21–30 of 31 posts
This wasn't an isolated incident of innovation from Canon. Can anyone remember their 486 laptop with built in printer/scanner? The 'note jet' had the same form factor as a normal notebook of the era. The printing part was roughly where you would expect the function keys to be, under the hood there was a miniature inkjet cartridge that could be swapped out for a scanning cartridge. The paper line was pretty good, goin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a vested interest in making developer tools as weighty and difficult (for the PITS) as possible .. why learn programming when you can just buy an app? This is nonsense. You appear to be arguing that every computer user should be able to develop software - equivalent to arguing that every driver should be able to build a car. You know why modern computers don't ship with development tools? Because they are no…
Its not nonsense - it used to be that you could write a new application for your computer if you wanted to, easily enough, and you'd have the exact same tools as anyone else would have - because the computer shipped with them. The 'developers' arose as a class of society simply because computer use became decoupled from application development. >>10 lines of code to make a window But this doesn't actually do somethin…
Yes, it is nonsense. Development tools are easily and freely available to anybody who wants to use them.
The 'developers' arose as a class of society simply because computer use became decoupled from application development.
Developers exist because development of applications is inherently more complex than use of applications, almost by definition.
But this doesn't actually do something
It displays a window.
Used to be, you could write a functional application with 10 lines of code
You still can, and you'll be able to accomplish a lot more than you could 25 years ago.
but now, because computing is being run by Fashion Directors (I agree with you on this, btw) where 'trends' are more important than actual use, we get a lot of weight added to the truss normally bearing the load of 'usefulness' to the user.
I don't agree with you. Computers are being designed to aid users in accomplishing tasks, which is exactly what they should do. That they are not required to understand the internal workings is a good thing.
This wasn't an isolated incident of innovation from Canon. Can anyone remember their 486 laptop with built in printer/scanner? The 'note jet' had the same form factor as a normal notebook of the era. The printing part was roughly where you would expect the function keys to be, under the hood there was a miniature inkjet cartridge that could be swapped out for a scanning cartridge. The paper line was pretty good, goin…
You can relive the memories by reading the 1993 NY Times review: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/18/business/the-executive-com...
"The Note Jet is also a harbinger of future generations of mobile computers that offer many features that executives now enjoy in their offices. If a laser-quality printer can be tucked inside a notebook PC, it probably won't be long until we see built-in cellular telephones with answering machines, wireless pagers and beepers, send and receive facsimile capabilities with a built-in scanner, and even video cameras for remote teleconferencing."
I was reading this from a tiny computer containing a built-in cellular telephone with (remote) answering machine, wireless paging and beeping (text messaging), send and receive facsimile capabilities (e-mail or other messaging, with images) with a built-in scanner (camera), and even two video cameras for remote teleconferencing. This paragraph struck me as remarkably prescient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a vested interest in making developer tools as weighty and difficult (for the PITS) as possible .. why learn programming when you can just buy an app? This is nonsense. You appear to be arguing that every computer user should be able to develop software - equivalent to arguing that every driver should be able to build a car. You know why modern computers don't ship with development tools? Because they are no…
Its not nonsense - it used to be that you could write a new application for your computer if you wanted to, easily enough, and you'd have the exact same tools as anyone else would have - because the computer shipped with them. The 'developers' arose as a class of society simply because computer use became decoupled from application development. >>10 lines of code to make a window But this doesn't actually do somethin…
I've been programming since the mid-80s, when I started out doing BASIC on the Commodore 64. Along the way, I touched on BASIC on the Apple II, Pascal on the Apple IIGS, Mac, and Windows, C and C++ on the Mac, Visual Basic, and various other environments. These days I mostly do Objective-C and Java on Mac, iOS, and Android, with a sprinkling of Python and other languages.
It has never been easier to write a functional application than it is today. The ratio of code to functionality for any given app is lower than it has ever been.
Take the C64 or Apple II with built-in BASIC that so many hold up as a shining example of empowering the user. Now compare it to a modern Mac, which ships with AppleScript, Python, Ruby, Perl, and bridges to let many of these languages be used to create real, fully functional GUI apps. I can build a decently functional text editor in a few dozen lines of Python on a brand new Mac, while back in the day that much code would probably not even get you inline editing, let alone spell check, saving, rich text, printing, versioning.... Furthermore, the "exact same tools" as anyone else would have, Xcode, are available free from Apple and you'll get a prompt to download and install the stuff automatically if you try to use the compiler. Massive quantities of high-quality documentation are also available for free.
The reason most computer users don't program is because they don't want to, not because it's harder than it used to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not nonsense - it used to be that you could write a new application for your computer if you wanted to, easily enough, and you'd have the exact same tools as anyone else would have - because the computer shipped with them. The 'developers' arose as a class of society simply because computer use became decoupled from application development. >>10 lines of code to make a window But this doesn't actually do somethin…
"But this doesn't actually do something. Used to be, you could write a functional application with 10 lines of code -but now, because computing is being run by Fashion Directors (I agree with you on this, btw) where 'trends' are more important than actual use, we get a lot of weight added to the truss normally bearing the load of 'usefulness' to the user." I've been programming since the mid-80s, when I started out d…
"It has never been easier to write a functional application than it is today. The ratio of code to functionality for any given app is lower than it has ever been."
.. in my personal opinion, is false. The apparency-of-ease is there, but in reality its just not true. The runway to get something running and useful is about 10x as long as it used to be ..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not nonsense - it used to be that you could write a new application for your computer if you wanted to, easily enough, and you'd have the exact same tools as anyone else would have - because the computer shipped with them. The 'developers' arose as a class of society simply because computer use became decoupled from application development. >>10 lines of code to make a window But this doesn't actually do somethin…
Its not nonsense - it used to be that you could write a new application for your computer if you wanted to, easily enough, and you'd have the exact same tools as anyone else would have - because the computer shipped with them. Yes, it is nonsense. Development tools are easily and freely available to anybody who wants to use them. The 'developers' arose as a class of society simply because computer use became decouple…
Repeat, ad infinitum ..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"But this doesn't actually do something. Used to be, you could write a functional application with 10 lines of code -but now, because computing is being run by Fashion Directors (I agree with you on this, btw) where 'trends' are more important than actual use, we get a lot of weight added to the truss normally bearing the load of 'usefulness' to the user." I've been programming since the mid-80s, when I started out d…
I've been writing code since the 70's, and this statement: "It has never been easier to write a functional application than it is today. The ratio of code to functionality for any given app is lower than it has ever been." .. in my personal opinion, is false. The apparency-of-ease is there, but in reality its just not true. The runway to get something running and useful is about 10x as long as it used to be ..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>>Did Apple end up this way because Apps are a more natural fit for a consumerist model? "Want to do this task with your machine? Don't bother figuring out how you can do it yourself. There's an App for that!" No Modes vs Buy More Modes? Bingo! Evidence that this is the case: not many computers ship with compilers onboard any more. OS vendors want you to continue to invest in their platform - Apps just happen to be…
There is a vested interest in making developer tools as weighty and difficult (for the PITS) as possible .. why learn programming when you can just buy an app? This is nonsense. You appear to be arguing that every computer user should be able to develop software - equivalent to arguing that every driver should be able to build a car. You know why modern computers don't ship with development tools? Because they are no…
This wasn't an isolated incident of innovation from Canon. Can anyone remember their 486 laptop with built in printer/scanner? The 'note jet' had the same form factor as a normal notebook of the era. The printing part was roughly where you would expect the function keys to be, under the hood there was a miniature inkjet cartridge that could be swapped out for a scanning cartridge. The paper line was pretty good, goin…
Some images of it. http://computer-museum.webs.com/canonnotejet.htm
However, in my minds eye I did not choose to remember the screen ugliness - the somewhat large contrast/brightness controls. Or the keyboard chunkiness or the sizeable height of the thing.
Seeing this reminds me of meeting my 'athletic' uncle after he returned home from having emigrated twenty or so years ago - he had a paunch and other alcohol related signs. Sometimes it is preferable to keep one's memories untarnished by unvarnished reality.
I've always been a fan of the way the Cat works. So much so that my main work tool is pretty much a copy of the Cat on modern hardware. It beats, and has been beating for a bunch of years now, any alternative that I try to give a go. PS. Notational Velocity and NValt are pretty awesome too.
can you elaborate? what is your main work tool?
What do you use as your main work tool?