|
|
How do you justify the belief that Apple promotes computer illiteracy?
Let's define computer literacy as the ability to use a computer and its applications as well as understand what is going on under the hood, so to speak. Doesn't it stand to reason that making your structure more open and accessible, your underlying engine open-source, and implementing changes to the o/s that your users want would promote the existence of well-informed, experienced computer users and programmers?
That's what Apple has been doing every day for over 15 years. I am a computer user, not specifically a Windows or Mac user. I happen to own both a PowerMac and a Windows 2000 box. I program on both. I tend to prefer to use my Mac for certain things and my Windows box for certain things, because I like one app over another. I think both OS's are valid. Mac OS X is prettier than any OS I have ever seen, it remains to be seen whether it can catch up to Windows in stability, range of software, etc.
Apple is trying to interface more directly with it's users without treating them like morons, i.e. MSN, hotmail, etc.
btw - Apple is a company, as opposed to "Mac" which is a product.;)
----------------------------------
Sef Tarbell
|
|
|
|
|
>Apple is trying to interface more directly with it's users without treating >them like morons, i.e. MSN, hotmail, etc.
I don't understand this comment. Care to clarify?
Michael 
|
|
|
|
|
MSN, Hotmail, AOL... The list of services and companies that treat their users like complete brain-dead morons goes on and on. They insulate their users from the technical issues involved in these services not only during the learning phase of getting to know a product, but throughout the entire use of the product. I think that the original post of this thread is correct in a sense that there are companies creating a user base of computer illiterates. I just don't happen to think Apple does the same thing.
Keeping a user from ever learning how a technology works is dangerous in the long run. In my opinion that is.
Sef Tarbell
|
|
|
|
|
Most people don't know how their Television works. How is that any different?
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Watching television is passive, operating computer always involves manipulating and often changing something, taking action.
Taking action without understanding the consequnces is dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course users are getting dumber, as we get a broader base of Computer users we are catering to a lower knowledge base of users,
Years ago you had to be intuitive and knowledgable about the internals of valves and electronics of the day to use a computer,
Now all you need to know is how to point and click and call technical support!
The more we idiot proof systems the bigger the idiots will be !
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Bring back the EMBED tag
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah.
On top of that the programmers are also getting dumber as well with all those VB "programmers" in the lead. You can hear things like "pointers are bad programming" or "people using VC++ or C++ are out of competence".
|
|
|
|
|
pointers are bad programming
I got to admit when I first came across C++ pointers I went wow and nearly had a brain haemaroge right there and then. It took a week or two and I found it a whole new way of thinking in code. Now if you were to remove the whole pointer idea I probably couldn't get much past a Hello World program. Maybe that's why I haven't switched to VB yet, have they got pointers ? I always find conflicting reports on that.
"people using VC++ or C++ are out of competence".
That sure is a deep remark to make out of competence I've got no idea at all what that means.
Can we get one of those VB people in here to explain it to me. Geez it sounds sort of like Psychobabble doesn't it ?
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
Bring back the EMBED tag
|
|
|
|
|
Can we get one of those VB people in here to explain it to me.
You called? 
Actually I have no idea what "people using VC++ or C++ are out of competence" means either. I have never used that in an arguement against a C++ nutter. I have used many other sayings, but never that.
Maybe he means "mental competence" as in Ally McBeal were a person is declared "mentally incompetent" to stand trial? 
Then I agree, C++ programmers are "mental competence" (read mentally incompetent) to be allowed to touch a UI design.
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
"The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
"In other words, the developer is dealing with an elephant, the accountant is dealing with a bunny rabbit." by Stan Shannon - 16/10/2001
|
|
|
|
|
I've never understood people's problems with pointers. What is so "bad" about them? I've never had any issues with them that weren't down to my own stupidity.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
> I've never understood people's problems with pointers.
> What is so "bad" about them? I've never had any issues
> with them that weren't down to my own stupidity.
I think that's the general idea about pointers being bad. They allow you to fall victim to your own stupidity too easily. 
But then again, how many times have you seen books like "Brain Surgery for Dummies" or "Heart Transplants in 21 Days"? 
Combine our field of work being innundated by people who know nothing more than what these types of books contain with the economic need to turn programs around on a short development cycle and you are certainly headed for disaster. 
|
|
|
|
|
God, pointers are not bad. That has to be about the most moronic thing I have heard in a while. (I am not bitching at you)
Goto, pointers, and a whole host of other tools are powerful but when used by morons, people get hurt.
Just like powertools, dumb people lose finger.
Tim Smith
Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, new TV show idea.
'Code Improvement', starring Tim "The Pointer man" Taylor.
"What do we need?"
"More pointers! Grunt"
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
In the wrong hands, pointers are pure evil. ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
"But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument.
"Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
|
|
|
|
|
I once worked with a guy who loved pointers. His code was complete until he had pointers pointing to pointer pointing to pointers. The code usually worked but was a nightmare for somebody else to pickup and modify.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Terror: The realization that the line of 30 '*' you just saw wasn't an old style comment.
Tim Smith
Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
Must be the same guy who wrote the code I suddenly find myself responsible for.
"But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument.
"Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
|
|
|
|
|
The complexity with pointers is that they're variables that don't represent data. They represent addresses of data (or addresses of addresses of data ). People can understand a variable holding a piece of data. Now tell them a variable holds an address to a piece of data and a lot of them go, "Huh? Addresses, what's that, and why do I care?".
Yet, this concept is not difficult to grasp if it is properly explained. Unfortunately not all college professors are good at that. I know mine wasn't, so I dropped my C programming course and took it the next semester with a different guy: I got an A.
Regards,
Alvaro
|
|
|
|
|
"pointers are bad programming"
Most C/C++ programmers *do* overuse pointers. It seems like once someone figures out what pointer assignment is all about, their entire world view becomes pointer based and their code is nothing but global pointers to every significant piece of data in the application. You will find damned few pointers in my work, and where the do exist they are encapsulated and well managed.
"But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument.
"Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
|
|
|
|
|
dumber as well with all those VB "programmers" in the lead
That is not the question but in reply: Get off our backs and just because you use C++ does not make you some genius god head to be worshipped. VB has it's uses, same as C++ has it's uses.
Also the question is much more focused on good UI design than good programming. I have seen some really good UIs which had abysmal coding behind it and vice versa. UI designers should not programme and programmes should not design UI's IMHO.
VB programmers are actually probably better at creating usable UI's than hard core C++ programmers as VB is more focused on UI.
What I am driving at is that a good application must consist of both a good UI and a robust code structure behind that UI. F1 cars are incredible examples of automotive genius, but they are an absolute b*tch to drive. The same would happen if a C++ coder was left to do the UI. "Wonderful programme, but gee Bob, a command prompt interface? Are you nuts?"
This is were the web is a good thing. It has split the development into "front-end" coding and "back-end" coding.
Of course this is all my humbe opinion, so feel free to discount it as the ramblings of a VB "programmer"
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
"The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
"In other words, the developer is dealing with an elephant, the accountant is dealing with a bunny rabbit." by Stan Shannon - 16/10/2001
|
|
|
|
|
>The same would happen if a C++ coder was left to do the UI. "Wonderful >programme, but gee Bob, a command prompt interface?
Does this explain Linux? 
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
"VB programmers are actually probably better at creating usable UI's than hard core C++ programmers as VB is more focused on UI"
I'm not so sure I agree with that. Just because VB makes UI design easier in no way changes the amount of thought and effort necessary to arrive at a good design. Most VC++ UI's I have seen (and done) have been very clean, straight forward, and simple. Most VB UI's have have used have been, well, silly, bulky, bloated and slow and very counter-intuitive. Perhaps this is because,the VB guys can just start easily slopping things together where the VC++ guy has put a little more effort into the work. But, again, we are not talking about the language, but about the person using the language.
"But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument.
"Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this is because,the VB guys can just start easily slopping things together where the VC++ guy has put a little more effort into the work. But, again, we are not talking about the language, but about the person using the language.
It's not only the person who develops the code, but also the tools and functionalities that person has at his/her disposal. While a VC++ developer can have a *down-the-earth* freedom to tweak with the UI stuff, a VB developer has to be contended with only blackbox type ActiveX control objects in their toolbox. Thus VBers may win from the RAD / CBD (component based development) paradigm of programming, but their development suffers when it comes to complexity of design, fexibility of customization and power / speed of execution.
My $0.02.
// Fazlul
Get RadVC today! Play RAD in VC++
http://www.capitolsoft.com
|
|
|
|
|
I agree! I gave the "Programmers have always been bad at user interfaces" response. It's just the sad truth; most programmers understand code, but they quite often fail to spend time designing/programming a friendly and intuitive UI. This leaves users scratching their heads, which in turn makes them look dumb.
Regards,
Alvaro
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
