So what you're saying is that nobody should be a programmer unless they are a GUI programmer?
I wonder who we can enlist to write the GUI for the C library.
So what you're saying is that nobody should be a programmer unless they are a GUI programmer?
I wonder who we can enlist to write the GUI for the C library.
Code://try //{ if (a) do { f( b); } while(1); else do { f(!b); } while(1); //}
No, not really. But everyone should learn to program GUI? Yes, I do believe they should. It need not be that fancy, but any GUI is better than none.
It's also possible to team up with someone or ask if someone can create a GUI or frontend for something, and bundle the frontend with the program all the time.
It's a shame there's no standard GUI for C/C++, but there are plenty of good libraries out there, many cross-platform, so being able to write it should not provide that difficult.
decoder does not works on something that simple user may have. decoder transfers h264 bitstream into notcompressed frames
where simple user could possibly get the stream? any application able to produce this stream will be probably able to start the decoder and also to save or display result.
I still do not see a reason to provide GUY to any application just because you think any user could be as crasy as you to want to double click any exe he has on disk
anything accessable through Program/Start menu should have a GUY. Anything else - ... Why bother?
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection,
except for the problem of too many layers of indirection.
– David J. Wheeler
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Sure, having BOTH a GUI and a CLI is better than just CLI. But the problem is, developers have a finite amount of time. Writing and maintaining a GUI takes a lot of time and effort, and introduces complexity, so if the GUI is not really needed, why bother? Why not put the time into improving the program? If the program can provide the same functionality with CLI, with comparable (or even less) work on the user's side, why make a pretty GUI (besides the fact that it is pretty)?But I think it's just lazy and inexcusable, no matter towards who it's geared.
For a browser or graphics editor, a GUI is certainly important. For a compiler? certainly not nearly as important. The decoder is another example. It just takes an input file name and an output file name, and maybe a handful of parametres. Do we really need a GUI for that?
Don't you need to navigate there with GUI?And navigating there, of course. Oh yes, and it might be in the path directory.
Not all of it is in Windows.
I find navigation on the command line to be far easier, but maybe that's just me. Especially with large directories, it's infinitely easier on the eyes, especially if I know the name I am looking for. With a GUI you would have to search for it with your eyes, and that gets quite tiring (my dual monitor desktop has about 100 or so icons, searching for what I need is a pain, and can easily take up to 30 seconds). On the command line it's just typing a few letters and tab-complete it. Even when you don't know the exact name of what you are looking for, a "ls | grep asdf" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grep) will usually make life a lot easier.
The command line is quite powerful and efficient if you know what you are doing.
And contrarily to popular belief, Linux (or GNOME) DOES have a pretty file manager that is comparable to the windows "explorer", but I rarely use it, since I find it easier to do file management on the command line.
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection,
except for the problem of too many layers of indirection.
– David J. Wheeler
Sure.
It's not easier on the command line...I find navigation on the command line to be far easier, but maybe that's just me. Especially with large directories, it's infinitely easier on the eyes, especially if I know the name I am looking for. With a GUI you would have to search for it with your eyes, and that gets quite tiring (my dual monitor desktop has about 100 or so icons, searching for what I need is a pain, and can easily take up to 30 seconds). On the command line it's just typing a few letters and tab-complete it. Even when you don't know the exact name of what you are looking for, a "ls | grep asdf" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grep) will usually make life a lot easier.
Searching for folders can be tricky, but there are tools to help. Of course, most simple users aren't even aware it's possible, but for me, it beats the crap out of CLI.
Like press the first key of the folder you're looking for. The Search feature is of great help, too--or would be, if Microsoft didn't make it so ridiculously slow.
So again, there are two sides of the fence, and I want to appeal to my side of the fence because I hate the other side of the fence, hence my mindset.
And how about engine management software? Printers? Microwaves? There are way more embedded systems than desktop computers, and for most of them the choice between a traditional CLI vs GUI doesn't even make any sense. For those you choose the right interface for the job instead of stubbornly trying to make everything look like a Mac without regard to how tough to use, expensive or slow it makes your application. The same is true for desktop computers.
My homepage
Advice: Take only as directed - If symptoms persist, please see your debugger
Linus Torvalds: "But it clearly is the only right way. The fact that everybody else does it some other way only means that they are wrong"
I mean the search feature--the search box (Vista and later).
Try searching for something in your folder. It will take several seconds for stuff to show up, if your folder is even in the search results. It's completely and utterly useless and broken. I don't know why they bother.