More Drivel

[utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!houxf!ihnss!ihuxl!jej]

Subject: What "all this drivel" is

You're missing the point. Writing stuff for oneself has one excellent
advantage--one has enormous incentive (and ability) to fix things
(at least those things one perceives as wrong)--and some disadvantages--
one writes things to fit one's own quirks and idiosyncracies
(or, as one thinks of them oneself, notions of proper and elegant design),
and since one understands one's own software PERFECTLY, one doesn't feel
any incentive to document much. Unix shows both influences.

If Unix is going to be promoted as anything other than a neat system
for Dennis Ritchie and a close circle of friends to develop software on,
then it should take human factors into account. One aspect thereof is
that one should not (at least not often) have to take actions with
irretrievable consequences--having to do so frequently makes it easy
to lose the fruits of one's work, and also makes users timid and fearful
of new tools or commands. (See some of the papers in the recent SNot issue
on text formatter/editor design for further expounding of this point.)
Average human users are not as perfect or all-knowing in their actions
as some of the flamers on this news group seem to be, and whether such
users should be assisted by periodic saving of files, the ability to undo
to undo arbitrary commands, or both, is an issue which should be
rationally discussable.

Unix DOES succeed because its designers' quirks and idiosyncracies really
are, IN LARGE PART, notions of proper and elegant design. That certainly
doesn't mean that it's perfect. (Maybe there should be another news group
for discussions about a successor to Unix?)

					James Jones (ihuxl!jej)