I don't think there is a week that has passed in the last 10 years that I haven't used the command line for something.
To the point of the article, it sounds like the client will handle the work the server once did in parsing the navigation and path commands.
Though the lack of symlinks sounds like it would be the a more painful loss than ".."
Both of these would likely require many *nix utils to be changed to be compatible.
It's possible parent is some super-junior developer doing compartmentalized tasks and never leaving the IDE, but for anything past that avoiding the CLI and remaining productive is basically impossible.
so... not at all?
I like this approach from Fucshia, Makes me remember dumb sploits in php code. You can take the commandline from my cold, dead hands.
Even if I didn't use vim+tmux, so much other "stuff" needs the terminal. Compiling, profiling, testing, searching, moving files around, ssh/rsync and so on.
Sure, IDEs have most of this stuff, but they're not always as user friendly as cli tools, at least once you're acquainted with the later.
For instance, 20% of developers could be responsible for 80% of all software, or 80% of the most used software, or the software that generates 80% of GDP, etc.
I learned to program (in the sense of writing programs in a compiled language) around the time the Macintosh and Amiga came out, before free Unix-like OSes on your PC were much of a thing. So while the Amiga did have a command line, and so did Macintosh Programmer's Workshop, I mostly saw a command line as the obsolete interface associated with MS-DOS. Obviously source code control was not a thing for a kid programming in the 80s.
Even though I have more recently used git than any other source control, I don't think the horrible interface has anything to do with its utility. You may like it, you may hate it, but it doesn't have to be like it is, it's just the personality it has. Kind of like Linus and his grouchiness.
[0]: Ubuntu used to mail you an install CD, for free, anywhere in the world. In the early 2000s. It was pretty cool.
Because of the long running Linux/Windows rivalry, hardly anybody can imagine something better than a Unix-clone any more. But the very name Unix was chosen because the original OS was not intended to be the be-all/end-all of OSes.
Never understood the folks that wanted to only use one or the other, not both, when they are complimentary. Avoiding either is doing yourself a disservice.
My start was on an Apple, but the rest tracks well enough. did Slack, then RH 5.2.
SGI handled the command line / gui matter particularly well. Most things had a GUI, and the GUI would issue the "--gui" or "-verbose" option to get the additional feedback needed for the GUI to behave more like one would expect, despite it basically being a wrapper for an otherwise CLI program.
The time I spent on IRIX really solidified when and where the two paradigms make sense. And they both do. There is no one size fits all winner here.
For my part, I never understood why someone would want to go back to not using a GUI, once they had been invented. I mean, using a graphical interface doesn't prevent you from typing commands within windows. It's just a question of whether you limit yourself to the ancient teletype paradigm or not. So I never saw (post-1984) GUI and command line as equally valid and valuable worlds, because a GUI can encompass everything, while the command line doesn't.
LOAD "A*",8
from: https://www.c64-wiki.com/wiki/LOAD
There's many reasons you'd still want to use a terminal interface, CLI tools, and a scripting language, easily searchable. They have staying power because they excel at certain repeatable tasks, whereas a GUI is often better for exploring.
No one has invented a lasting, portable GUI CLI, so that question is moot for now. Maybe they could, but the work involved is probably not worth it for the gain in functionality.
Next, that they are "ancient" is immaterial. They have enough of the features needed to be effective. Paper is ancient for example, and still useful in various situations.
Something like AppleScript may work acceptably for scripting, but is not available on 90% of the world's computers.
Also recommend giving a newer shell like Fish a try, it is quite helpful.
People still use paper to a fair degree in many offices, as you say, but it's not an alternative to electronic records in the way Coke is an alternative to Pepsi.
cd project-name
code .
I'm assuming this is an anecdote rather than data? Looking around my office, 19 out of 20 people are using the "xterm and chrome are the only two apps I run on my laptop" style of development; only one has a graphical IDE + chrome
Plus some languages sort of have their own customs. Like if you were doing Smalltalk a lot of things you’d use a command line for in web development or mobile dev you’d use a workspace in the IDE instead. And then you have Lisp, where people used to joke that Emacs had become its own OS essentially.
Even MS finally succumbed to reality when Ballmer finally got the boot.