|
|
Just not a fan of them. I've tried to like them, but each time I pick one up and take it for a spin it just doesn't do it for me.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: laptops will go the way of desktop PCs
What, they'll be around forever, because a hand-held device with a touch-screen will never attain the productivity levels of mouse & keyboard use?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly, If a keyboard and mouse is the pinnacle of human-computer interaction then I'm quitting this industry now. The keyboard and mouse are a stop-gap measure - a long term stop-gap measure - but one that needs to be replaced.
Secondly, I'm not suggesting that our current input methods will go. We still need keyboards and mice and big screens. The industry has been moving (for years) towards replacing desktops with laptops, and now laptops with tablets (surface, iPad Pro), and then it'll be foldable phones replacing tablets (eg the phones in Westworld[^]). All of these will, I assume, still allow us to connect to more spacious input and output devices.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Firstly, If a keyboard and mouse is the pinnacle of human-computer interaction then I'm quitting this industry now. The keyboard and mouse are a stop-gap measure - a long term stop-gap measure - but one that needs to be replaced.
Let's hope you never have to deal with Linux people: they think the pinnacle of human-computer interaction is typing on a keyboard. No mouse. No touch. No voice. No scroll. No click. No pen. Just tap.
|
|
|
|
|
My first 10 years of programming was in FORTRAN using vi in a research lab with a bunch of scientists who didn't trust these new fangled "PC" things. In 1996.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Goodness. You've made about 5 people stare in awe at me, when I said "1996" . Most guesses were around 1981-1986.
Pointer arithmetic and stuff like that is why you can't let scientists develop software. I mean, someone had to invent the bloody things, but leave the actual programming to Computer Science.
|
|
|
|
|
Science would never get done if scientists weren't able to roll up their sleeves and hack something together. The apps are merely a means to an end.
This is why things like R and Python are so great. Easy to learn, powerful, readily available, and no C-snobbery to get in the way of your string and duct tape.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, give researchers better tools, I've seen the impact of researchers using Python instead of Octave/Matlab: instead of hacking primitive operations and memory, they can focus on the data itself and logic.
Just don't let computer researchers around a compiler, god knows what they'll make of it next (Remember C++ evolution....).
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Firstly, If a keyboard and mouse is the pinnacle of human-computer interaction then I'm quitting this industry now. The keyboard and mouse are a stop-gap measure - a long term stop-gap measure - but one that needs to be replaced.
With what?
Audible interfaces?
It's already been shown, very, very clearly that no-one wants to work in an office/library/bar/any other place by talking out loud to their computer (although it's quite usual for me to swear at mine, no matter where I am).
Dancing around, waving your arms?
See "Audible interfaces", above, and add that it takes considerably less effort and time to type precise wording than to perform it in sign language.
Touch screens with fingers?
Not even remotely useful for a large number of tasks -- Hell, even selecting text on a phone/tablet can be a major PITA; God knows how much fun it would be to draw diagrams, or do anything that needs fine control.
Touch screens with probes?
Sure, let's use an on-screen keyboard with a probe, to type words. It's only, like 99 times slower than using a real keyboard.
Cranial implants?
Yeah, right. If you think I'm willing to allow MS, Google, Apple, or any of the open-source loonies direct access to my mind, you've got another think coming. And the Thought Police would become a reality in under a decade.
Things wot follow yer eyes and expression?
Yeah, it might be good for shooting dirty commies in a jet fighter, but let's see you write a report, using that.
Here's a reasonably pertinet quote from Dickens:
"The whole difference between construction and creation is exactly this: that a thing constructed can only be loved after it is constructed; but a thing created is loved before it exists."
That, along with 80-odd per cent of the best sentences in literature can only be written by hand or with a physical keyboard. Most of what people enter into computers is words (commands don't count -- unless they're spoken out loud, in which case they're a PITA to everyone nearby).
To enter words, you need to do two things:
0: Put the caret in the place where the words have to go.
1: Enter the words.
Good luck finding that something that will work better than the near-perfect "stop-gap measure" we have now. I'm a friggin' miracle worker, when it comes to this kind of innovation, and I can't think of a damned thing that would be more efficient/productive/acceptable.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect the answer may be a combination of the above, or even more likely, something not yet thought of; however, I agree with Chris: keyboard and mouse WILL be replaced with something better at some point. An attitude of "nothing can be any better" is why we still have QWERTY (which is hardly near-perfect).
For a mind-boggling experience, stop thinking of text on a page. Start thinking of manipulating three-dimensional objects in space with body gestures and perhaps speech interaction with much more advanced AIs than Google's Assistant. We program using Objects, but still represent those programmatic constructs with text on a page. Odd that, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Lovekamp wrote: For a mind-boggling experience, stop thinking of text on a page. Start thinking of manipulating three-dimensional objects in space with body gestures and perhaps speech interaction with much more advanced AIs than Google's Assistant.
But dancing around in front of sensors is a hideously awful way to communicate information.
Try replacing writing with gesticulations and body movements to communicate the equivalent of a thousand word essay -- no spoken or written words allowed.
... And a sprained ankle is no excuse for handing in your assignment late.
Greg Lovekamp wrote: We program using Objects, but still represent those programmatic constructs with text on a page. Odd that, don't you think?
IMO, it's not at all odd.
Abstract communication of thoughts and ideas between humans has evolved over millennia, but it still boils down to the basics that were always there:
- Use noises to communicate your thoughts and ideas to those nearby.
- Use glyphs and markings to communicate your thoughts and ideas to those who can't hear your noises.
Short of some kind of telepathy (which would be a nightmare for everyone, regarding privacy, security, and outright annoyance), I cannot see any other effective abstraction that could replace those basics -- and I especially cannot think of anything new that would communicate thoughts and ideas more efficiently.
So, unless your keyboard and mouse are broken, they ain't broke, and it's unlikely that they will be leaving us any time soon -- if ever.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: dancing around in front of sensors is a hideously awful way to communicate information
Interesting. So, you don't use gestures of your hands when you talk to others? In a classroom, have your instructors always stood stiff as a board? Movement and gesticulation are EXTREMELY natural, effective, and efficient to assist in communication.
Mark_Wallace wrote: I especially cannot think of anything new that would communicate thoughts and ideas more efficiently
Certainly, many people share those views, but that why somebody, somewhere else gets his name in the history books of the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Lovekamp wrote: So, you don't use gestures of your hands when you talk to others? In a classroom, have your instructors always stood stiff as a board? Movement and gesticulation are EXTREMELY natural, effective, and efficient to assist in communication.
Sure, but the key word there is "assist"; using it as a replacement for verbal communication requires learning a whole new abstract language -- and gesticulation is only useful for verbal communication, anyway. It's replaced by the rules of grammar and punctuation, in writing.
Granted, if you have hearing problems, or wish to communicate with people with hearing problems, then making the effort to learn sign language is well worth the effort -- just as learning Patagonian to communicate with Patagonians is worth the effort -- but who would want to learn a sign language just to communicate with a computer? I'd posit that few who own a keyboard and a mouse would.
Can you imagine how this board would be, for example, if it weren't presented with written words, but instead as some kind of video thing, to allow gesticulation to be used instead of written words?
For one thing: unless some kind of massive animated-avatar system were implemented, you could forget all about privacy and anonymity (which are not just for use by criminals and scammers, but are decent people's main defense against criminals and scammers on the Internet).
The core problem is that any new process (not just in this case, but everywhere) has to be demonstrably more efficient and/or demonstrably more effective than a current process, or it should not be implemented, and it would be pretty damned hard to demonstrate such improvements over typed text.
IMO, the only way to improve on the typed-text process is by using words better and making good use of the rules of grammar and punctuation. Adding some kind of graphical element to convey gesticulation would be monumentally inefficient (and would probably contribute to the advent of the idiocracy -- communication by emoji? Bleah!)
Greg Lovekamp wrote: Certainly, many people share those views, but that why somebody, somewhere else gets his name in the history books of the future.
Not being a fan of RSI, this is a case where I would sincerely love to be proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure that that ain't gonna happen.
The process we have works extremely efficiently and effectively. Finding a replacement process for something so efficient and effective would not be a trivial task.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Can you imagine how this board would be, for example
Kind of like YouTube, because a picture is worth a thousand words.
Mark_Wallace wrote: you could forget all about privacy and anonymity
Most younger people already have, and don't miss it much. We can debate whether that is wise or not, but it seems a foregone conclusion.
Mark_Wallace wrote: it would be pretty damned hard to demonstrate such improvements over typed text
Because in our society, books are flying off the shelves and nobody watches movies or TV? Virtually, no successful education utilizes text alone; success requires interaction. My contention has been that future programming will become more interactive and less textual driven. As we move forward, programming is going to become less scripting commands that the machine obeys and more training the machine to perform actions for a given set of reasons.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Finding a replacement process for something so efficient and effective would not be a trivial task
Many managers would contend that computer programming is neither efficient nor effective; nonetheless, I will just state that a replacement may not be trivial, but it is inevitable.
---
Overall, your scope is too limited: you think in terms of sign language as gesticulation. Nodding one's head, swinging a fist, shrugging, and flipping the bird; these are all commonly (though perhaps not universally) understood. Before the iPhone, "pinch to zoom" was an uncommon computer interaction; now, it is ubiquitous. As time moves forward, other gestures will become second nature.
My contention is that "developers" of the future won't be limited to sitting at a keyboard whacking away to create instructions for the computer to follow. AI research is going to make computers more like cooperative partners that must be trained and coached to do what is needed in an autonomous manner. We are humans, and we like to interact with other humans, so we make our machines more like humans. Again, I'm not going to debate whether that is good or bad; it is simply human nature, and that is where the future will take us.
|
|
|
|
|
Just get a stack of backup batteries... Different OSes are involved.
Or else use the iPad to RDP to a capable desktop somewhere, but that would require a constant connection.
A DBA friend of mine did half of his work remotely on an iPad with a good, external keyboard. But he worked mostly in command line mode on unix boxes.
|
|
|
|
|
This may only be relevant to USA/Canada denziens:
SCOTT [^] or MARCAL[^]?
There's also the reusable eco-friendly[^] and squeegee option.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I just use the three seashells.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
So you don't live a Spartan existence in the John?
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
Sea Shells. Not Conch, I hope - you know - holding them to your ear.
It may not be the sea that you hear
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I just use the three seashells.
Have you got a user guide for them? I appear to have misplaced mine.
(Either that, or it was used as a proxy)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If a dog was computer literate, would his bark be worse than his byte?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
It gives us paws, that we may reflect. What that give new meaning to 'dog-run'? Will they now nibble their kibble? Can when then, ever be truly bit? Oh Brave New World!
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nybble is a bit better (than nibble)...perhaps even four bits better 
|
|
|
|
|
Do they come in packs of eight?
I may not be that good looking, or athletic, or funny, or talented, or smart
I forgot where I was going with this but I do know I love bacon!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
