71–80 of 83 posts
How people get the mouse working in the terminal is one of those things I've always wondered how they do it, but never look into it because then the magic is gone. As a daily software engineer it's nice to have some things remain as magic
How people get the mouse working in the terminal is one of those things I've always wondered how they do it, but never look into it because then the magic is gone. As a daily software engineer it's nice to have some things remain as magic
Must resist urge to explain
Is there a Terminal.somethingElse too ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my country (Brazil) I sporadically meet people using TUI-based systems. Mostly COBOL but also a good amount of Clipper (or Harbour, maybe?). I'm also aware of a couple of companies maintaining systems in Harbour and my parents use a web app written in Pascal -- I could tell by the error messages, which are extremely rare btw; the system is very stable, despite the frequent changes it goes through thanks to the tax…
It would be more interesting to dive down and figure out what exactly the users like more about TUI. Just speed alone can't be it, because e.g. WinXP-era UI is blazing fast on modern hardware (and was plenty fast even back then). And if we know what it is, we can build GUIs that are just as efficient, but that also offer e.g. better text rendering etc compared to TUI. I once had an interesting experience migrating us…
Indeed. When they say "it's fast", I don't read it simply as "the program is fast". They get their stuff done faster, and the program is simply a tool -- if further speed can be achieved with something else, so be it. It doesnt even need to be software.
However, I still think TUIs are in a better position due to lower development and maintainance costs. This can be achieved by GUI frameworks, for sure. But TUIs tend to be terser, and their natural limitations become an advantage when they make certain sorts of bullcrap (animations, for instance) undoable. I believe this contributes to long-term stability, as developers spend way less time dealing with useless requirements.
> the takeaway was that they really wanted the flow to be 100% keyboard-based
Good that you could draw such conclusion. I do think we should rely more on observation to find out what users need, as opposed to what they _say_ they need. I know this sounds condescending, but I dont mean that. I just believe thay it's hard for them to identify and verbalize some critical factors for their success and they need some mediation.
I also feel upset about the keyboard as a second-class citizen in modern systems. There's this UX design school of thought portraying users as creatures of extremely limited working memory, who can't even remember what they wanted when they clicked the option, and therefore need infantilized interfaces full of pictures and colorful buttons because they won't be able to memorize a handful of keyboard combinations
I'm going to use the heck out of this but I can't even touch it until I know exactly why it's named Terminal._G_ui. I figured an explanation would be in the first sentence. The G better stand for something super clever :)
Graphical.
Duh.
What are the prerequisites for installing on MacOS ? Thanks.
If you want to write code in .NET you will need to install the .NET SDK.
If you just want to run an application written in .NET... it depends. Apps can be shipped with a built-in .NET runtime ("self-contained"), which makes them bigger on disk but they don't need any prerequisites installed. Apps can also be shipped without a .NET runtime ("framework-dependent"), in which case the user needs to have a shared runtime installed to run the app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be more interesting to dive down and figure out what exactly the users like more about TUI. Just speed alone can't be it, because e.g. WinXP-era UI is blazing fast on modern hardware (and was plenty fast even back then). And if we know what it is, we can build GUIs that are just as efficient, but that also offer e.g. better text rendering etc compared to TUI. I once had an interesting experience migrating us…
> It would be more interesting to dive down and figure out what exactly the users like more about TU Indeed. When they say "it's fast", I don't read it simply as "the program is fast". They get their stuff done faster, and the program is simply a tool -- if further speed can be achieved with something else, so be it. It doesnt even need to be software. However, I still think TUIs are in a better position due to lower…
How people get the mouse working in the terminal is one of those things I've always wondered how they do it, but never look into it because then the magic is gone. As a daily software engineer it's nice to have some things remain as magic