Browse thread
Weak hashtables & aggressive caching
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2006-08-14 (17:35) |
From: | Matt Gushee <matt@g...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Weak hashtables & aggressive caching |
I will try to make this my last off-topic message on this subject. Brian Hurt wrote: > I'm running X remotely to access remote machines (note the plural). One > of the advantages of X is that I can run GUI apps on machines that I'm > not sitting in front of. And what percentage of the computer-using population do you suppose has *ever* done that? > I'm also using RealVNC to log into other > Windows machines. Please don't assume *your* situation is *everyone's* > situation, as this makes your software signifigantly less usefull. No. It limits the population of users for whom the software is useful, which is a very different matter. Don't make assumptions about what I assume. I know very well there are different kinds of users; where my thinking differs from the mainstream is that I believe it is impossible--or at least very difficult--to create software that delivers a good user experience for all types of users. To take one example, what tool would you use to develop a Web site? Some people find Cold Fusion highly productive. That's fine. I find Vim to be far more productive than any other tool I've tried, at least for the kinds of Web sites I develop (mostly my own). I'd bet a large sum of money that either one is far better for its target users than some hypothetical app that tried to address both groups. BTW, some of the leading thinkers on human-computer interaction (e.g. Jef Raskin and Alan Cooper) have argued--based on extensive research--that offering many different ways to accomplish a task is usually bad for usability. They're talking about user interfaces, but their thinking is at least consistent with my broader claim that no single app is suitable for all circumstances. Anyway, if I release an app to the public, I try to be very clear--as clear as you can be in words and screenshots--about what it does and doesn't do, and what kinds of users and usage situations it is suitable for. If people don't want to use my software, that's fine. If I can't develop something that will bring in significant income--and I long ago gave up hope of doing that--I'll bloody well develop something I like. As long as I'm clear about what I like, and don't expect the whole world to agree with me, I don't see why that's a problem. -- Matt Gushee : Bantam - lightweight file manager : matt.gushee.net/software/bantam/ : : RASCL's A Simple Configuration Language : matt.gushee.net/rascl/ :