Re: The Modernization of Emacs
Just so everyone's clear: Nothing he has said makes much sense, if any. He's talking about advocacy of something unique and powerful by - making it less unique and powerful-. Not merely catering to the lowest common denominator, but promoting something as better -by making it worse-. Who does that? Imagine that a man invents a vehicle that's far safer and more maneuverable than any existing vehicle. Imagine that the increased safety comes from the fact that it has five wheels. How incredibly stupid would it be for that inventor to then say, "I'm going to convince people to buy my new vehicle, which is safer thanks to this fifth wheel. But in order to market it, I'll take the fifth wheel off, so it's more familiar and comfortable for them." I'm very, very new to emacs. I used it a little this past year in college, but I didn't try at all to delve into its features. I'm starting that process now, and frankly, the thought of it changing - already- upsets me. I don't feel like the program ought to change in order to accommodate me. I'm excited about the prospect of mastering something new and different. The fewer resemblances to the common- denominator, extra-friendly stuff I've worked with in the past, the better. Emacs' uniqueness may hurt its adoption rate, but it still has plenty of users, who are all perfectly happy with how things are done. -Andrew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs
On Jun 20, 9:28 am, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kaldrenon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm very, very new to emacs. I used it a little this past year in > > college, but I didn't try at all to delve into its features. I'm > > starting that process now, and frankly, the thought of it changing - > > already- upsets me. I don't feel like the program ought to change in > > order to accommodate me. > > Actually, the "E" in "Emacs" stands for "extensible". Part of the > appeal of Emacs is that you can change it to accommodate you. Well put. Perhaps I should have said that I don't feel like the program ought to change to "accommodate" -everybody-. I know that Emacs is still being worked on, is still growing and changing, and also that, because of its extensibility, anyone can change it as they wish. In fact, if the OP wants Emacs to behave the way he describes, I'm sure it's doable. But my statement was that the changes he suggests are things that should not be enforced universally, because not only is there nothing wrong with the things he suggests changing, but the idea of enforcing uniform changes is not entirely in the spirit of Emacs. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
On Jun 20, 4:49 pm, Twisted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 20, 4:35 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Twisted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On the other hand, being actively beginner-hostile leads to nobody > > > adopting the tool. Then again, if you don't mind being the last > > > generation that'll ever use it, then I guess you're okay with > > > that. If it suits its existing users, the rest of us will just > > > continue to use something else. > > > > I continue to suspect that there's an ulterior motive for making and > > > keeping certain software actively beginner-hostile; a certain macho > > > elitism also seen with light aircraft pilots and commented on at > > >www.asktog.com(exactURL escapes me; sorry). > > > You are babbling. > > No, I am not. You, however, are being gratuitously insulting. > > > Emacs is amazingly beginner-friendly for the power and flexibility it > > provides. [snip] > > That's a joke, right? I tried it a time or two. Every time it was > rapidly apparent that doing anything non-trivial would require > consulting a cheat sheet. The printed-out kind, since navigating to > the help and back without already having the help displayed and open > to the command reference was also non-trivial. > > Four hours of wasted time later, with zero productivity to show for > it, I deleted it. The same thing happened again, so it wasn't a bad > day or a fluke or a one-off or the particular version, either. I agree with you in that emacs is not inherently nor universally beginner friendly. However, if you are trying to make the claim that it is impossible to pick it up quickly, then I no longer agree with you. I still have a good deal to learn, even of the basics, but I've toyed with it casually for a little bit (a total of two hours at most, but almost certainly less) and I already know enough that finding out how to do anything else IS trivial. It's not a program whose controls throw themselves at you, exactly, but with a touch of patience and a genuine interest in learning, it's not too bad. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
Feel free to disagree with what I'm about to say. I know that this thread would be far, FAR shorter if OP hadn't been instigating disagreement, but so far most of the discourse has been polite, so I'm going to say what I'm thinking. I think there are far too many people in all camps (the Emacs camp, the vi* camp, and the GUI/IDE/point-and-click-and-make- everything-"user-friendly" camp) who look at this disagreement as a debate in which they Are Right, and the members of the other two camps Are Wrong. There are billions of people in this world, and even if you ignore the ones who don't need to use a text editor or word processor on a regular basis, you end up with a VERY large number of people. And people are different. We think differently, we all have different things that come to us naturally, different things that are tricky but learn-able, and different things that we'll never be able to do without a manual open in front of us. There are a lot of people for whom emacs is easy to learn, logical to use, and the way it is set up (or at least the way -they- set it up) is so natural to them that they'll never be as productive anywhere else. But there are also a lot of people for whom emacs doesn't click, who can give it a genuine try but still not catch on, and even once they learn enough to muddle through, they'll always work better in Word, or in an IDE. But I think there's something else to it, and it's part of why I think the emacs faithful swear by it so fiercely, even if it does seem a daunting tool to master. I don't think anyone can make the argument that any (past or current) graphics-based editor is as efficient when being used to its fullest as a text-based editor. It's basic math - it takes measurably more time to move a hand to the mouse, move/click the mouse, and more the hand back to the touch-typing position than it does to execute even a moderately complex series of keystrokes. Maybe not large amounts of time -per action-, but it doesn't take too long for it to add up if you spend a lot of time editing. Contrast the time saved by not having to reposition one's hands, the extensibility, and customization against the learning curve of an interface that doesn't exactly throw its controls at the user, and here's the conclusion I think results: graphical interfaces are - easier- to develop some proficiency with, but proficiency with emacs pays of far more in the long run. And if you disagree with me, or if you think I expressed my point poorly (I'm good that that), all you need to do is ask Steve Yegge his thoughts on emacs. -Andrew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
> I don't think anyone can make the argument that any (past or current) > graphics-based editor is as efficient when being used to its fullest > as a text-based editor. Clarifying - this part of the claim assumes a fairly similar feature set, naturally. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
On Jun 21, 4:31 pm, Falcolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your statement holds true if, and only if, a user does not take full > advantage of the keyboard commands. But if we're talking about > experienced users in both cases, then that's not an issue, is it? Granted. I suppose my claim should have been more specifically about the means of interaction, and not about the tool being used. After all, Emacs 22.1 has fairly complete point-and-click support, even though I suspect more people use the keyboard as their primary input. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: I need some cleanings tips and advice.
On Jun 22, 1:09 pm, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe they lost the business plan. It's not surprising, since it > was probably written on a napkin. Or perhaps they HAD a bunch of good cleaning tips, but accidentally threw them out while cleaning? Tip: don't throw stuff out unless you don't need it any more. =P -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Latest models of Gibson guitars
On Aug 20, 8:54 pm, Twisted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the message then > says something absurd, like "this is a newsgroup about Python" when > I'm reading it in cljp, well, what do you expect? :P I think most would expect you to go, "WTF?" but then, like a rational person, click the helpful little "More options" link that GG provides (I'm assuming you use GG to read as well as to post, forgive me if I'm wrong) and double-check before harassing someone because you jumped to conclusions. > though nothing in the headers would indicate this. Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer, microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet, comp.lang.python, rec.photo.digital, alt.home.repair From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:34:58 - Local: Sun, Aug 19 2007 1:34 pm Subject: Latest models of Gibson guitars That's the header GG shows. Prtty clear. Just a tip for future reference - all's fair if you weren't aware of this feature of GG's interface. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Latest models of Gibson guitars
On Aug 21, 5:11 pm, John McGaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Reviews of latest models of best guitars, fender, gibson, yamaha, and > > many more, with pictures and prices. > > Are these new guitars made of SPAM like your message and your "blog"? That'd be bloody terrible to play, and sound awful. Gimme a 100% Angus 12-string, or give me nothing, I say. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
