On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:50:13 +0200, <·······@freenet.de> wrote:
>
> PS I once have a linux with emacs and xemacs. I find out: better do not
> touch this byte-rake. It consumes lot of time to learn and when
Haha, xemacs comes with drop down menus, it's basic point and click.
It's amazing how many people insist that 'emacs takes time' and then
go off and use brain-dead tools -- which take a lot of time to do
trival tasks in emacs.
A similar attitude "it takes a long time to learn to use X, so I just
wing it". I'm glad my doctor doesn't think that way.
Keep the anti-emacs excuses going, it's good comic relief nowdays.
The time to learn the basics of any other editor is the same amount
for time for emacs, and emacs keys show up in many applications (for
good reason). The other really funny excuse is that it is 'big',
takes a lot of space...which I really laugh over, since I had a full
linux 1.2.13 system with emacs running on 100M once.
--
Brownian motion is correctly colored.
From: Matthew Danish
Subject: Re: Newbie question: how to save file in lisp(cmucl)
Date:
Message-ID: <87vfd1uvu5.fsf@mapcar.org>
Time Waster <········@CloudDancer.com> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:50:13 +0200, <·······@freenet.de> wrote:
> > PS I once have a linux with emacs and xemacs. I find out: better do not
> > touch this byte-rake. It consumes lot of time to learn and when
> Haha, xemacs comes with drop down menus, it's basic point and click.
> It's amazing how many people insist that 'emacs takes time' and then
> go off and use brain-dead tools -- which take a lot of time to do
> trival tasks in emacs.
It seems to me that the same people who would refuse to learn Emacs
because it is "difficult" or "big" are the same people who refuse to
automate repetitive tasks but would rather just continue to perform
them every time. These kinds of people aren't really meant to be
programmers, since programming is all about learning new ways to
perform tasks more efficiently and more quickly.
--
;; Matthew Danish -- user: mrd domain: cmu.edu
;; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
Matthew Danish wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the same people who would refuse to learn Emacs
> because it is "difficult" or "big" are the same people who refuse to
> automate repetitive tasks but would rather just continue to perform
> them every time.
I go through bouts of not liking emacs simply because the font rendering
is so abysmal compared to everything else on my linux desktop at this
stage. I haven't investigated the matter deeply, but it just
_couldn't_ be all that hard to hack emacs to support decent subpixel
font rendering via the same xrender/freetype stuff just about every
other extant linux desktop application uses by now. ["So why don't you
go do it, emacs is open source" you cry. Well, it's just way down on my
list of Stuff To Do, so don't hold your breath.]
If you're not already "hooked" on emacs, moving from e.g.
the-really-much-less-powerful kate to emacs must be less attractive
just because emacs looks so woeful. Since, as another thread on
c.l.l. is touching on, subpixel rendering effectively triples horizontal
resolution if the color doesn't matter, it really is less comfortable
reading text in emacs than in kate on an LCD monitor.
Time Waster <········@CloudDancer.com> writes:
> A similar attitude "it takes a long time to learn to use X, so I just
> wing it". I'm glad my doctor doesn't think that way.
Your doctor sure fooled you. Of course he thinks that way.
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1