Software developers love debating interfaces.

Some people will always prefer a graphical interface, while others feel most productive inside a terminal window. The interesting part is that both groups are usually trying to solve exactly the same problem—they just have different workflows.

While building Convertim, we quickly realized that choosing one approach over the other would unnecessarily limit the tool.

For many users, drag and drop is simply the fastest way to work. Open the application, select a folder, choose the output format and click a button. No commands to remember, no documentation to read, and no setup required.

But developers and power users often have completely different needs.

They want to integrate image conversion into scripts, CI pipelines, automation tasks or batch jobs that run without human interaction. For them, opening a graphical application would only slow things down.

Instead of deciding which audience was "right", we decided to support both.

The graphical interface focuses on simplicity and discoverability, making common tasks accessible with just a few clicks. The command-line interface, on the other hand, exposes the same processing engine in a way that can be scripted and automated.

Neither interface is better than the other.

They simply solve different problems.

Good software should adapt to the user's workflow instead of forcing the user to adapt to the software. Whether someone prefers clicking buttons or writing commands shouldn't change the capabilities they have available.

In the end, both interfaces share the same goal: making image conversion as simple as possible while staying fast, local and predictable.

Sometimes the best engineering decision isn't choosing between GUI and CLI.

It's refusing to make users choose.

What about you? When a tool offers both options, which one do you reach for first: the GUI or the terminal?