Mastodawn

When to automate a repetitive task:

NO-BRAINER: "This is obviously going to be faster to automate than to do it by hand _even once_. Let's automate it right now, and not do it by hand at all."

FORESIGHTED: "Doing it once by hand is faster than automating it, but I'm going to have to do it a lot of times, so it still saves time to automate it first."

NEED A RUN-UP: "I don't yet understand this task well enough to automate it, so I'll do it a few times by hand first to get the idea."

RAN OFF THE RUNWAY: "Great, now I've done this by hand a few times, I think I can automate it reliably! Oh, oops, turned out I only had one more case of it left to do."

TERRIFIED OF RUNNING OFF THE RUNWAY: "This is a one-off, so it would be a waste of time to automate it, I'll just do it manually."
[next day] "Oh, oops, I made a mistake and have to do it again. But it should be fine this time."
[a month later] "Even though I've had to redo it 25 times already, surely _this_ is the last time? So it would still be a waste of time to automate it."

Show thread

TheConstructor (he/him)4d ago

@simontatham I remember from my SPSS days, that most dialogues would offer to emit the action as commands. While they were not yet generalized, they offered a great start for later automatization at almost no additional time needed (you set up everything in the dialogue and just had to hit execute on the output command)

Show thread

Simon Tatham

@TheConstructor yes, I love GUI programs that show you the underlying CLI commands the GUI actions translate into! I've used a couple as well. When I joined my current employer they used a bug tracker based on a database, whose Windows client was able to show its log of SQL commands in an extra pane. And their current flagship GUI debugger has a command-line mode too and a log window showing the CLI equivalent of each GUI action you take.

They are twice as much work to write, of course. But it's worth it.