Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!pro-exchange.cts.COM!rich
From: rich@pro-exchange.cts.COM (Rich Sims)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: "hackers" vs "users"
Message-ID: <8806220818.AA25810@crash.cts.com>
Date: 22 Jun 88 05:04:35 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 236

a response to Sean Kamath's comments:

>>I don't understand, but then, maybe I'm missing something.

>You might very well be.  Are you a "hacker" or a "user"?  If you are either
>one, then you are missing something -- the other side of the picture.

Are there no other possibilities for me?  Am I doomed forever to be one or
the other of the two choices?  I've been on both sides of that fence, from
time to time, so perhaps I do see some of "the other side of the picture"

>>Sure, the tools we use to create programs have become much larger, more
>>complex, and more sophisticated.  But then, so have the programs that are
>>created with them.

>Try, but so has the complexity of the code, the time involved, and to some
>extent, the joy of coding has decreases from something you do because it's
>fun, to something you do because you're paid.

I thought that's what I said!

>I *like* to prgram my //e,
>but I get paid to write for a company.  Not that writing code for this a
>company can't be fun, and many people enjoy it, as I do, but I wouldn't do
>it unless I got paid.

What's unusual about that?  I enjoy my work too, but I wouldn't do it for
recreation... I do it because I get paid to do it!

About those programs you write-- they are either for your own use, or
for someone else's, and in the *real* world, there are an awful lot of
people who have to *use* the computer in their daily work, but who have no
interest, nor aptitude for learning how to gain total control of it.  Those
people need the easy-to-use software that does whatever their specific task
requires, and they don't have the skill (or the desire to learn it) to write
their own programs.  You do, so any programs for your own use can be done any
way you feel like it....  write 'em in BASIC and translate 'em into Sanskrit
for all the rest of the world will care.

>>Why is there something wrong with freeing the users from the details of
>>operating the computer, and allowing them to spend their time concentrating
>>on
>>the task at hand (which is *using* the program for it's designed output, not
>>as an exercise in "look what I can do with just 53 commands in 123star")?

>Nothing.  But that's not what most programs *do*.  You have no choice, you
>*must* operate the computer.

Not so... that's exactly what a number of currently available, or "in
development" user interfaces do... relieve the user of just that requirement.
I understand what happens when I type:

   copy a:\ws\docs\jun88.txt c:\docs\rpts\jun88.txt

The secretary in the small office down the street, however, has only been
on the job for a month, and she finds it a whole lot easier to point at a
picture of a sheet of paper, with a name like "June 1988 summary" and drag it
on top of a picture of a folder named "Reports"

>As you become more and more "proficient", you
>desire to have more and more control of the computer.  *that's* when you run
>into the wall.

Only if you're the type who is more interested in being able to recite hex
code at parties and speak extemporaneously for ten minutes on the subject of
BIOS calls than you are in finishing the work at hand so you can (a) get home
and get dinner for the kids, (b) get changed and go out to a party where such
people are unwelcome, or (c) move on to the next project.

>Just because some programmer somewhere (or more likely,
>*management team*) decided that the program has everything you'll ever need
>to do the job, doesn't mean it *does*.  Talk to a big company. I mean a
>really big one.  What do you think they do?  They find out what their
>customers are asking for in their packages.  What many companies have
>realized is that they can extend product life by making it more flexible
>than macwrite. (Just an example.  But ask offices that do a lot of work: Do
>they use MacWrite, or MS Word? Hmmm?  And which has more configurability?)

What kind of work?  If they're doing extensive document preparation, they
probably are using Word (I do, and I probably don't *need* it, but I *like*
it as compared to MacWrite).  On the other hand, you might be surprised at the
number of people who do use MacWrite in situations where I think Word would be
a better choice.

>>The same applies to the development of the program.  Why shouldn't the
>>person
>>developing the program be able to spend their time on making the program run
>>the way they want it to, rather than on keeping track of all the myriad
>>little
>>details that are necessary, but don't add anything to the program's design
>>or functionality?

>What really happens ... [caca about human interface guidelines deleted]
>Now I ask you, go write a
>program, with a mac interface, on the GS, that input's a name.  Now do it
>without the guidelines. . . You end up with a series of calls to the toolkit
>on the GS, and *one* call to getln in the monitor.  Now, I'm not saying that
>getln is better, but it's a hell of a lot easier for me, the programmer, do
>deal with if all I want is a quick way to get a filename.  (good example,
>that's just exactly what I do right now in Apencode.)

Why would I do that?  If I want the Mac interface, I'll use the Mac, not try
to simulate it on something as underpowered as the GS for that type of thing!

And you're right, the way you're doing it is *much* easier for you... so go
ahead and do it that way... in programs *for* you... but if the program is
for someone else to run, your responsibility is to write it in the way that
maes it best for the user, not for yourself.  If you're doing anything other
than that, you're in the wrong line of work, and someone's paying you way too
much money!!  "It's easier!" is *never* an excuse for delivering an inferior
product, regardless of what that product is!!

>If you want to "hack", there's always the mini-assembler, and even on the Mac
>you can get right down to the lowest level and punch in hex code to your
>heart's content, then jump to it's beginning.  Of course, the rest of the
>world is going to be finished their work and out playing golf (or whatever it
>is that they do for recreation) while you're still trying to remember how far
>back it was that you wanted to branch!!

Yeah, but try and fix a bug in 200,000 line of pascal.  *Without* the
source.  Let's not get confused about what hacking is.  Yes, part of it is
*really low level* stuff, but that's not all it is.  Hacking is basically
this (in a nutshell):  Getting something done, something usefull, in a very
short period of time, that *works*.  I can write you a "word processor" in
BASIC on a ][ in less than an hour.  It won't be very powerfull, but can you
do the same on a Mac?  Without buying a compiler?

awwkkk!!!  Sorry, you've just gone way over my head!!  I'm not aware of any
way to patch 200,000 lines of Pascal, without a compiler, on *any* computer,
whether it be a Mac, or anything else!  As for that BASIC word processor, I
must place a higher value on my time than you do.  In that same hour, I can
earn enough money to buy a word processor at least as powerful as the one
you're going to write in BASIC, and have some change left over for a cup of
coffee.  The point here is that if a word processor is *needed*, why would
anyone in their right mind take that approach?  Either buy an existing one,
or go ahead and buy the compiler and write one of your own design... but
don't kludge together the kind of thing you described just because the
computer will permit you to do so.

>>The complaint about the requirements for more memory and larger storage
>>devices is just as silly.  Want to run off of a 100k floppy disk?  Fine! The
>>Radio Shack Model 100 used them, and I still have one of those, with it's
>>drive.  But (for example) the 4th Dimension database on my Macintosh needs
>>750k of storage for the *application*.... never mind the data files.  I
>>think I'll just keep that on the hard disk, thank you!

>Wait one minute there dude!  *I* never said *STORAGE* should be dinky! NOT
>ME WHO WANTS TO BUY A 60 MEG SCSI DRIVE!

Whoops!  Getting a bit testy, are we?  I didn't single anyone out, just made
some comments on the content and "tone" of several messages.  Like they say,
"If the shoe fits...." 

>>Of course, if one of you dedicated, hard-core, "hackers" will use all that
>>skill to create a program that will do all the things I've come to expect
>>from
>>today's software, and will make it run effectively in 48k, I'll cheerfully
>>bring my old Apple ][+ out of retirement and plug the cassette recorder back
>>into it.

>Ok, yeah, but have you ever looked at the code for those programs?  Jeeze,
>no wonder microsoft has such a horrible record when it comes to product
>introductions on time!  Memory is cheap, yes, but that is no excuse for
>writing *ineffecient* *slow* code!  Do you really think that 4th Dim.
>*REALLY* needs it's 750K of program space?  As I look at programs today, I
>see about a two-fold increase in power (really!) with about 5-10 fold
>increase in program size.

hmmm... I'd disagree with your impression of the increase in power.  The first
real database I ever used was PFS File on an Apple ][+, and I suspect the
current crop has something more than a "two-fold" increase in power over that!

I wouldn't know how much space a program like 4D *really* needs, but I suspect
there's some room for improvement (after all, they just improved it, and are
working on it again).  You're right, though, there's no excuse for writing
sloppy, inefficient code.  And anyone who does so deliberately should most
likely be drawn and quartered.  On the other hand, I'd rather have an
imperfect but useable program this week, rather than wait five years for the
ultimate, perfected, maximally efficient version to come out.  Too much work
is going to stack up while I'm waiting!

>>As for those of you irresponsible folks who are continuing to design all the
>>new hardware with the added capabilities, and you evil guys who are writing
>>all that terrible software that takes advantage of it.... well, all I can
>>say is "Keep it up!!  I love it!!"  (And I'll buy those extra memory chips
>>when I need them!!)

>Fine. go right ahead.  But I'm going to wait for something better.
>Something that does what you say: Better hardware with software that takes
>advantage of it.

Good idea! And when it comes out, you can look at the things that could be
fiurther improved, and wait some more for that model.  Then when it comes
out, you can ....

>Do *you* win when it takes hours for P16 to load?  Do you win when your GS
>takes five hours to redraw the screen?

Sorry, wrong wavelength!  ProDOS 16 takes roughly 30 seconds to load and
put me at the command prompt (on my system).  I have no knowledge of how
long the GS takes to re-draw the screen, since I don't use it in graphics
mode, but only in text mode.  That re-draws fairly quickly :-)

>> [reference to definition of "hacking"]

>See above.  Yes, it is pushing the machine to it's limits.  Even if it means
>doing something just for the sake of showing it can be done.  80 columns in
>software *alone* was a wonderful example.

You sound like one of the people responsible for foisting the GS's "desktop
interface" on the American public!  :-)

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with that idea, just don't try to sell it to
the world as the "right" way to do things in an environment where the object
is to use the computer in a productive manner... it's strictly an exercise in
personal satisfaction... nothing more!

(80 columns in software alone??  sheesh... I've only seen 70!)

What you, and the others who complain about the lack of the features that made
the computers a lot of fun for hackers, are missing is very simple.  They are
not built for hackers, but for the general public.  Computers are becoming as
commonplace as many other appliances, and the way we see tham, as well as the
way they work, must reflect that.  It's too bad, but the "hackers" don't pay
the bills, it's Mr. and Mrs. Jones, down the street, who do that.  And what
they want (and need) is something that's as simple and easy to use as the rest
of their household appliances.  The same goes for the business world.  A
computer that is slightly less "hackable", but a lot easier to use, will be
much more productive than the other way around.  Trust me!!  There are a lot
more people who *NEED* to run AppleWorks (or MacWrite) than there are who
*WANT* to run ORCA/M!!

UUCP: [ ihnp4 cbosgd sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!pro-exchange!rich
ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil
INET: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com
pro-exchange:  305-431-3203  :  300-1200-2400-9600/ARQ  :  login as 'register'