I got the following email regarding my article
The Modernization of Emacs
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
-------------------------------------
Hi Xah,
I just read your essay on the modernization of emacs and I agree. My
personal experience validates what you're saying about Emacs needing a
big overhaul. I'm a CS graduate student in the [...] University (...).
Over here, Emacs is the standard - it is the editor that's introduced
to first year students in the 'Introduction to Computer Science'
course and most of the students keep on using it throughout their
studies. The amazing thing is that almost all the students I know are
ignorant of Emac's features, even the trivial ones. I very often sit
with a fellow student and find that she doesn't know how to copy and
paste using the keyboard - they use the mouse to highlight a piece of
text, then the middle button to paste. These people know the CUA key
bindings of course, but they tried them once in Emacs, and they didn't
work, so they gave up.
There are many examples of things not working right by default. I'll
just give the first one that pops to mind. A few days ago, a guy
wanted my help to find a compiling error. The Java compiler said that
his class didn't have a main() function. He showed me the file in
Emacs, I found his main function, I carefully read it and everything
seemed fine. But the compiler kept insisting. After a few minutes, I
realized the main() function was in a commented-out block. I would
have seen it immediately, but his buffer DIDN'T USE SYNTAX
HIGHLIGHTING so the commented-out region didn't stand out. I told him
- man, you have to use syntax highlighting when you're programming,
not doing so is simply unprofessional and down right silly. So he
asked, "well, how do I turn it on?". I said, " you can do Alt-x java-
mode", and there's also a command that you can put in .emacs that will
turn it on by default. But I didn't remember the command, so I told
him to look it up. Which he didn't do, obviously, because most people
are lazy that way. Default settings are everything.
Thanks for "fighting the good fight".
[signed...]
------------------
Thank you.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
On 26 out, 11:56, Xah Lee <····@xahlee.org> wrote:
> I got the following email regarding my article
>
> The Modernization of Emacshttp://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
# (This achieve 3 things: (1) Cut/Copy/Paste has shortcuts with x/c/v
keys; (2) Text selections are highlighted; (3) Typing while a region
is selected will delete/over-ride it.)
that is, make it another clone of notepad. The reason why Emacs has
all those quirks is historical: notepad didn't exist back then, nor
Windows, nor DOS... thus, vi and emacs had to invent their own set of
keybindings...
# Get rid of the "*scratch*" buffer.
yeah, and while we're at it, get rid of elisp and replace it with
java, thus making it a worthy contender to Eclipse...
frankly, rewriting emacs from scratch or making it work just like
Microsoft teaches us is an oxymoron...
On 27 Okt., 01:39, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> that is, make it another clone of notepad. The reason why Emacs has
> all those quirks is historical:
And modernization is the process of getting rid of historical
mistakes.
The keybinding of emacs is completely stupid rubbish. I wouldn't use
CUA for it but a much better and more consistent binding is definitely
a plus.
Even after 10 years of emacs i knew only around 20 shortcuts. While
they
were impressive enough for other guys, it wasn't enough for me. Today
there
are much better editors available then emacs or vi.
On 27 out, 03:26, llothar <·······@web.de> wrote:
> And modernization is the process of getting rid of historical
> mistakes.
It's one of the most ancient pieces of software still in active use
today. In this timeline, CUA trends have come and gone, but emacs and
vi have been thoroughly consistent with their own way of doing
things. And very productive at it, a very good reason for their
continued usage.
> Even after 10 years of emacs i knew only around 20 shortcuts.
poor you.
On 28 Okt., 04:35, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's one of the most ancient pieces of software still in active use
> today. In this timeline, CUA trends have come and gone, but emacs and
> vi have been thoroughly consistent with their own way of doing
> things.
Begin willing to learn is not something you can be proud of.
> And very productive at it, a very good reason for their
> continued usage.
Doubt that. But one of the symphoms of idiots is that they refuse to
learn.
On 27 out, 21:10, llothar <·······@web.de> wrote:
> Doubt that. But one of the symphoms of idiots is that they refuse to
> learn.
indeed. This can be said of people unwilling to learn the emacs way
and wanting it to be another notepad...
Some entity, AKA llothar <·······@web.de>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> Even after 10 years of emacs i knew only around 20 shortcuts. While
> they
> were impressive enough for other guys, it wasn't enough for me. Today
> there
> are much better editors available then emacs or vi.
Just hire a secretary to do the scribling , that is much easier.
Cor
--
Alle schraifvauden zijn opzettelijk, teneinde ieder lafaard de kans te
geven over spelling te zeuren in plaats van in te gaan op de inhoud.
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php
From: Klaus Schilling
Subject: Re: modernization of emacs
Date:
Message-ID: <87d4v0qxo2.fsf@web.de>
Cor Gest <···@clsnet.nl> writes:
> Some entity, AKA llothar <·······@web.de>,
> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>
>
>> Even after 10 years of emacs i knew only around 20 shortcuts. While
>> they
>> were impressive enough for other guys, it wasn't enough for me. Today
>> there
>> are much better editors available then emacs or vi.
no, there will never be any editor better than the GNU Emacs
>
> Just hire a secretary to do the scribling , that is much easier.
The GNU Emacs is for serious editing, not scribbling, unlike Notepad
Klaus Schilling
Cor Gest <···@clsnet.nl> writes:
> Some entity, AKA llothar <·······@web.de>,
> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>
>
>> Even after 10 years of emacs i knew only around 20 shortcuts. While
>> they
>> were impressive enough for other guys, it wasn't enough for me. Today
>> there
>> are much better editors available then emacs or vi.
>
> Just hire a secretary to do the scribling , that is much easier.
If it takes llothar 10 years to learn 20 shortcuts, I'd
suggest that Notepad may be more appropriate than Emacs - for llothar.
On Oct 26, 11:39 am, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
«...frankly, rewriting emacs from scratch or making it work just like
Microsoft teaches us is an oxymoron...»
I think your concern is addressed in
The Modernization of Emacs
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
did you not read it?
I exerpt below from 2 of its Frequently Asked Questions section:
Q: Emacs's ways are technically superior. It should not change.
A: Emac's user interface, when compared to modern software
application's user interface, is complex and unusual, however, there's
no basis whatsoever of it being actually a superior design with
regards to any sensible metrics. (in fact, much of emacs's user
interface are due to historical reasons. That is, how computers are in
1980s.)
For example, let's consider emacs's system of keyboard shortcuts. For
a keyboard shortcut system, we might judge its quality based on
several aspects. Here are some examples of consideration:
* Is it easy to learn? (is it familiar to most people? Is it easy
to remember?)
* Is it ergonomic? (Are most frequently used commands's keyboard
shortcuts easy to type? Are more frequently used commands have easier
to type shortcuts than less frequently used commands?)
* Are most frequently used commands all have a keyboard shortcut?
* Is the shortcut system somehow consistent and extensible?
Emacs's keyboard shortcuts system, is good only with respect to the
last item. Emacs keyboard shortcuts are perhaps one of the most
difficult to learn among software, and is also one of the most
difficult to remember. The worst aspect of emacs's keyboard shortcuts,
is that it is ergonomically painful. (Many emacs-using programer
celebrities have injured their hands with emacs. (e.g. Richard
Stallman↗, Jamie Zawinski↗), and emacs's Ctrl and Meta combinations
are most cited as the major turn-off to potential users among
programers)
Computer keyboard is a hardware interface, and the mapping of commands
to the key press combinations can be considered from a Operation
Research (ergonomic) point of view. The keyboard hardware itself can
be designed with consideration of ergonomics (that's why we have split
and curved keyboards), but consideration of what functions to map to
what key presses is also non-trivial if the software has large number
of functions, or if the software is mission critical, or the software
is used for repetitive, long durations of human-machine interaction
(such as data-entry, programing, writing). Think of it this way:
consider a airplane cockpit, filled with knobs, dials, buttons, and
switches. Now, if your job is to map the airplane control functions to
these switches, what are the issues to consider?
If we take careful consideration on creating a keyboard shortcut
system for emacs, it is not difficult to create a system that is
superior in some pure technical sense than the emacs's shortcut
system.
For a full discourse, see: Why Emacs's Keyboard Shortcuts Are Painful.
Aside from keyboard shortcuts system, other user interface aspects of
emacs are also questionable. For example, one major aspect of emacs
operation is that it uses a single window for multiple purposes and
files. Emacs is this way not because of a design decision, but rather
due to historical reasons. Computer resources in the 1980s are very
limited. When emacs is around, graphical system of showing “windows”
is not practically available, and the emacs's method of using the
screen (the monochrome text-only monitor) for presenting multiple
tasks (“buffers”) is actually a very advanced user interface design
not available in software of that era. When graphical systems becomes
practical in the 1990s, drawing a window still takes a lot memory, and
opening multiple windows is slow and impractical.
Modern software interface (say, post 2000) usually uses one window per
file (or task), and or show tabs if multiple tasks are represented in
a single window. However, emacs's buffer system doesn't provide the
tabs visual clue. Compared to the modern standard of tabbed window,
emacs's buffer interface is inferior because it is less intuitive.
Arguably, emacs's operation methods may be more efficient for expert
users. 20 years ago, efficiency for expert users may out weight the
ease of use for majority of average users. But in today computing era,
computers are standard tools in every household, efficiency and ease
of use for general users is as important for professional users. Even
for professional users, it is openly questionable that emacs's ways of
operation induced by its default user interface allows more efficient
operation than a user interface based on modern software conventions.
(this can be certified by having 2 programmers roughly equally
experienced or skilled in using emacs. One person uses traditional
Emacs, the other uses a emacs with modernized interface (such as Mac's
Aquamacs), then compare their efficiency in finishing a set of
programing tasks.)
Note: we are not disputing the general power, flexibility, and
qualities of emacs. Emacs, with a powerful embedded language lisp, and
consequently embodies many software applications other than text
editing (email, ftp, dired, calc, ...etc), has induced certain system
of user interface that is all consistent and unique in comparison to
modern software applications. We do not advocate that this is bad.
Specifically, we only propose a very few trivial items for interface
or documentation changes as listed in this article. Most are simply
turning on some features by feault and or changing some terminologies
in the documentation. They have no bearings on how emacs operate in
general.
Q: Why should emacs want to be popular and why should emacs change to
conform the majority?
A: This attitude has plagued unix and computer geekers for decades. In
the early 1990s (DOS and unix), tech geekers would sneer at graphical
menus and mouse, with hordes of reasons how pure text interface, the
command line, and or keyboard operations are sufficient and superior
than graphical user interface or using a mouse. This seems ridiculous
today, but such voices are commonly seen all over newsgroups. (Since
about 2000, linuxes are in a frenzied race to copy whole-sale of
Microsoft Windows's user interface ( KDE↗, GNOME↗) trying to make
itself easy-to-use.)
The reason for these type of attitude, is almost never a sensible
alternative view about the topic in discussion, but a show of machismo
and superiority complex. (perhaps more than 95% of online computing
forum users are males, and majority of them are aged under 25.) The
person who utters such opinion, made sure in the way he writes that he
is a expert in the “more difficult to use” method or tools and would
prefer things not to be “dumbed down”.
It is silly to retort “Why should emacs want to be popular?”. It is
like asking “why do you want to live longer?” when someone is picky
about healthy food, or “why should you want to look beautiful?” when
someone dresses up.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
On 27 oct, 11:18, Xah Lee <····@xahlee.org> wrote:
What about Xemacs ? I'm glad after having spent 20 years to configure
emacs, -while using Vi. Anyway, why not Xemacs ? You have 3000 buttons
to find out in menus, what ever they mean, W3 which is dead, ange-ftp,
etc.
L
On 27 out, 06:18, Xah Lee <····@xahlee.org> wrote:
> If we take careful consideration on creating a keyboard shortcut
> system for emacs, it is not difficult to create a system that is
> superior in some pure technical sense than the emacs's shortcut
> system.
you're insane. Yes, the reasons for emacs being the way it is are
historical: it were originally all but a bunch of macros and
keybindings for an older editor. Since then, the number of macros and
keybindings added have grown immensely and in a geeky ad-hoc way.
Now, trying to make sense out of it all in a notepad way is insane if
you ask me...
> (Since
> about 2000, linuxes are in a frenzied race to copy whole-sale of
> Microsoft Windows's user interface ( KDE↗, GNOME↗) trying to make
> itself easy-to-use.)
GNOME actually tries to copy the model for Windows: the Macintosh
GUI.
dear:
Man, i couldn't fathom how you arrived at the idea that i want to make
emacs into a notepad ways. (perhaps you are thinking alone the lines
of “Oh no, i don't want emacs to be dumb'd down”?)
O, regarding my statement about how easy it is to create a shortcut
set for emacs that is more efficient than emacs's ways, please see:
Read: Why Emacs's Keyboard Shortcuts Are Painful
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts_pain.html
O, It's is fairly long (1.8 k words.) As a summary i'll show the
subsection names:
• The Swapping of Control and Meta Modifiers
• The Choice Of Keys
• Outdated Commands
• No Employment of the Shift Key
• A Flaw in Keybinding Policy
• Epilogue: Failure to Change
Now, i happend to actually designed a shortcut system for emacs this
year, having put too much thougt on this. It comes with a elisp code
you can put in your .emacs and try.
• Acrostic Ergonomic Keyboard Shortcut Layout For Emacs
http://xahlee.org/emacs/ergonomic_emacs_keybinding.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
On Oct 27, 2:45 pm, namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27 out, 06:18, Xah Lee <····@xahlee.org> wrote:
> If we take careful consideration on creating a keyboard shortcut
> system for emacs, it is not difficult to create a system that is
> superior in some pure technical sense than the emacs's shortcut
> system.
you're insane. Yes, the reasons for emacs being the way it is are
historical: it were originally all but a bunch of macros and
keybindings for an older editor. Since then, the number of macros and
keybindings added have grown immensely and in a geeky ad-hoc way.
Now, trying to make sense out of it all in a notepad way is insane if
you ask me...
> (Since
> about 2000, linuxes are in a frenzied race to copy whole-sale of
> Microsoft Windows's user interface ( KDE↗, GNOME↗) trying to make
> itself easy-to-use.)
GNOME actually tries to copy the model for Windows: the Macintosh
GUI.
On 27 out, 23:58, Xah Lee <····@xahlee.org> wrote:
> Man, i couldn't fathom how you arrived at the idea that i want to make
> emacs into a notepad ways. (perhaps you are thinking alone the lines
> of "Oh no, i don't want emacs to be dumb'd down"?)
from here:
"Today, most commonly used keyboard shortcuts have been somewhat
informally standardized. For example, C/X/V is for Copy/Cut/Paste. O
is for Open. S is for Save, Shift-S is for Save As. P is for Print. F
is for Find/Search. Tab is for next, Shift tab for previous."
It's insane to try to fit emacs and vi to current standards: they are
worlds on their own. It's like trying to convert a 90 year old
faithful catholic to protestantism. It leads nowhere and will make a
lot of people used to the old paradigms angry at you.
BTW, CTRL+F only works if you're prepared to implement a search dialog
with all the options that kind of thing requires. Emacs/Vi were made
with technical people in mind, people who hopefully know about regular
expressions and would find the dialog and checkboxes about as
redundant as confirmation boxes... what about reverse search? is
there a "standard" modern keybinding for that too? Oh, of course not,
reverse search needs you to mark a checkbox in the dialog, silly me...
now:
"Outdated Commands
A significant portion of emacs's major shortcuts ... are mapped to
commands that are almost never used today ... M-k (kill-sentence)).
Most programer who have used emacs for years never use these commands"
Define "most programmers". If by that you mean "most clueless emacs
users using it like little more than notepad++", I agree. These are
the same who don't know emacs has more semantically significant
textual units than just word and line, like the sentence indeed...
Xah Lee wrote:
«Dear namekuseijin,
(is that your real name? My legal name is Xah Lee.)
»
anonymous namekuseijin wrote:
«of course not! How can I successfully troll if not by pseudonym? :)»
Ho ho... very funny. :>
Maybe you are joking, but in this thread i think your joking about how
“making emacs into Notepad” costed a lot wasted energy and effectively
derailed discussion of the topic.
You see, often when someone suggest UI improvemens to FSF's software
primarily for the purposes of usability, there are a lot tech geekers
who would reflexively retort “No, we don't want it to dumb down,
popular, or easy to use”.
It is my feeling, that these reactions, effectivly delayed the
usibility progress of many unix software, including emacs.
Xah wrote:
《what do you mean exactly by turning emacs to Notepad? One of my
proposal is that emacs should by default have its CUV mode on. I quote
from my article: «· Have cua-mode on by default. (This achieve 3
things: (1) Cut/Copy/ Paste has shortcuts with x/c/v keys; (2) Text
selections are highlighted; (3) Typing while a region is selected will
delete/over- ride it.)»》
You wrote:
«people already don't use emacs as it should (the guy above used it
for 10 years and only knew about 20 commands!)»
Really?
Do you really think, that it is reasonable, that someone would have
used emacs for 10 years and only knew 20 commands?
Do you think you interpreted his remark too literally?
But anyway, to foscus on the topic, suppose that person really did use
emacs for 10 years and only knew 20 commands. What is your meaning in
quoting this, with respect to the discussion of improving emacs's user
interface as we were debating?
I think, you suggest that, to bring the power of emacs to more people,
we should not change (or improve) emacs user interface, but should
have people learn more about emacs's ways?
I think this is a noble suggestion. I agree that software should not
be dumb'd down, and often people's problems with software is due to
their total lack of learning it. Computer literacy is important, and
educators are aware of it and has put a sufficient efforts to it i
think, to the point that there are hints of research reports that too
early a computer eduction in a kid's life actually dumb down the kid,
or that too much computer user among engineers creates psychological
problems.
In anycase, economics indicates that people's time are limited, and
people has a lot things to do then just learning the tools. We as
software makers, should strive to make software easy to use. I think
this is a reasonable point. Do you agree?
in my suggestion for emacs UI improvement
The Modernization of Emacs
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
there contains no item, such that will make emacs more easier to use
for lesser IQ'd people. Honestly, i think these changes will in
general have a impact on higher IQ'd programers such that they'll like
emacs more.
you wrote:
«Standardizing on Cut/Copy/Paste and highlighted text selections will
only make it worse. There you are, proud of selecting tons of
highlighted text with your mouse and the copy it and paste, when in
the true emacs way you don't even need to highlight the text to copy
it: just say "copy these 3 long paragraphs" to your trusty editor...»
hum?
i wrote:
«by turning on CUV by default, will cause emacs to lose some of its
capabilities?»
you wrote:
«no, it will only make people unwilling to learn (like those which
really want it to be just another notepad-compatible) further unaware
of emacs true capabilities.»
are you serious in saying this??
are you suggesting, that software should not be made easy to use,
because the more difficult to use, the more it will force users to
learn it?
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
hello, Xah!
On 3 nov, 22:06, Xah Lee <····@xahlee.org> wrote:
> Maybe you are joking, but in this thread i think your joking about how
> "making emacs into Notepad" costed a lot wasted energy and effectively
> derailed discussion of the topic.
I was not joking about that.
> You see, often when someone suggest UI improvemens to FSF's software
> primarily for the purposes of usability, there are a lot tech geekers
> who would reflexively retort "No, we don't want it to dumb down,
> popular, or easy to use".
software made by geeks for geeks is not meant for lusers. Converting
it to lesser standards will seriously enrage people used to the
software ways...
> It is my feeling, that these reactions, effectivly delayed the
> usibility progress of many unix software, including emacs.
emacs won't be any more useful for folks who have all their needs
supplied by notepad.
> Do you think you interpreted his remark too literally?
perhaps he was joking, how am I supposed to know?
> In anycase, economics indicates that people's time are limited, and
> people has a lot things to do then just learning the tools.
my point, exactly: put in the standard CUA whatever into emacs and
wonder as how people use it as just another notepad. They already
know how to copy/paste, move line up/down, word forward/backward.
Will they be interested in learning or even be aware about emacs'
block, parentheses and sentence movement commands (which would greatly
simplify their editing needs)? hell, no! It's a text editor, it's a
notepad like any other...
> We as
> software makers, should strive to make software easy to use. I think
> this is a reasonable point. Do you agree?
yes, emacs and vim are very, very easy to use for their technical
audience. They are meant to make difficult tasks as much of a breeze,
at the coast of a steeper learning curve.
> «Standardizing on Cut/Copy/Paste and highlighted text selections will
> only make it worse. There you are, proud of selecting tons of
> highlighted text with your mouse and the copy it and paste, when in
> the true emacs way you don't even need to highlight the text to copy
> it: just say "copy these 3 long paragraphs" to your trusty editor...»
>
> hum?
CTRL+space, CTRL+U3, ALT+SHIFT+}
3 longs paragraphs copied, without ever getting your hands off the
keyboard, without needing to select what I want copied with the
mouse. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO COPY: 3 long paragraphs! I
shouldn't need to manually show my editor what it should copy!
It's good my trusty editor understands me...
my point is that this way of doing things won't ever be touched upon
if you disguise emacs in notepad skin. Besides, there's no standard
CUA keystroke for copying selections other than CTRL+C with
selection. That means even if a corageous user was to try the emacs
way, the poor bastard would still have to cope with weird keystrokes
like the above, so what's the point of the CUA?
> «no, it will only make people unwilling to learn (like those which
> really want it to be just another notepad-compatible) further unaware
> of emacs true capabilities.»
>
> are you serious in saying this??
yes, very much.
> are you suggesting, that software should not be made easy to use,
> because the more difficult to use, the more it will force users to
> learn it?
I don't see what you mean by difficult to use. Care to explain how
you carry on the procedure to copy n long paragraphs/blocks in CUA
mode or whatever as easily as in the emacs/vim way? you know,
grabbing the mouse and manually scrolling down until you find endpoint
isn't exactly productive...
namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:
> hello, Xah!
>
>> You see, often when someone suggest UI improvemens to FSF's
>> software primarily for the purposes of usability, there are a lot
>> tech geekers who would reflexively retort "No, we don't want it to
>> dumb down, popular, or easy to use".
>
> software made by geeks for geeks is not meant for lusers.
Emacs is not made for geeks but for everyone. Usability discussions
centered around the needs of beginners are very prevalent on the Emacs
developer list and taken quite seriously. It is no accident that
Emacs offers tutorials, toolbars, various context sensitive help
systems, tooltips and so on.
> Converting it to lesser standards will seriously enrage people used
> to the software ways...
Usability is not a "lesser standard".
>> It is my feeling, that these reactions, effectivly delayed the
>> usibility progress of many unix software, including emacs.
>
> emacs won't be any more useful for folks who have all their needs
> supplied by notepad.
Sure. But being able to test drive Emacs without having to relearn
first where steering wheel, transmission, brakes and accelerator are
makes it easier to actually learn what Emacs can offer _more_.
>> We as software makers, should strive to make software easy to
>> use. I think this is a reasonable point. Do you agree?
>
> yes, emacs and vim are very, very easy to use for their technical
> audience. They are meant to make difficult tasks as much of a
> breeze, at the coast of a steeper learning curve.
The steeper learning curve is no value in itself.
I am not arguing for enabling CUA mode by default: it interferes too
much with normal and standard Emacs operation to be a useful startup
default. But that does not mean that usability in itself is bad, or
preconceptions. It just means that one has to weigh and balance good
and bad. There are no hard recipes.
--
David Kastrup
From: Klaus Schilling
Subject: Re: modernization of emacs
Date:
Message-ID: <87lk9lsi8u.fsf@web.de>
namekuseijin <············@gmail.com> writes:
> On 27 out, 06:18, Xah Lee <····@xahlee.org> wrote:
>> If we take careful consideration on creating a keyboard shortcut
>> system for emacs, it is not difficult to create a system that is
>> superior in some pure technical sense than the emacs's shortcut
>> system.
>
> you're insane. Yes, the reasons for emacs being the way it is are
> historical: it were originally all but a bunch of macros and
> keybindings for an older editor. Since then, the number of macros and
> keybindings added have grown immensely and in a geeky ad-hoc way.
> Now, trying to make sense out of it all in a notepad way is insane if
> you ask me...
>
geeky ad-hoc ways are the best way to go,
most other ways lead into a swamp of corruption and insantity
>> (Since
>> about 2000, linuxes are in a frenzied race to copy whole-sale of
>> Microsoft Windows's user interface ( KDE↗, GNOME↗) trying to make
>> itself easy-to-use.)
GUI desktops are only easy to use for childish beastmen,
not for platonists,
and thus can be blatantly shunt.
>
> GNOME actually tries to copy the model for Windows: the Macintosh
> GUI.
Macintyosh, Windows ... doesn't make a difference,
they are all worthlesss junk.
Klaus Schilling
The following is a anectdote about usability of emacs on the MS
Windows platform.
-------------------------
I may be the only person on this planet who thinks that it is too
difficult to begin using Emacs on MS Windows. However I did find some
things unnecessarily difficult.
First of all, there was no installation program of the type you
normally get on MS Windows. To install Emacs you had to get some
unpacking utilities that were not so easily found. (Or you could use
some commercial utility program, but is not that a little bit against
the mindset of Emacs?)
If you get past this trouble you find that some of the most commonly
used keyboard keys for editing under MS Windows, like control-x and
control-v, does not function at all in Emacs. And then you find that
the menus do not seem to work unless you are using a mouse. Well, you
are a keyboard user, for sure, otherwise you would not even think
about the trouble of learning Emacs. So you are a bit disappointed
about the menus. (OK, after a while you may discover that you can use
F10 to get to the menus.)
Naturally you want to associate some files with Emacs to work
comfortably in MS Windows. You do and find that it takes a lot of time
to start edit any file. Seems like Notepad is a better alternative
since you just do not have time to do anything in Emacs!
If you happen to get over this and do some work in Emacs you soon
discover that you have trouble printing. If you are lucky you can find
some tips and get over it. But do not bet on it! I could not (until I
wrote my own hack to do it).
Then you may think you are ready, but you are not! Now you discover
that you need some Unix programs to do the job. After some search you
may find some that seems to do work for you. Ready? Oh no! There are
those small things called $B!H(Bline endings$B!I(B $B!D(B - they are different on
Unix and w32. So you hope that the maintainers of these utilities
tries to take care of this. Hope is a good thing, but you may find
they do not care much about this. Some of them say that $B!H(Bit is not my
fault, it is MS Windows that mess things up$B!I(B. Maybe, but it does not
help you ;-)
-------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/EmacsW32
Author: presumbaly author of EmacsW32
GPL Licensed and used with permission.
Further readings:
Modernization of Emacs
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
$B-t(B http://xahlee.org/
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:30:11 -0800, Xah Lee wrote:
> The following is a anectdote about usability of emacs on the MS Windows
> platform.
>
> -------------------------
> I may be the only person on this planet who thinks that it is too
> difficult to begin using Emacs on MS Windows.
On the contrary, I find that many things are too difficult on MS Windows.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:43:25 +0000, Paul Donnelly wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:30:11 -0800, Xah Lee wrote:
>
>> The following is a anectdote about usability of emacs on the MS Windows
>> platform.
>>
>> -------------------------
>> I may be the only person on this planet who thinks that it is too
>> difficult to begin using Emacs on MS Windows.
>
> On the contrary, I find that many things are too difficult on MS
> Windows.
Hah :-)
Anyway, Xah - do you have any kind of coherent strategy to improve things
- for the better, I mean - I only concur with a few of your complaints /
suggestions - or in other words, what are you trying to do?
Joost.
Xah Wrote:
The Modernization of Emacs
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> wrote:
<<Anyway, Xah - do you have any kind of coherent strategy to improve
things - for the better... >>
Just spread the awareness.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
$B-t(B http://xahlee.org/