I don't think he thought it all the way through, but I do think the author is onto something. A very important aspect of any kind of interface is to what extent it lets you combine and compose actions. But a) the line is not the same as the GUI/CLI line and b) it's a matter of degree.
A CLI could easily just be a set of five commands with no options that are roughly orthogonal. There is not much potential for constructing powerful, expressive commands, nor much of a learning curve. Just memorize the list. On the other hand, you probably don't need to look far in this thread to find an example of a GUI that allows powerful combinations of commands/effects/etc.
Depending in the design of the interface, there can be different degrees of combinability. I think the main point of the article should be (if it isn't) that what degree you want depends on the domain the interface is for, whether it should allow an infinite variety of actions.
Apparently this got lost in his stereotypes. By CLI he meant roughly Unix, and by GUI he meant a point-and-click GUI. There are many more possibilities in between.
A CLI could easily just be a set of five commands with no options that are roughly orthogonal. There is not much potential for constructing powerful, expressive commands, nor much of a learning curve. Just memorize the list. On the other hand, you probably don't need to look far in this thread to find an example of a GUI that allows powerful combinations of commands/effects/etc.
Depending in the design of the interface, there can be different degrees of combinability. I think the main point of the article should be (if it isn't) that what degree you want depends on the domain the interface is for, whether it should allow an infinite variety of actions.
Apparently this got lost in his stereotypes. By CLI he meant roughly Unix, and by GUI he meant a point-and-click GUI. There are many more possibilities in between.