Going into this article my attitude was "don't tell me what to do!" but I kind of see his point.
Back in the late 1980s, there was no question—the Mac changed everything, and everyone agreed that graphical was the superior interface. But we in the Unix world were slow to convert fully, because of a couple of problems:
* designing GUIs is hard, especially for programmers;
* writing GUI code is hard (and often tedious).
So good GUI apps really came from teams of elite designers and developers. The best ones all worked for Apple. There was an acceptable second tier that all came from major companies. If you wanted to write a custom one-off tool for yourself, however, you'd be in for some pain and the result would be jank.
But LLMs solve both problems. Point Claude at a description and some mockups of an app, and it will give you that app, or at least a slick-looking prototype that is suitable for your use if not the wider market's. So we no longer have an excuse. ALL our apps should be graphical, because creating graphical apps is now easy.
> Back in the late 1980s, there was no question—the Mac changed everything, and everyone agreed that graphical was the superior interface.
No, they didn't. The Mac's GUI benefitted in certain specific applications, like DTP, early on, but the Mac was an also-ran for most serious productive work for a very long time, and even when GUIs became standard in the PC ecosystem, it wasn't until the late '90s that productivity apps decisively moved from the DOS-based TUI world to Windows GUI applications.
> So good GUI apps really came from teams of elite designers and developers. The best ones all worked for Apple.
The folks who actually managed to build interface paradigms that successfully reconciled complex business functionality with sufficiently easy-to-master GUIs worked mainly for IBM and Microsoft. The CUA paradigm was the winner here.
People seem to forget that Apple had next to zero penetration into the business computing market, and nearly went bankrupt, back in the '90s.