Hello Wes.

11 Jun 03 13:56, you wrote to me:

 >> If programmers insist on having a "purist" type of
attitude towards
 >> what has been undoubtedly shown to be a useful tool, and refuse to even
 >> consider it simply because they care only about how well the program >
 >> works and not at all about how easy it is to use, then they do the >
 >> program development a disservice, IMO.

 WG> Not at all. They only do a disservice when they make it impossible for
 WG> *other* programmers to add the features users want. The absolute #1 goal
 WG> for programmers SHOULD be program correctness. Ease of use may very well
 WG> be #2, but #1 is absolutely correctness. A pretty program which crashes
 WG> and eats message bases is less useful than an ugly program which doesn't.

I never said that a programmer ought not to look out for goal #1; if they
don't do that well, then it's just poor programming. That being said, you
don't have to exclude the 1st goal in order to look after the secondary
goal as well; and IMO at least, it's also poor programming to completely
ignore goal #2.

By all means, ensure the program is correctly written and is as bug-free as
possible; but also spend some time on the secondary goal, as it has a great
deal to do with any program's acceptance and popularity amongst users. A
good example of this is Internet Rex; it's growing popularity is in large
part due to the author taking the time to make the program easy to
configure and run for the end user.

A solid, correctly written program doesn't have to be "ugly"; it
can be easy and intuitive for the user as well. The sorts of programs that
work well while at the same time having an intuitive interface for the user
show the true mark of a well written program.


--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1