Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Don't Need a GUI

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 439 posts

Re: You Don't Need a GUI

#21

Post by nocommandline »

Full disclosures:

1) I have an App - https://nocommandline.com - that is the opposite of this i.e. it says you should use a GUI instead of CLI (for a specific set of scenarios).

2) I'm not a 9-5 programmer even though I have a computing background

At a very high level - I generally disagree with 'you don't need a GUI' or 'CLI is better than a GUI'

At a nuanced level, I would say - it all depends. Sometimes CLI is much better than a GUI, other times it is the opposite. It all depends on what you are doing and who is doing what.

Software is all about automation and making life easier for you and/or others. If instead of having to remember a bunch of commands that I have to type, I can just click and get the same result, then click for me is better. It has made my life easier/simpler which is the essence of automation. GUI also becomes more useful for commands that you don't get to execute regularly. And GUI makes it easier for others to uptake the technology/learn it. Think about it - programmers tend to use IDEs to write their code and not notepad because IDE colors the text and so they know which are variables, restricted values, etc.

There is the argument that you can't automate GUIs. That is true in some contexts but in others, GUIs are usually built on top of the raw CLI commands so you have both worlds.

In other situations (and generally speaking), CLI is much more powerful because you have complete control of the 'innards' of the program. For such, I would say - yea, CLI all the way.

Re: You Don't Need a GUI

#22

Post by dbht »

gruez wrote: post #5

Most the things in this list are things that you technically don't need a GUI for, but a GUI is so much better that doing it in command line is pointless. For instance, you could do all those file operations in the terminal, but chances are you're already browsing files using a GUI file manager so opening a terminal to do those things is pointless. Terminal is great if you want to do something complicated that a GUI…

I do most file operations in a terminal because I can switch between my editor and the terminal without picking up the mouse. I do use a file manager to organize media files.

Re: You Don't Need a GUI

#23

Post by KeepFlying »

unnouinceput wrote: post #18
gruez wrote: post #5

Most the things in this list are things that you technically don't need a GUI for, but a GUI is so much better that doing it in command line is pointless. For instance, you could do all those file operations in the terminal, but chances are you're already browsing files using a GUI file manager so opening a terminal to do those things is pointless. Terminal is great if you want to do something complicated that a GUI…

Quote: "..you want to do something complicated that a GUI program can't handle..." Name one thing that a GUI program can't handle, I dare you. Me, on the other hand, I can point you to a trillion dollar business that uses only GUI and not a single CLI, to say the least.

"can't handle" is super subjective. Sure a GUI can have every feature available and be super capable. But it can also lead to it taking 10+ clicks to do something, and another 10+ clicks to do it again. Super painful.

So just because companies have proven that GUI is successful and capable, it's still possible that it "can't handle" a lot of things nearly as effectively as CLI in some cases.

Re: You Don't Need a GUI

#24

Post by sbuttgereit »

karlicoss wrote: post #11

GUI is better for discoverability of the most common scenarios (I can right-click to see everything that can be done with the file, including some third party programs). But it's bad for composing programs and interoperability, often it's impossible or very hard to automate (how many people are doing UI testing? there is a good reason it's not many -- it completely sucks) TUI/console is very good for interoperability…

A fair part of what I do includes ERP implementation project work. Way back, when TUI/keyboard centric ERP system dominance was starting to give way to GUI/mouse centric ERP systems, I was working with one client where replacing a TUI with GUI based system. One measure we made during the project was the impact to new employee training time and we saw significant reductions in training time due to the sorts of discoverability you mention found in the GUI based system. It was just easier to use. This didn't come for free however. At a different client making the same transition from TUI based system to GUI based system (same target software), we measured the productivity of well trained staff and the TUI was well ahead in daily productivity. Now the different companies had different employment profiles; they were both retail businesses, but the first one that measured training was more decentralized and saw higher staff turnover rates and so cared more about training efficiency; the other had more centralized operations and so had fewer, more senior staff members with longer tenures where daily performance was a more important metric for efficiency.

Now a TUI isn't the same as command line and most GUIs allow for substantial keyboard functionality, but I think developing for a TUI tends to get you thinking about a person working a keyboard whereas developing a GUI you're thinking more about the person with a mouse/trackball/trackpad/touchscreen.

Personally, I do a lot of database work; mostly PostgreSQL. I decided some years ago to bite the bullet and get rid of the GUI and just use straight psql. I largely haven't looked back, though if I'm doing heavy development work I just started using DataGrip since it helps avoid stupid errors that a simpler text editor doesn't find.

Re: You Don't Need a GUI

#25

Post by II2II »

gruez wrote: post #5

Most the things in this list are things that you technically don't need a GUI for, but a GUI is so much better that doing it in command line is pointless. For instance, you could do all those file operations in the terminal, but chances are you're already browsing files using a GUI file manager so opening a terminal to do those things is pointless. Terminal is great if you want to do something complicated that a GUI…

Different people will draw the line in different places. Take your example of file management: since I'm usually in a terminal, it takes far less effort to enter a command than it does to open up a graphical file manager and navigate to the desired directories.

The other issue is that few file managers are as powerful as command line utilities. There are exceptions. I am quite fond of Directory Opus while using Windows since it feels like a program designed by people who understand the scope of file management. Alas, it is an exception rather than the rule. Most file managers facilitate basic functions then stop there. With the shell, that's not really an issue since you can always add another utility to your tool box.

Re: You Don't Need a GUI

#26

Post by [deleted] »

nocommandline wrote: post #21

Full disclosures: 1) I have an App - https://nocommandline.com - that is the opposite of this i.e. it says you should use a GUI instead of CLI (for a specific set of scenarios). 2) I'm not a 9-5 programmer even though I have a computing background At a very high level - I generally disagree with 'you don't need a GUI' or 'CLI is better than a GUI' At a nuanced level, I would say - it all depends. Sometimes CLI is muc…

[deleted]

Re: You Don't Need a GUI

#27

Post by theamk »

unnouinceput wrote: post #18
gruez wrote: post #5

Most the things in this list are things that you technically don't need a GUI for, but a GUI is so much better that doing it in command line is pointless. For instance, you could do all those file operations in the terminal, but chances are you're already browsing files using a GUI file manager so opening a terminal to do those things is pointless. Terminal is great if you want to do something complicated that a GUI…

Quote: "..you want to do something complicated that a GUI program can't handle..." Name one thing that a GUI program can't handle, I dare you. Me, on the other hand, I can point you to a trillion dollar business that uses only GUI and not a single CLI, to say the least.

You can write a GUI for anything, so if you are willing to spend enough time searching for software, you can solve anything with GUIs. But the big difference is with CLI, there is no need for third party software, the functionality is right there.

Here is a simple task which can easily occur in business: you have a folder with thousands of files named somewhat haphazardly. Copy all the files with have numbers 2011 to 2019 anywhere in the filename to an usb stick.

Re: You Don't Need a GUI

#28

Post by goranmoomin »

You need a GUI. The user experience of GUIs are superior to CLIs in discoverability, consistency, etc...

The only reason CLIs are still useful is because we still haven’t found a way to compose GUI applications well. We still can’t automate GUI applications, use the result of one app from another app etc... But that’s not something inherent to the GUI paradigm.

Re: You Don't Need a GUI

#29

Post by gpanders »

xrd wrote: post #9

This is terrific. But... GUIs support the concept of undo. It would be great if all shells indicated the command to undo what you just did, and you could turn off that warning message with an environment variable. And, almost none of these work in the Windows command prompt. I've tried powershell and while there are some great ideas, nothing behaves as I would expect after using bash for 20+ years. These are the reas…

Undoing isn’t a feature of a GUI though, but rather running in a context that maintains history/state. There’s no reason a command line program couldn’t do something like this in theory.

Re: You Don't Need a GUI

#30

Post by analog31 »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #14
analog31 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly enough, even in the Windows world, I'm seeing more and more instructions for things like installing a software app or component, as a list of commands that you enter into the shell or the taskbar search box. Installation instructions for Windows are horrifying -- page after page of pictures, with circles and arrows and a paragraph... And when the OS is updated, all of the dialog layouts and icons change just a…

Is it still that bad? I haven’t used Windows since 7, I just assumed at some point in the zillion pivots since then MS would take a cue from macOS and make installing apps as easy as a click or drag-dropping a single “file”. It couldn’t possibly be a huge design or engineering feat to copy. Do people who use Windows just actually prefer installers?

Like the other poster says, it has gotten vastly more consistent, but that consistency depends on the software author or vendor keeping up to date. As you drill down into the depths of niche or technical software (aka "the good stuff"), there are more surprises in store.
Post reply on HN