artificial Inherency isn't Right Hand User Compatibl
e - I dunno, it's Welsh or something - so you're going to have to type with your
left hand for the next 2 hours.." -usage
--- End quote ---


Have fun with it (I have).

 :D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page