From: Xah Lee
Subject: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <1176651840.873758.297160@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
Xah's Edu Corner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access

Quote:
«
CUA was a detailed specification and set strict rules about how
applications should look and function. Its aim was in part to bring
about harmony between MS-DOS applications, which until then had
implemented totally different user interfaces.

Examples:

    * In WordPerfect, the command to open a file was [F7], [3].
    * In Lotus 1-2-3, a file was opened with [/] (to open the menus),
[W] (for Workspace), [R] (for Retrieve).
    * In Microsoft Word, a file was opened with [Esc] (to open the
menus), [T] (for Transfer), [L] (for Load).
    * In WordStar, it was [Ctrl]+[K]+[O].
    * In emacs, a file was opened with [Ctrl]+[x] followed by [Ctrl]+
[f] (for find-file).
»

See also:
“Modernization of Emacs” at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html

  Xah
  ···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

From: ··········@ureach.com
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <87y7ktt5nz.fsf@linux.site>
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:

> Xah's Edu Corner:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access
> 
> Quote:
> «
> CUA was a detailed specification and set strict rules about how
> applications should look and function. Its aim was in part to bring
> about harmony between MS-DOS applications, which until then had
> implemented totally different user interfaces.
> 
> Examples:
> 
>     * In WordPerfect, the command to open a file was [F7], [3].
>     * In Lotus 1-2-3, a file was opened with [/] (to open the menus),
> [W] (for Workspace), [R] (for Retrieve).
>     * In Microsoft Word, a file was opened with [Esc] (to open the
> menus), [T] (for Transfer), [L] (for Load).
>     * In WordStar, it was [Ctrl]+[K]+[O].
>     * In emacs, a file was opened with [Ctrl]+[x] followed by [Ctrl]+
> [f] (for find-file).
> »
> 
> See also:
> “Modernization of Emacs” at
> http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
> 
>   Xah
>   ···@xahlee.org
> ∑ http://xahlee.org/
> 

I suppose I could be flip and ask why don't they use Emacs' keyboard
shortcuts? But I won't.

Frankly, any keyboard shortcut is arbitrary. CNTL-V for pasting is a
good example. Where is the "V" in paste? I see no logic there.

It always seemed to me that one of the reasons for the way Emacs has
set up its keyboard shortcuts is the sheer number of them. I may be
wrong, but I doubt that CUA would accommodate all Emacs' shortcuts.

While it's easy enough to argue that shortcut X would be better called
shortcut Y--and maybe it would--I don't have any problem overall with
Emacs' scheme. You do, and really, that's fine. But it appears to me
that changing the shortcuts would cause more problems than they solve.

Got to admire your persistence, though. Didn't we discuss this last
year?

While there are undoubtedly ways Emacs could be modernized--I even
agree with you on some points in your link--I disagree with you on the
keyboard shortcuts.

--Rod
______________________
Author of "Linux for Non-Geeks--Clear-eyed Answers for Practical
Consumers" and "Boring Stories from Uncle Rod." To reply by e-mail
take the second "o" out of the e-mail address.
From: Robert D. Crawford
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <873b31ypza.fsf@comcast.net>
··········@ureach.com writes:

> Frankly, any keyboard shortcut is arbitrary. CNTL-V for pasting is a
> good example. Where is the "V" in paste? I see no logic there.

Think about it like this:  If you were writing a paper (yes, with a
pencil/pen and dried, flattened tree pulp) and you wanted to insert some
text in a sentence during your first draft, you might place a small "v"
above the text, "pointing" to the place where the text was to be
inserted.  

The "x" key, I think, was chosen because it resembled a pair of
scissors.  

I have never bothered to research these things, so I am somewhat talking
out of my hat.

rdc
-- 
Robert D. Crawford                                      ·····@comcast.net

BOFH excuse #341:

HTTPD Error 666 : BOFH was here
From: Greg Menke
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <m3647xt5a3.fsf@venus.pienet>
··········@ureach.com writes:
> "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> 
> I suppose I could be flip and ask why don't they use Emacs' keyboard
> shortcuts? But I won't.
> 
> Frankly, any keyboard shortcut is arbitrary. CNTL-V for pasting is a
> good example. Where is the "V" in paste? I see no logic there.
> 
> It always seemed to me that one of the reasons for the way Emacs has
> set up its keyboard shortcuts is the sheer number of them. I may be
> wrong, but I doubt that CUA would accommodate all Emacs' shortcuts.
> 
> While it's easy enough to argue that shortcut X would be better called
> shortcut Y--and maybe it would--I don't have any problem overall with
> Emacs' scheme. You do, and really, that's fine. But it appears to me
> that changing the shortcuts would cause more problems than they solve.
> 
> Got to admire your persistence, though. Didn't we discuss this last
> year?
> 
> While there are undoubtedly ways Emacs could be modernized--I even
> agree with you on some points in your link--I disagree with you on the
> keyboard shortcuts.


Don't encourage him- Xah seems to post yet another installment on this
topic every year or so.  Best to ignore his posts on any topic.

Gregm
From: Sacha
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <qaLUh.123148$P83.884886@phobos.telenet-ops.be>
··········@ureach.com wrote:
> "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> 
>> Xah's Edu Corner:
>>
> Frankly, any keyboard shortcut is arbitrary. CNTL-V for pasting is a
> good example. Where is the "V" in paste? I see no logic there.
 >
 > --snip--
> 
> --Rod


It's not about about which shortcuts are the best, most logical or most 
convenient. It's about establishing a common shortcut language so that 
we have it easy changing editors.

Sacha
From: Gian Uberto Lauri
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <87r6qjcckv.fsf@mail.eng.it>
>>>>> Long count = 12.19.14.4.5; tzolkin = 9 Chicchan; haab = 13 Pop.
>>>>> I get words from the Allmighty Great Gnus that
>>>>> "S" == Sacha  <····@address.spam> writes:

S> It's not about about which shortcuts are the best, most logical or
S> most convenient. It's about establishing a common shortcut language
S> so that we have it easy changing editors.

Nevertheless,  CUA  is extremely  limited  compared  to the  venerable
keybinding of Emacs.

And  don't use  Word as  an example  of "keyboard  enabled interface",
please.

Once one finds the light switch, is supposed to learn how to operate it
and not to close the circuit with the middle and index fingers...

-- 
 /\           ___
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico
\/                 e coltivatore diretto di Software

A Cesare avrei detto di scrivermi a ·····@rat.vg
From: Xah Lee
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <1176788665.140866.285490@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
Rod (··········@ureach.com) wrote:
«I suppose I could be flip and ask why don't they use Emacs' keyboard
shortcuts? But I won't.»

In flirtation, a major complaint from girls is that the guy did not
finish the job.  We surmise, the most common reason is fear.

Perhaps, a incomplete flirtation is a piquing of interest, a feeler, a
tasting of water. For example, you feel like asking the question “why
shouldn't other software adapt to emacs's UI instead”, however, you
also somewhat see that this question is perhaps inane, but
nevertheless do not totally understand why. Thus, you throw it out as
a taunt, and want to see what i make of it?

Is this what you really wanted to ask?

You wrote: «
Frankly, any keyboard shortcut is arbitrary. CNTL-V for pasting is a
good example. Where is the "V" in paste? I see no logic there.

It always seemed to me that one of the reasons for the way Emacs has
set up its keyboard shortcuts is the sheer number of them. I may be
wrong, but I doubt that CUA would accommodate all Emacs' shortcuts.

While it's easy enough to argue that shortcut X would be better called
shortcut Y--and maybe it would--I don't have any problem overall with
Emacs' scheme. You do, and really, that's fine. But it appears to me
that changing the shortcuts would cause more problems than they solve.
»

Judging you by your writing, i frankly think you are a average moron,
which is typical of characters in newsgroups.

Y'know? often you hear people complain how stupid are people. Usually,
we can hear these comments from people in the Customer Service
department.

Like, the joke of people mistake the CD tray for coffee cup holder.
And, there are huge number of computer users who don't know how to do
copy and paste operations (yes, really).

Frankly, in my eyes, you appear like these class of people. In fact,
yesterday i wrote a unsent response full of insults and words of
motherfucking. It was unsent because i see some sincerity in your
letter and felt my response would be unreasonable and could ensure my
downfall.

Why did i feel you are a fucking moron? By your vague statement about
Emacs's keyboarding complexity, your statement of how CUA is not gonna
do good, or your questioning as a proclamation of the origin of ZXCV
keyboard shortcuts, and assertion that “any keyboard shortcut is
arbitrary”. (and to my surprise, your message is followed up by one of
the doofus, who actually used the whole message in wordiness to
proclaim his no unstanding of ZXCV.)  (but good thing that the
question of the origin of ZXCV is subsequently answered in the thread
by others)

Back to the colloquial joke about how stupid people are... i think
from a scientific eye it is unreasonable. For example, i'm sure,
people now at US's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is bitching and
complaining about how extremely stupid people are, when they are
trying to process the tax documents. I can imagine, they'd complain
from things like how people don't even know how to put a stamp, and
unable to follow the simplest instructions.

I can understand. Because, although my IQ's is quite above average as
well as my learnings, but when it comes to paperwork, i behave more
like a idiot.  I can see how the clerks at IRS is seeing me as a idiot
who couldn't understand how i couldn't spend like 30 minute a year to
get my taxes done. Likewise, i'm probably judged as a idiot in so many
other departments and aspects, from behavior to relationships to
communication to team work to English writing to programing.

But as you can see, the common joke about the vague statement of how
people are stupid, is not realistic. First of all, it is a form of
complaint. Complaining, is a major activity of human animals, as is in
fact a healthy activity, and psychologically necessary.  (This we can
easily get some confirmation from the social analysis of a language's
vocabulary, of the great number of words that means complaining
(bitching, griping, whining, grumbling, bemoan, deplore, bewail,
whimper, crying out loud ...). ) And, perceiving others as stupider
than oneself is also natural and subliminally boost self-confidence
and worth.  Therefore, people tend to complain and perceive others as
stupid, whereas in fact it is not necessarily so.

For the specific acts of those class of people being joked as stupid,
it may have several factors that explains the situation other than low
IQ. For example, if the IRS staff judged me idiotic for not able to
fill taxes or do it, it's not because i'm idiotic, but rather, i have
other personal problems or procrastination habits that made me
apathetic to paperwork. For those who mistook computer CD tray for
coffee cups (a perhaps exaggerated joke), well, in all walks of modern
life actually a few really need to be computer literate. For example,
if someone who just moved to a modern country from a poor Africa, they
sure will glare at a computer hardware like a turkey, not even to
mention the subject of “software” and operations like copy and paste.
Older people, who lived most of their lives before computers got
integrated into the daily lives of men, did not have the need, nor
interest in spending the rest of their lives to be computer literate.
They as a collective, for example, would rather, say, read
literatures, art, or other things they missed out in their bygone busy
lives.  And, many highly educated people in modern countries, do not
necessarily have to use computers despite its ubiquity, therefore on
the occasion they may behave idiotic and be laughed at by the
motherfucking tech geekers when they started to open a Microsoft Word.
Conversely, the lawer and businessmen type of people as a collective,
will and often do laugh at the computer coders as insensible and
inflexible morons. Women, do collectively laugh at men's insensibility
and inperceptibility, and men, sneer of women being tits and
pussies...

There are too many examples to keep going... but all in all, the
ultimate judgement on the statement of “people are stupid” can come
from statistical info on poeple's IQ. If we actually look at stats,
researches, surveys on this, i think the result is still sad from my
point of view, but overall you now understand that “people are stupid”
is in general a unrealistic and not a meaningful gripe.

So, when i thought you are a moron, perhaps in reality you are not a
moron.  I mean, frankly, relatively very few in the software industry
have done research or possess knowledge about software user interface,
or its history, as i have. I sure have devoted a lot of my time in the
past 16 years on this issue. Being a nerd of extreme severeness, with
a abnormal infatuation with efficiency of all aspects. And in computer
operation and data input department, i know basically all computer
input devices that have been published, read essential all reviews of
them, studied and use different keyboard arrangements, mastered purely
keyboard operations in tens of software applications (e.g. Mac, DOS,
DOS applications, early MS Word, unix shells, Mac OS X, MS Windows,
Emacs, Mathematica...) Mastered several commecial keyboard macro
applications (QuickKeys, KeyboardMaestro, AppleScript, ...), and wrote
a few of my own (ResEdit keymapping, elisp macros, OS X's keyboard and
keybinding XML, ...).

As a concrete info related to Emacs's UI and keyboarding, i am a
professional QWERTY touch typist from ~1991 to ~1993, and am a dvorak
touch typist since ~1993. I used Emacs daily since 1998. I mean daily,
from Monday to Saturday and Sunday, everyday of the year, at least
several hours a day. I have for example, created a entire website in
recent years (~30 HTML pages) of tutorial on emacs and elisp

( http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs.html ),

including a tutorial on how to define Emac's keyboard shortcuts

( http://xahlee.org/emacs/keyboard_shortcuts.html ),

and one that gives a visual map of Emacs's keyboard shortcuts

( http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts.html ),

and have provided a elisp tool that logs the frequency for emacs's
commands as a way to help study a keyboard shortcut design

( http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts.html ),

and a essay on how to avoid the common emacs pinky problem

( http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_pinky.html ),

and also a review of 3 recent keyboards with a focus on ergonomics and
Emacs's use

( http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/ms_keyboard.html ).

The above, i think, qualify me as a expert on data input, or at least
a expert of Emacs.

Also, i'm a man with a obsessive interest of mathematics. In
particular, logic and geometry, but also mathematical philosophy. So,
generally speaking but without another dozens of links from my
published writing on my website, my expertise in these areas are
comparable to a number of college graduates who majored in these
areas.

So, when i read some of your careless claims that came with a
attitude, i was in fact enraged: How can these people, fucking stupid
morons, these motherfucking newsgroup characters, often anonymous and
nameless, spout their brainlessness just so to show they exist?

Sure, i'm aware i'm rather arrogant. But i did honestly felt, by your
few claims in your response, that you are of no question a fucking,
moronic, asshole — like so many other newsgroup responses to my
writings — that your sole purpose is to fuck about, and who really
gives no shit about the topic of discussion.

As you now know, i now feel that my assessment is incorrect, and the
element that made me regard the situation, is that one glimmering of
sincerity in your post. Sincerity, is one quality i respect.

As you can see, we swerved off topic a bit. I don't think i've wrote
more than, say, 20, messages in the past 5 years that are off topic.
However, the sheer number of brainless responses in newsgroups, the
hostility, and complete personal attacks, makes my apology of off-
topicality seems like a joke. This letter, is a sort of retaliation
and explanation, perhaps just so to conform to the driveling spirit of
newsgroups.

If you are a good man, you could, remember, that the topic of this
thread, is about modernization of Emacs. And if you have anything to
contribute to this discussion, you can still do. You do not have a
need to feel hurt, defeated, or being made fun of, and to generate
another off-topic response or retort with humour. There is no shortage
of them.

  Xah
  ···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/




-------------------------------

On 20070415, Xah Wrote:
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html

On Apr 15, 7:27 pm, Rod (··········@ureach.com) wrote:

I suppose I could be flip and ask why don't they use Emacs' keyboard
shortcuts? But I won't.  Frankly, any keyboard shortcut is arbitrary.
CNTL-V for pasting is a good example. Where is the "V" in paste? I see
no logic there.

It always seemed to me that one of the reasons for the way Emacs has
set up its keyboard shortcuts is the sheer number of them. I may be
wrong, but I doubt that CUA would accommodate all Emacs' shortcuts.

While it's easy enough to argue that shortcut X would be better called
shortcut Y--and maybe it would--I don't have any problem overall with
Emacs' scheme. You do, and really, that's fine. But it appears to me
that changing the shortcuts would cause more problems than they solve.

Got to admire your persistence, though. Didn't we discuss this last
year?

While there are undoubtedly ways Emacs could be modernized--I even
agree with you on some points in your link--I disagree with you on the
keyboard shortcuts.

--Rod
From: Chris McMahan
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <uslaz9h2v.fsf@one.dot.net>
Y'know? I think you would be best served by just finding another
editor that suits you, and stop trying to fix emacs for the rest of
us?

We'll just wallow in our blissful ignorance.

- Chris

Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> writes:

> Rod (··········@ureach.com) wrote:
> «I suppose I could be flip and ask why don't they use Emacs' keyboard
> shortcuts? But I won't.»
>
> In flirtation, a major complaint from girls is that the guy did not
> finish the job.  We surmise, the most common reason is fear.
>
> Perhaps, a incomplete flirtation is a piquing of interest, a feeler, a
> tasting of water. For example, you feel like asking the question “why
> shouldn't other software adapt to emacs's UI instead”, however, you
> also somewhat see that this question is perhaps inane, but
> nevertheless do not totally understand why. Thus, you throw it out as
> a taunt, and want to see what i make of it?
>
> Is this what you really wanted to ask?
>
> You wrote: «
> Frankly, any keyboard shortcut is arbitrary. CNTL-V for pasting is a
> good example. Where is the "V" in paste? I see no logic there.
>
> It always seemed to me that one of the reasons for the way Emacs has
> set up its keyboard shortcuts is the sheer number of them. I may be
> wrong, but I doubt that CUA would accommodate all Emacs' shortcuts.
>
> While it's easy enough to argue that shortcut X would be better called
> shortcut Y--and maybe it would--I don't have any problem overall with
> Emacs' scheme. You do, and really, that's fine. But it appears to me
> that changing the shortcuts would cause more problems than they solve.
> »
>
> Judging you by your writing, i frankly think you are a average moron,
> which is typical of characters in newsgroups.
>
> Y'know? often you hear people complain how stupid are people. Usually,
> we can hear these comments from people in the Customer Service
> department.
>
> Like, the joke of people mistake the CD tray for coffee cup holder.
> And, there are huge number of computer users who don't know how to do
> copy and paste operations (yes, really).
>
> Frankly, in my eyes, you appear like these class of people. In fact,
> yesterday i wrote a unsent response full of insults and words of
> motherfucking. It was unsent because i see some sincerity in your
> letter and felt my response would be unreasonable and could ensure my
> downfall.
>
> Why did i feel you are a fucking moron? By your vague statement about
> Emacs's keyboarding complexity, your statement of how CUA is not gonna
> do good, or your questioning as a proclamation of the origin of ZXCV
> keyboard shortcuts, and assertion that “any keyboard shortcut is
> arbitrary”. (and to my surprise, your message is followed up by one of
> the doofus, who actually used the whole message in wordiness to
> proclaim his no unstanding of ZXCV.)  (but good thing that the
> question of the origin of ZXCV is subsequently answered in the thread
> by others)
>
> Back to the colloquial joke about how stupid people are... i think
> from a scientific eye it is unreasonable. For example, i'm sure,
> people now at US's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is bitching and
> complaining about how extremely stupid people are, when they are
> trying to process the tax documents. I can imagine, they'd complain
> from things like how people don't even know how to put a stamp, and
> unable to follow the simplest instructions.
>
> I can understand. Because, although my IQ's is quite above average as
> well as my learnings, but when it comes to paperwork, i behave more
> like a idiot.  I can see how the clerks at IRS is seeing me as a idiot
> who couldn't understand how i couldn't spend like 30 minute a year to
> get my taxes done. Likewise, i'm probably judged as a idiot in so many
> other departments and aspects, from behavior to relationships to
> communication to team work to English writing to programing.
>
> But as you can see, the common joke about the vague statement of how
> people are stupid, is not realistic. First of all, it is a form of
> complaint. Complaining, is a major activity of human animals, as is in
> fact a healthy activity, and psychologically necessary.  (This we can
> easily get some confirmation from the social analysis of a language's
> vocabulary, of the great number of words that means complaining
> (bitching, griping, whining, grumbling, bemoan, deplore, bewail,
> whimper, crying out loud ...). ) And, perceiving others as stupider
> than oneself is also natural and subliminally boost self-confidence
> and worth.  Therefore, people tend to complain and perceive others as
> stupid, whereas in fact it is not necessarily so.
>
> For the specific acts of those class of people being joked as stupid,
> it may have several factors that explains the situation other than low
> IQ. For example, if the IRS staff judged me idiotic for not able to
> fill taxes or do it, it's not because i'm idiotic, but rather, i have
> other personal problems or procrastination habits that made me
> apathetic to paperwork. For those who mistook computer CD tray for
> coffee cups (a perhaps exaggerated joke), well, in all walks of modern
> life actually a few really need to be computer literate. For example,
> if someone who just moved to a modern country from a poor Africa, they
> sure will glare at a computer hardware like a turkey, not even to
> mention the subject of “software” and operations like copy and paste.
> Older people, who lived most of their lives before computers got
> integrated into the daily lives of men, did not have the need, nor
> interest in spending the rest of their lives to be computer literate.
> They as a collective, for example, would rather, say, read
> literatures, art, or other things they missed out in their bygone busy
> lives.  And, many highly educated people in modern countries, do not
> necessarily have to use computers despite its ubiquity, therefore on
> the occasion they may behave idiotic and be laughed at by the
> motherfucking tech geekers when they started to open a Microsoft Word.
> Conversely, the lawer and businessmen type of people as a collective,
> will and often do laugh at the computer coders as insensible and
> inflexible morons. Women, do collectively laugh at men's insensibility
> and inperceptibility, and men, sneer of women being tits and
> pussies...
>
> There are too many examples to keep going... but all in all, the
> ultimate judgement on the statement of “people are stupid” can come
> from statistical info on poeple's IQ. If we actually look at stats,
> researches, surveys on this, i think the result is still sad from my
> point of view, but overall you now understand that “people are stupid”
> is in general a unrealistic and not a meaningful gripe.
>
> So, when i thought you are a moron, perhaps in reality you are not a
> moron.  I mean, frankly, relatively very few in the software industry
> have done research or possess knowledge about software user interface,
> or its history, as i have. I sure have devoted a lot of my time in the
> past 16 years on this issue. Being a nerd of extreme severeness, with
> a abnormal infatuation with efficiency of all aspects. And in computer
> operation and data input department, i know basically all computer
> input devices that have been published, read essential all reviews of
> them, studied and use different keyboard arrangements, mastered purely
> keyboard operations in tens of software applications (e.g. Mac, DOS,
> DOS applications, early MS Word, unix shells, Mac OS X, MS Windows,
> Emacs, Mathematica...) Mastered several commecial keyboard macro
> applications (QuickKeys, KeyboardMaestro, AppleScript, ...), and wrote
> a few of my own (ResEdit keymapping, elisp macros, OS X's keyboard and
> keybinding XML, ...).
>
> As a concrete info related to Emacs's UI and keyboarding, i am a
> professional QWERTY touch typist from ~1991 to ~1993, and am a dvorak
> touch typist since ~1993. I used Emacs daily since 1998. I mean daily,
> from Monday to Saturday and Sunday, everyday of the year, at least
> several hours a day. I have for example, created a entire website in
> recent years (~30 HTML pages) of tutorial on emacs and elisp
>
> ( http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs.html ),
>
> including a tutorial on how to define Emac's keyboard shortcuts
>
> ( http://xahlee.org/emacs/keyboard_shortcuts.html ),
>
> and one that gives a visual map of Emacs's keyboard shortcuts
>
> ( http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts.html ),
>
> and have provided a elisp tool that logs the frequency for emacs's
> commands as a way to help study a keyboard shortcut design
>
> ( http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts.html ),
>
> and a essay on how to avoid the common emacs pinky problem
>
> ( http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_pinky.html ),
>
> and also a review of 3 recent keyboards with a focus on ergonomics and
> Emacs's use
>
> ( http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/ms_keyboard.html ).
>
> The above, i think, qualify me as a expert on data input, or at least
> a expert of Emacs.
>
> Also, i'm a man with a obsessive interest of mathematics. In
> particular, logic and geometry, but also mathematical philosophy. So,
> generally speaking but without another dozens of links from my
> published writing on my website, my expertise in these areas are
> comparable to a number of college graduates who majored in these
> areas.
>
> So, when i read some of your careless claims that came with a
> attitude, i was in fact enraged: How can these people, fucking stupid
> morons, these motherfucking newsgroup characters, often anonymous and
> nameless, spout their brainlessness just so to show they exist?
>
> Sure, i'm aware i'm rather arrogant. But i did honestly felt, by your
> few claims in your response, that you are of no question a fucking,
> moronic, asshole — like so many other newsgroup responses to my
> writings — that your sole purpose is to fuck about, and who really
> gives no shit about the topic of discussion.
>
> As you now know, i now feel that my assessment is incorrect, and the
> element that made me regard the situation, is that one glimmering of
> sincerity in your post. Sincerity, is one quality i respect.
>
> As you can see, we swerved off topic a bit. I don't think i've wrote
> more than, say, 20, messages in the past 5 years that are off topic.
> However, the sheer number of brainless responses in newsgroups, the
> hostility, and complete personal attacks, makes my apology of off-
> topicality seems like a joke. This letter, is a sort of retaliation
> and explanation, perhaps just so to conform to the driveling spirit of
> newsgroups.
>
> If you are a good man, you could, remember, that the topic of this
> thread, is about modernization of Emacs. And if you have anything to
> contribute to this discussion, you can still do. You do not have a
> need to feel hurt, defeated, or being made fun of, and to generate
> another off-topic response or retort with humour. There is no shortage
> of them.
>
>   Xah
>   ···@xahlee.org
> ∑ http://xahlee.org/
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> On 20070415, Xah Wrote:
> http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
>
> On Apr 15, 7:27 pm, Rod (··········@ureach.com) wrote:
>
> I suppose I could be flip and ask why don't they use Emacs' keyboard
> shortcuts? But I won't.  Frankly, any keyboard shortcut is arbitrary.
> CNTL-V for pasting is a good example. Where is the "V" in paste? I see
> no logic there.
>
> It always seemed to me that one of the reasons for the way Emacs has
> set up its keyboard shortcuts is the sheer number of them. I may be
> wrong, but I doubt that CUA would accommodate all Emacs' shortcuts.
>
> While it's easy enough to argue that shortcut X would be better called
> shortcut Y--and maybe it would--I don't have any problem overall with
> Emacs' scheme. You do, and really, that's fine. But it appears to me
> that changing the shortcuts would cause more problems than they solve.
>
> Got to admire your persistence, though. Didn't we discuss this last
> year?
>
> While there are undoubtedly ways Emacs could be modernized--I even
> agree with you on some points in your link--I disagree with you on the
> keyboard shortcuts.
>
> --Rod
>

-- 
     (.   .)
  =ooO=(_)=Ooo=====================================
  Chris McMahan | ·····················@one.dot.net
  =================================================
From: ··········@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <1176912402.924812.235420@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
I should let this die, but decided to chime in mostly off-topic.  Old
timers know all this, but maybe some people don't.

cut / copy / paste keys were originated by Apple on the Lisa and
Macintosh.  In the days of the Macintosh it was the  ⌘C  ⌘V for copy
and paste (hopefully, those come out properly - they mean to represent
the Apple command key http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_key).

I'm also talking out of my ass, but it always seemed obvious to me
that the keys C, V and X were chosen because of their proximity to the
command key, all three were very easily chorded using the left hand
while the right hand mouse was selecting text and moving to a new
insertion point.

When Microsoft later began using the same keys in Windows, they had no
command key, and used the Control key - also my guess because of it's
proximity to C, V, and X.

Fortunately, modern keyboards have not moved the control keys far away
from those other keys, so they are still easily chorded.
Unfortunately (as many vi users are well aware), the Esc key moved.
It was in the early days located about where the modern "Caps Lock"
key is.. now it is very distant from it's friends.  Being such an
important key to vi users, the <Esc> function is often remapped to a
more convenient key.  Personally, I use the jk combination.  It rarely
occurs during normal typing and is right on the home row.

I stopped using Emacs and switched to vi because the key chords in
Emacs was killing my wrists.. the secondary reason was because (at the
time of the switch) performance of Emacs on the Windows boxes I was
being forced to use was not very good.. performance of Vim (especially
on startup) was noticeable.  Today, there is not a noticeable
performance difference on faster machines, IMO.
From: Gian Uberto Lauri
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <87d5204g3h.fsf@mail.eng.it>
>>>>> Long count = 12.19.14.4.7; tzolkin = 11 Manik; haab = 15 Pop.
>>>>> I get words from the Allmighty Great Gnus that
>>>>> "ddc" == don ······@gmail com <··········@gmail.com> writes:

ddc> Being such an important key to vi users, the <Esc> function is
ddc> often remapped to a more convenient key.  Personally, I use the
ddc> jk combination.  It rarely occurs during normal typing and is
ddc> right on the home row.

Ah,  Windows  user that  can't  benefit  of  custom tailored  keyboard
layout and jwz's xkeycaps (http://www.jwz.org/xkeycaps/)... 

AFAIK it was Control and Caps  Lock that changed position, on late '70
ASCII terminals ESC was where it is now.

ddc> I stopped using Emacs and switched to vi because the key chords
ddc> in Emacs was killing my wrists.. the secondary reason was because
ddc> (at the time of the switch) performance of Emacs on the Windows
ddc> boxes I was being forced to use was not very good.. performance
ddc> of Vim (especially on startup) was noticeable.  Today, there is
ddc> not a noticeable performance difference on faster machines, IMO.

You were using  Emacs the wrong way. You start it  at logon, you close
it at logoff. And use emacsclient for "loading a buffer from outside".

Vim is Emacs-izing itself. But the wrong way (poor scripting language
instead of neat building language exposure - IMHO).

-- 
 /\           ___
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico
\/                 e coltivatore diretto di Software

A Cesare avrei detto di scrivermi a ·····@rat.vg
From: Xah Lee
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <1176748478.766798.214000@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
In the article “Modernization of Emacs”, i lobbied for a few changes
to Emacs that in general falls under the heading of modernization of
Emac's user interface and terminology.  I've added answers to
questions raised in the past months.
(please see http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html )

Now i have added 2 items of FAQ in the form of QAs. I paste below:

Q: Why don't you make these changes yourself? It is easy.

A: The issue is not a individual's convenience. Let's say you lobby
for greener planet. Then somebody retorts: “why don't you just plant
more trees in your backyard?”.

Q: I find the *scratch* buffer useful.

A: Just about anything, once it is exposed to human animals, a
significant number will find it useful. This is a matter of habit and
conditioning and applies to all aspects of human habit or hehavior, as
you'll find people in cultures into things you couldn't dream of.
(such as body modification as flattening their breasts, widening a
hole in lower lips... to lesser degree tattoo, muscle bulking... or
sexual preferences such as shit-eating... , or food intake habits
(eating/drinking/diet habits) ...)

Back to software: suppose you have random features in a software, and
give this software to a large number of people to use for few decades.
Chances are, every feature will be useful to a good sized number of
people. People, in a sense, adapt their work habits to the features.

The issue about Emacs's “*scratch*” “buffer” is that:

    * It is not useful by 99% of letter writers. If they wanted a
scratch pad, they can open a new document and not save it. This way is
familiar to all software users.
    * The “*scratch*” “buffer” is primarily designed for elisp
programers. (it default to lisp mode) Majority of people who use emacs
are not lisp coders. For lisp coders, they can trivially customized
their Emacs to have a “*scratch*” “buffer” as it is.
    * The “*scratch*” “buffer” is a intrusitive idiosyncrasy, that is
foreign to almost all programers who are familiar to modern text
editors. It is the first document presented to users, and it persists.

----
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html

  Xah
  ···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
From: Andrew Reilly
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <pan.2007.04.17.00.02.59.740587@areilly.bpc-users.org>
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:34:38 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:

>     * It is not useful by 99% of letter writers. If they wanted a
> scratch pad, they can open a new document and not save it. This way is
> familiar to all software users.

What on earth have "99% of letter writers" got to do with emacs?  That is
(very) clearly not it's target demographic.  Products are designed and
built for niche markets all the time - that's generally considered to be a
good thing.  There are plenty of alternatives that are better suited to
the occasional letter writer than emacs, most of them at least as readily
available.

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew
From: Olivier
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <462484b4$0$6426$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
What? A flaming war about *scratch* ?
Emacs definitely goes a loooong way!
:-p
O.
From: Edward
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <m2k5vnj2q1.fsf@gmail.com>
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:

>     * The “*scratch*” “buffer” is primarily designed for elisp
> programers. (it default to lisp mode) Majority of people who use
> emacs are not lisp coders. For lisp coders, they can trivially
> customized their Emacs to have a “*scratch*” “buffer” as it is.

The majority of people who use Emacs are using a program that runs
primarily on Lisp: Emacs!  Even Emac's preferences file is a Lisp
program.  Anyone who has any interest at all in using Emacs's advanced
features knows *scratch* is indispensable.  And it's not a
"scratch-pad" for taking notes.  It's a primitive REPL.

E.G.

Type "(+ 2 2)" in *scratch* and then hit ^j at the end of the line.

Also, eLisp is not just some little side-bar-doo-dad that was tacked
on to Emacs.  eLisp is an integral part of how Emacs was coded, how it
operates, and how it can be extended.

-- 
Edward
From: Joachim Pense
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <1tjiurn7241tc$.njlp9no1g3ib.dlg@40tude.net>
Am Fri, 04 May 2007 21:47:50 -0700 schrieb Edward:

> 
> Also, eLisp is not just some little side-bar-doo-dad that was tacked
> on to Emacs.  eLisp is an integral part of how Emacs was coded, how it
> operates, and how it can be extended.

Emacs was originally coded in TECO macro language. And the first Emacs
that was coded in Lisp wasn't in eLisp but in MacLisp, and ran on
Multics.

Joachim
From: David Combs
Subject: teco, rms, gosling, mocklisp, ... wasRe: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <f2ofbp$dpb$1@reader2.panix.com>
In article <·······························@40tude.net>,
Joachim Pense  <····@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>Am Fri, 04 May 2007 21:47:50 -0700 schrieb Edward:
>
>> 
>> Also, eLisp is not just some little side-bar-doo-dad that was tacked
>> on to Emacs.  eLisp is an integral part of how Emacs was coded, how it
>> operates, and how it can be extended.
>
>Emacs was originally coded in TECO macro language. And the first Emacs
>that was coded in Lisp wasn't in eLisp but in MacLisp, and ran on
>Multics.
>
>Joachim

Is that true?   On Multics?   WHEN?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I (think I) was using a (mit-super-extended) teco-version
of emacs (manual had Stallman on a gnu, jumping over the moon)
in like 1982??

When "in" emacs, you could hit ESC-ESC and then type in
teco code to do something -- if the then emacs didn't
offer an easy way to do it.

(Anyone who used DEC computers knew teco -- that was THE editor
that came with those machines.)  (MIT (Stallman?) added
so much cool stuff to it when creating their own version
of teco, and it was *that* teco that emacs was "written in".)


The only emacs in "lisp" at that time (maybe I'm wrong by a few years)
was emacs, the language designed, and implemented, by rms, and
a guy named Gosling took the *language* and reimplemented it
in something called "mocklisp".

(Gosling was well known in c.s. before "his" emacs (called
"Gosling emcas") for doing some great wonderful thing in c.s.,
but that was so long ago that I forget.)

(Did he not then maybe go to Sun?  Worked on that
nifty server/client window-or-something system that
drew pictures, boxes, etc by creating and shipping 
postscript programs?)

Am I right, wrong, partially, or what?


David
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: teco, rms, gosling, mocklisp, ...
Date: 
Message-ID: <uiraof1y4.fsf_-_@nhplace.com>
[ comp.lang.lisp only
  http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/cross-posting.html ]

·······@panix.com (David Combs) writes:

> In article <·······························@40tude.net>,
> Joachim Pense  <····@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >Am Fri, 04 May 2007 21:47:50 -0700 schrieb Edward:
> >
> >> 
> >> Also, eLisp is not just some little side-bar-doo-dad that was tacked
> >> on to Emacs.  eLisp is an integral part of how Emacs was coded, how it
> >> operates, and how it can be extended.
> >
> >Emacs was originally coded in TECO macro language. And the first Emacs
> >that was coded in Lisp wasn't in eLisp but in MacLisp, and ran on
> >Multics.
> >
> >Joachim
> 
> Is that true?   On Multics?   WHEN?

Yes, I think that's right.

1978, according to http://www.multicians.org/mepap.html#secI
That matches my memory.

> Maybe I'm wrong, but I (think I) was using a (mit-super-extended) teco-version
> of emacs (manual had Stallman on a gnu, jumping over the moon)
> in like 1982??

TECO-based Emacs was much earlier than 1982.  (Also mentioned in the same paper.)
Emacs was already in use when I arrived at MIT LCS in 1978.

Gosling's emacs was 1981.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs
 
> When "in" emacs, you could hit ESC-ESC and then type in
> teco code to do something -- if the then emacs didn't
> offer an easy way to do it.

That's right.
 
> (Anyone who used DEC computers knew teco -- that was THE editor
> that came with those machines.)  (MIT (Stallman?) added
> so much cool stuff to it when creating their own version
> of teco, and it was *that* teco that emacs was "written in".)

Right.  Stallman was maintaining a lot of it.  Although after TECO's
"control-R mode" (realtime mode), several different emacs-like
facilities arose and competed for users with slightly different
command sets.  TECMACS was one that had a few users--can't recall
whose that was.  Maybe Eugene Cicarelli (who also created BABYL, the
TECO-based mail reader that was much better than RMAIL); when Stallman
created gnu emacs, he used the BABYL file format instead of RMAIL's
more impoverished file format, but left out some of BABYL's other
features.  But EMACS was the biggie.

Also, as an aside, people often credit Stallman for Emacs, but one
detail that is often lost is that, as I understand it, the idea of
associating TECO macros with keystrokes was due to Guy Steele.
Stallman implemented Steele's idea, but did not come up with the idea.

As an aside, somewhere in there, I made a small, special-purpose Lisp
compiler in TECO that compiled to TECO, so that people could load Lisp
Machine Zmail init files directly into Teco... I called it ZBABYL.
But that was probably in 83 or 84.  And anyway, it wasn't at all a
real lisp.  It was just a weekend hack with just enough lisp to
compile typical "filters" that people wrote.  It was a cool hack
though....

> The only emacs in "lisp" at that time (maybe I'm wrong by a few years)
> was emacs, the language designed, and implemented, by rms, and
> a guy named Gosling took the *language* and reimplemented it
> in something called "mocklisp".

Nope.  That was later.  Multics was modeled after TECO-based emacs
and long preceded Gosling's emacs.  It was also based on a real lisp.
 
> (Gosling was well known in c.s. before "his" emacs (called
> "Gosling emcas") for doing some great wonderful thing in c.s.,
> but that was so long ago that I forget.)
> 
> (Did he not then maybe go to Sun?  Worked on that
> nifty server/client window-or-something system that
> drew pictures, boxes, etc by creating and shipping 
> postscript programs?)
> 
> Am I right, wrong, partially, or what?

Well, I think you've got the timeline wrong and some things happened
around you that you might not have been aware of.  But that's pretty
normal.  People aren't perfect recording devices, and failing to notice
something isn't proof that either your memory is bad nor that the thing
didn't happen.  I think the references above should help jog your memory.
From: Emilio Lopes
Subject: Re: teco, rms, gosling, mocklisp, ... wasRe: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <wxwsz3yd86.fsf@freenet.de>
David Combs writes:

> Is that true?   On Multics?   WHEN?

    http://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs-timeline.html

-- 
Em�lio C. Lopes                            Ich leb und wei� nit wie lang,
Munich, Germany                            ich stirb und wei� nit wann,
                                           ich fahr und wei� nit wohin,
                 (Martinus von Biberach)   mich wundert, dass ich fr�hlich bin!
From: David Combs
Subject: Re: teco, rms, gosling, mocklisp, ... wasRe: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <f4ahk0$qsm$1@reader2.panix.com>
In article <··············@freenet.de>, Emilio Lopes  <·····@gmx.net> wrote:
>David Combs writes:
>
>> Is that true?   On Multics?   WHEN?
>
>    http://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs-timeline.html
>
>-- 
>Em�lio C. Lopes                            Ich leb und wei� nit wie lang,
>Munich, Germany                            ich stirb und wei� nit wann,
>                                           ich fahr und wei� nit wohin,
>                 (Martinus von Biberach)   mich wundert, dass ich fr�hlich bin!

Finally, I looked at it.

WOW -- that's something!


David
From: viper-2
Subject: Re: teco, rms, gosling, mocklisp, ... wasRe: Xah's Edu Corner: The Modernization of Emacs
Date: 
Message-ID: <1185633642.715081.226110@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
On 20 May 2007, Kent Pitman commented on the origin of the idea to
associate TECO macros with keystrokes - an idea that generated the
explosion of MIT AI hacker innovation leading to the design of Emacs.
According to Kent, this was Guy Steele's and not Stallman's idea:

"Also, as an aside, people often credit Stallman for Emacs, but one
detail that is often lost is that, as I understand it, the idea of
associating TECO macros with keystrokes was due to Guy Steele.
Stallman implemented Steele's idea, but did not come up with the
idea".

On reading Kent's message, I believed the latter comment to be
inaccurate and I consequently consulted RMS (Stallman) myself. This is
RMS' response:

I implemented the feature of binding keystrokes to TECO macros in
1973, two years before Emacs.  I had recently reworked TECO's  real-
time editing mode, making it efficient and reliable enough that people
started using it.  A TECO user (subsequently one of the developers of
TECMAC) asked for the feature of setting aside a couple of keys to run
TECO macros.  I concluded it would be just as easy to allow rebinding
any and all keys, so I implemented that.  That made possible the
development of various TECO-based real-time editors.

 Guy Steel played a role in starting the development of Emacs in 1975.
He developed the key bindings, I designed the internal platform, and
we worked together for the first night of implementation.  After that
he dropped out.

End of response.

The above should dispel any confusion concerning the origin of the
TECO macros-keystrokes idea in Emacs. For further information you may
also consult "Free as in Freedom", chapter 6 at
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch06.html, and note 6 of the
latter at http://www.lysator.liu.se/history/garb/txt/87-1-emacs.txt.

agt