[thothsscribe]

That was a well written and entertaining article. A bit long for my taste and I feel like it could have been said in fewer words, but like I mentioned, it was entertaining.

What this makes me wonder is how much effort should go into each User Interface. You describe a web GUI (in this domain) to be a good place for people to learn about something new and maybe kick the tires. It can also speed up their interactions via visual tricks. However, you mention that productive, at scale, and "more money" use occurs more in the CLI. Does that mean companies should make their UI better at educating the CLI and worry less about doing things in it and make the CLI be the encouraged primary form of "Doing"?

On top of that, making a GUI requires front end/backend development, UX, visual, research, and a whole lot of time while a CLI requires UX (maybe) and backend development and is overall simpler. I feel like the positives and negatives described in this article don't really support making a UI do anything more than discovery and education on the CLI. And CLI are finally attempting UX improvements like your example from Yeoman. They are taking the best bits from the Usability of GUI (color, shapes, iconography, recommendations, etc)and putting them in the CLI. Does that diminish the relevance beyond education and marketing of a GUI in this domain even further?

[ljw1001]

>making a GUI requires front end/backend development, UX, visual, research,

Doing a CLI also requires, at least, back-end development and research. Doing a decent one requires a tremendous focus on UX.

[thothsscribe]

Definitely back-end and it is exciting to see all that UX is bringing to CLIs, but relative to a full front end GUI it is much more straight forward. (Not to discount the hard work CLI developers do since it is still plenty complex)