Why text-only? (was Re: Leo + Python: the ultimate scripting tool: Conclusion)

Aahz aahz at pythoncraft.com
Sun Nov 9 18:19:45 CET 2003

In article <vqsmdi8tub9c74 at corp.supernews.com>,
Edward K. Ream <edreamleo at charter.net> wrote:
>It seems to me that simulating Leo on a character-cell display is
>going to be all work and no gain.  I have no interest in designing a
>dumbed-down model for Leo that would work in paleolithic environments.
>Besides, Emacs probably has a curses mode.  Why would I want to compete
>with that?

That's fine, although for me you're competing with vi[m].  There are two
reasons why I stick with my requirement for text-only systems:

* As I said earlier, I do much of my work from text consoles, and much of
that is also remote.  I think trying to run GUIs over Net connections is
poor use of bandwidth.  Not to mention the fact that until a month ago,
my only Net access was still direct-dial shell (yes, vt100 emulator, no
PPP).  Even now that I do have DSL, I still do much of my GUI browsing
(when forced to use JavaScript) with images turned off.

* Requiring a text-only system is a reasonable proxy for requiring a
keyboard-centric system, because text-only systems by definition have to
work with a keyboard.  Too many GUI-based systems have at least one
oddball corner that just doesn't work well with the keyboard, and it's
invariably one of those corners that I need to be productive.

This is an old argument, of course.  I've been using the .sig I'm
including below for more than five years.
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

I surf faster than you do, monkey boy.  (My take on Netscape vs. Lynx)

More information about the Python-list mailing list