DaWei

In some instances the tokens make perfect sense. A "pipe" was used to transfer the flow of information from one running program to another. To split the output would sensibly require a "tee". On the whole, however, the abbreviated tokens were used because the culture of the time had to minimize the storage requirements for source files and such. Neither the speed nor the capacity of the cheaper storage media were anything to write home about. Consider the speed of paper tape: 10 characters per second on some machines (a fast typist will burst above that periodically -- I've outrun a TTY myself, on occasion). The original floppies (eight inchers) held 120 to 160 KB. That's KB, not MB or GB. There is no reason for change NOT to impact tradition, but it doesn't always do so, and often just requires time as habits cease to become propagated. AWK was simply one of many, many utilities being written by the boys of C and Unix at the time, and was named after the authors (their initials).

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Cerulean

- cp _________________________copy
- mv _________________________move
- man ________________________manual
- cmp ________________________compare
For the obvious reason that you type those commands a lot. I'm gratefull for the fact I haven't typed a gazillion more keys. If you like verbosity, feel free to alias. It has no effect on the system.

- awk ________________________replace
It's not replace, it's a string pattern matching and processing language. Your argument here breaks down because naming a programming language in a way that does not reflect what it does is not an open-source specific thing. Water, Java, etc.. Should Water not be LispStyleLanguageWithAnXMLSyntax?

- pine ________________________email
Just as logical as outlook ____ email. It's not open source specifc.

- nice________________________Set the priority of a command or job
You're telling the process to be "nice" with the processor. To be honest i'm not too big with this one either.

- yes_________________________Print a string until interrupted
- tee_________________________Redirect output to multiple files
Heh, got me there.

- touch_______________________Change file timestamps
Because that's what you're doing it. It does not modify the file, but still leaves an imprint on it.

- top_________________________List processes running on the system
From the top manpage:
That's absurd. How can "GNU Image Manipulation Program" be any more concise than Photoshop, by the standards you mentioned above. Seriously, this is peculiar bias.

OpenLoop

You make things up and then criticize them, that's one way to keep busy!

I never said GIMP is better or more concise than Photoshop, I just said that I use it INSTEAD of Photoshop but I didn't tell you why.

And really what does GNU stands for? GNU Not UNIX. How descriptive!


Let's talk from a software engineering and design point of view.

According to Pressman, the Golden Rules of interface design are:
-Place the user in control
-Reduce the user's memory load
-Make the interface consistent

From: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 6/e, R.S. Pressman & Associates, Inc.,

How is it consistent to name the copy command "cp" and then name the alias command "alias", why not "al" or "als" or any combination of these letters?
How did *nix reduce the user's memory load when he/she has to remember meaningless shortcuts!

I like to put that in a different way. If you like obscurity, feel free to alias "copy" to "cp".

Cerulean

And concise is indeed not the word i'm looking for. I'm just pointing out that you say that a longer, more descriptive name is better - how much more descriptive is GNU Image Manipulation Program than Photoshop? You are the one that is making a point, and then going against it.
*sighs*

Arla

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, is it good or bad that the interface is similar? I won't use Micro$oft because I only develop programs for fun (not really doing this for profit) so spending a vast fortune on a full product, or using Crippleware (it sounds like Visual Express is a not full product from what has been said by others) would be dumb. Your insinuation that Microsoft came up with the idea of Code Folding is laughable (having worked with languages that do code folding for at least the last 7 years, not sure when they started doing it in IEF, but definately was there 7 years ago) I doubt they came up with code completion either, but... I may be wrong.

Arla

Just a quick update, from a computer forum

This appears to be where the code completion appears to have perhaps originated.. as expected, not Microsoft (Quel Surprise).


Looking Glass Software's Alice Pascal, a syntax directed editor,
interpreter, and debugger for teaching Pascal, had context sensitive
code completion. It shipped for DOS PCs and CEMCORP ICONs in 1985,
and for Atari STs in 1986. You can read about it, and download the PC
and ST versions of Alice, source code and all, from Brad Templeton's
Alice Pascal page at http://www.templetons.com/brad/alice.html.

OpenLoop

my point is
having the same interface gives #Develop a great advantage over VS2003 and they didn't use the advantage

Why is it insane to think like that? I was wrong yes, but that doesn't make it insane! is Microsoft not capable to innovate? Maybe at a point and time they didn't but now it is different. Did they not invent the .NET framework that solved many problems for software developers across several languages and platforms?
please consider the following:
1- VC# express is not a crippleware, it is a complete C# IDE with code editor, visual designer, and intellisense.
2- Would it kill you to try a product before calling it a Crippleware!!!!!!
3- Why is it dumb to use a FREE product to code for fun!
4- and finally why do you ask for people opinion about a product that you are completely biased against?! is it to enjoy listening to people talking bad things about it and ignore the good things, or is it just to say that their opinion is useless, insane, and laughable!

noliviawalton

I think it all depends on the type of program that you are developing for you to decided which software, best for you to used. Also it does not hurt to know how to used Visual C# Express.

DaWei

The perennial, just-under-the-surface flame war regarding MS (or anyone else) and it's competitors is mainly a waste of energy and probably should be officially classed as a sport.

The fact is that MS was made, and Intel rejuvenated, by IBM's choice of them for platform and OS when they decided to enter the PC market. Gates was just a college kid who had "acquired" an operating system. IBM's goal was to dominate the market, whatever it took. Technical excellence is NOT a requirement for successful marketing; it only helps some.

If one's goal is to make money hand over fist, one puts on the plaid jacket and the white shoes and belt and becomes a used car salesman or something of that ilk. The little old lady from Pasadena doesn't give one big R's A whether her intake manifold is polished and chromed. One only has to TELL her that the vehicle will get her from point A to point B without fail. One doesn't have to be truthful! That is the unfortunate world of the bottom line. My own personal moral code doesn't subscribe to it, but a fact is a fact and scams and unethical deals are thick on the ground.

MS's predominant policy is to get to market rapidly with something they can call "New and Improved". Just like soap powder. There are lebenty-kazillion PC users who have no clue; they're a flock of sheep. They can be sheared and the fleece sold. This does NOT mean that MS doesn't have some sharp and innovative programmers. You bet your ass they do. They don't get to run the bidness, any more than most of YOU do. By and large they go to work and do their best, or what they think is good enough, or screw off, depending upon the person, just like any sample of any other group.

The fact that something is open source doesn't make it good, or innovative, or any other thing. If it's good, it's good; if it's not, it's not. A philosophy doesn't guarantee a cottonpickin' thang. A policy, coupled with a skillfull and craftsmanlike approach, does.

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

OpenLoop

well said DaWei