[Info-vax] SSH

[Jose Baars]

On 20 feb, 23:19, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber... at comcast.net> wrote:
 > There are millions of Unix users out there who seem to find the syntax
 > and semantic usable and useful.  They couldn't care less what we think!
 >   ISTR that someone wrote a "DCL shell" but I don't think it ever became
 > popular.

I guess people learn to live with any syntax as long as the desired
functionality is available.

You have a problem. You read up on a few help pages, then you look
on the web what the hell that was all about, then you try the qualifiers
or switches you think might do the job, and after that you remember two
out five useful ones (or less) .

Consistent syntax can help shorten the time a user spends in all these stages.

Cryptic and inconsistent syntax has it's advantages, though:
- it gives users a sense of accomplishment and pride after having
   mastered a particularly elusive or bizarre string of commands.
- it makes users weary to switch operating system or tool after
   they have invested a lot of time to even learn the basics, it
   makes them expect a similarly steep learning curve.
- although a DCL shell may not have been a success, the hermetic nature of
   many command line interpreters helped push the development of GUI's.
- it helps lower expectations for new tools (together with lacking or
   irrelevant documentation), and as a consequence, shortens
   the time needed to build, explain or stimulate people to use
   a new tool.

To me it's not obvious that implementing a tool this way is intrinsically
better, but there are people that argue that is must be, looking at the
large number of users. Obviously, that is a false proposition, but
what is the gain of arguing it? This is computers, not politics.

Jose