command line vs gui
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: micro solution backpack cd-writer hell
Next: "...error while loading shared libraries: libg2c.so.0"
From: Peter T. Breuer on 9 Dec 2005 13:22 In comp.os.linux.misc Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Breuer <ptb(a)oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes: > >> So, that means you can't optimize the query to make the search > >> more efficient. > Peter> You can optimize the query all you like subject to the > Peter> condition that any ORs in the query will have to be handled > Peter> by you, though, not the google DB engine. > So, you have to do that optimization in your UI implementation, > instead of simply leaving it to 'find'? Stop arguing like this! The optimization is none of your business; you SPECIFY what you want, and the implementation does it - if your implementation is factored into two phases, (i) ask google, (ii) massage the results, then your implementation does whatever it can to optimise stage (ii) and google does whatever it can do optimize stage (i). Peter
From: Peter T. Breuer on 9 Dec 2005 13:35 In comp.os.linux.misc Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: > So, original query: > (A and B) > fined query: > (A and B) or (P and (Q or R)) > where A, B, P, Q, R are all atomic. > How do you do that *conveniently* in your GUI? I don't speak the language you are speaking - you will have to express it to me in terms of the UI I use (or am pretending to use for the purposes of this argument). I suspect you mean (A or P) and (A or Q or R) and (B or P) and (B or Q or R) Is that what you meant? Peter
From: blmblm on 9 Dec 2005 17:20 In article <87lkyurwwj.fsf(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de>, Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> "blmblm" == blmblm <blmblm(a)myrealbox.com> writes: > > blmblm> Good for you -- and you do seem to be fluent with written > blmblm> English. (When you say "learnt at school" -- starting > blmblm> when? > >Kindergarten. > > > blmblm> if early enough, it's not a good experiment in learning > blmblm> languages as an adult.) > >I started learning German at 28. Is that old enough? First let me apologize for the snide tone of "good for you". This whole thread is making me a little cranky, but it's not *you* .... So. Yes, I think that if you started learning English in kindergarten, that doesn't tell us much about your ability to learn it as an adult. (I think I've heard that there's a threshold age, below which it's much easier to learn new languages, especially the sounds, and it's somewhere around age 9.) Learning German at age 28 is a much better experiment, but I wonder whether it didn't help you a lot to already know two fairly different languages, one of them (English) somewhat similar to German. > blmblm> But my experience has been that many people whose first > blmblm> language is Chinese are not so fluent. Maybe it's just > blmblm> that they're not trying as hard, > >Many don't bother to do it well. They stop caring about perfecting it >or even just brushing it up once they've passed the point that they're >able to communicate. So, these people will never get rid of their >strange accent. It's this attitude that prevents their English from >improving. That could be. I think the age of acquisition may also matter. What I have heard is that it's much more difficult to learn to speak a language without a non-native-speaker accent past that threshold age (9?). But perhaps you're right that it's always possible, just difficult enough that most people don't bother. > blmblm> or maybe there's just more individual variation than > blmblm> either of us had suspected? > >Attitude varies from individual to individual. So, yes, it's >individual variation. But I don't think I'm talented. I couldn't >understand spoken English (general context at normal speed; not just >tourist English spoken slowly) nor write easily English until I had >to: English was the medium of instruction in my secondary school (and >all my post-secondary education). I was essentially monolingual >before 12. You are probably right that individual effort varies, and that being in an environment where you *have* to use the new language makes a huge difference. Or you might just be talented. Take a compliment, already. :-) -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: blmblm on 9 Dec 2005 17:25 In article <873bl2rvul.fsf(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de>, Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> "blmblm" == blmblm <blmblm(a)myrealbox.com> writes: > > blmblm> So, your proposed GUI also needs to be able to store its > blmblm> results for later processing? Okay. > > blmblm> Or maybe you're just saying "do two separate searches". > blmblm> Which is probably what most people would do anyway, and in > blmblm> fact the only benefit I can think of in doing it as I > blmblm> originally described is that the combined search would > blmblm> only have to traverse the directory structure once. > >Doing it in 1 search has another advantage: no duplicates in the >result list. If the results of the two searches are supposed to be processed by two different actions, "no duplicates" is not really an advantage. My experiments suggest that only one of the actions will be performed, which might or might not be what one wants. I don't much like the word "intuitive" in discussing HCI, because I think it varies so much from person to person, but the behavior of "find" in this respect is one that even someone fluent with CLIs and Boolean expressions might find initially startling. [ snip ] -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
From: blmblm on 9 Dec 2005 17:32
In article <877jaetccn.fsf(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de>, Lee Sau Dan <danlee(a)informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote: >>>>>> "blmblm" == blmblm <blmblm(a)myrealbox.com> writes: > > >> It's possible to make shortcuts, tab completion, history > >> buffers w/ interactive search (ctrl-R) and scripts in command > >> line mode. All tasks that I do relatively often is done very > >> quick from the CLI. > > blmblm> As do I. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be such an advocate > blmblm> of a CLI without these features. > > >> I'm pretty sure it would be slower using _any_ gui. > > blmblm> That's what I generally assume too, but I vaguely remember > blmblm> hearing about a study Apple conducted many years ago that > blmblm> demonstrated that people *think* a CLI is faster, but if > blmblm> you do actual measurements of how long tasks take, it > blmblm> turns out the point and click is as fast or faster. No, I > blmblm> don't (want to) believe it, but it could be true?? > >Did that CLI that was used in that study have those features such as >context-sensitive TAB completion, history buffer with interactive >search, etc? Yes, that's a good question, one of the many that people have asked. I don't know the answer. I mentioned this supposed study sort of hoping someone in comp.human-factors would recognize it and be able to tell me more. I guess not! >I would be very very slow if you give me the MSDOS shell. But why >would you make a serious comparing with that shell? Well, it would be a good comparison if you were more interested in proving a point .... Half a :-). -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. |