On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <······@grex.org> wrote:
> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
> want to use it with other lisp implementations, I can't). Are there
> any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
> from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?
For a while I tried Corman Lisp but when you try and create GUI's it
all falls apart UNLESS, you memorize Petzold's Win32 book cover to
cover. If GUI's aren't a concern for you try Corman.
I ended up purchasing Lispworks and it has everything you're looking
for except the free part. Very easy to create GUI's AND you can set it
up for Windows like keystrokes, copy, cut and paste, etc.
They have a personal edition that will allow you to try it, but if
your serious about programming, buying a commerical product is way
better than downloading some freeby.
Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <······@grex.org> wrote:
>
> > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
>
> I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
Hmmm. Interesting case of reverse causation.
Emacs was created in 1976
MSDOS was created in 1981
Windows was create in 1983 (1985?)
So, who went away from whom?
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
On Jul 14, 6:31 pm, ····@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <······@grex.org> wrote:
>
> > > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
>
> > I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> > because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> > natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
>
> Hmmm. Interesting case of reverse causation.
>
> Emacs was created in 1976
> MSDOS was created in 1981
> Windows was create in 1983 (1985?)
>
> So, who went away from whom?
Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows won the war,
windows decides what is standard and what's not.
People don't want changes. Ctrl-Z means undo and it should mean undo
on emacs BY DEFAULT or it'll be thrashed by masses of people who are
used to Ctrl-Z meaning undo.
People don't want t be corrected. Sure your comments are valid and
logical but humans aren't logical. Who wrote The Man Who Sold the
World ? Nirvana . Wrong it's a David Bowie's song. But correct
somebody and they'll say that you're wrong, and when you point them to
your sources they will hate you. Or start the baseline of Under
Pressure and everybody sings Ice ice baby. Truth matters the least,
unless it some strong law that reminds humans about reality everytime
they try something foolish (like Gravity). And History doesn't have
that power.
>
> --
> Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows
won the war,
Who cares?
windows decides what is standard and what's
not.
Who cares?
People don't want changes. Ctrl-Z means undo and it
should mean undo on emacs BY DEFAULT or it'll be
thrashed by masses of people who are used to Ctrl-Z
meaning undo.
Who cares if they ``thrash'' something? If they don't like
it, let them go cry and use Notepad.exe.
People don't want t be corrected.
The rational ones do.
Sure your comments are valid and logical but humans
aren't logical.
Speak for yourself.
On Jul 15, 4:13 pm, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows won the war,
If there /was/ a war, then Windows is a war crime.
> windows decides what is standard and what's not.
Maybe. But how long will they last? Emacs keychords vs. new-fangled
editors' "common" user interface keyboard shortcuts looks a bit like
Lisp vs. object-langue-du-jour to me.
> People don't want changes.
Life is change. Get used to it. ;)
> Ctrl-Z means undo and it should mean undo
> on emacs BY DEFAULT
Well, on Windows maybe, but on Linux? Ouch.
> Truth matters the least,
I sincerely don't hope so.
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jul 14, 6:31��pm, ····@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> > Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <······@grex.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
> >
> > > I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> > > because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> > > natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
> >
> > Hmmm. ��Interesting case of reverse causation.
> >
> > Emacs was created in 1976
> > MSDOS was created in 1981
> > Windows was create in 1983 (1985?)
> >
> > So, who went away from whom?
> Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows won the war,
> windows decides what is standard and what's not.
I wasn't arguing about what people consider standard. I was objecting
to the characterization of Emacs choosing not to follow the standard,
when, if fact, Emacs had its keys standardized long before Windows.
Now, if the OP had said something neutral like "Emacs doesn't use the
standard Windows key bindings and seems awkward to Windows users", there
wouldn't really be a point of discussion.
> People don't want changes. Ctrl-Z means undo and it should mean undo
> on emacs BY DEFAULT or it'll be thrashed by masses of people who are
> used to Ctrl-Z meaning undo.
Well, it's always difficult to argue for a change to the standard
behavior of a program that will have the effect of breaking the habits
of the established user group in the hope of making it easier or new
adopters. It can be done, but it will have the effect of annoying all
of the existing users.
And there is the C-U-A mode easily available to change that.
Besides, on my computer the control keys all belong to Emacs. And I
still get to use Command-Z, Command-C, etc. with their standard
meanings. But then again, I like to have nice, solid, usable software
and operating systems, even if it means not using the most popular
choices.
> People don't want t be corrected. Sure your comments are valid and
> logical but humans aren't logical. Who wrote The Man Who Sold the
> World ? Nirvana . Wrong it's a David Bowie's song. But correct
> somebody and they'll say that you're wrong, and when you point them to
> your sources they will hate you. Or start the baseline of Under
> Pressure and everybody sings Ice ice baby. Truth matters the least,
> unless it some strong law that reminds humans about reality everytime
> they try something foolish (like Gravity). And History doesn't have
> that power.
Well, this is perhaps a generally valid observation of human behavior.
On the other hand, surrendering the truth just because it is
inconvenient seems to me to be a bad philosophy to want to follow. The
disparagement of "the reality-based community" in some political circles
seems to me to be a really insidious and evil development.
Not to mention that it flies in the face of the basic tenets of the
scientific process.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
On Jul 15, 8:58 pm, ····@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 14, 6:31 pm, ····@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> > > Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <······@grex.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
>
> > > > I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> > > > because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> > > > natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
>
> > > Hmmm. Interesting case of reverse causation.
>
> > > Emacs was created in 1976
> > > MSDOS was created in 1981
> > > Windows was create in 1983 (1985?)
>
> > > So, who went away from whom?
> > Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows won the war,
> > windows decides what is standard and what's not.
>
> I wasn't arguing about what people consider standard. I was objecting
> to the characterization of Emacs choosing not to follow the standard,
> when, if fact, Emacs had its keys standardized long before Windows.
>
> Now, if the OP had said something neutral like "Emacs doesn't use the
> standard Windows key bindings and seems awkward to Windows users", there
> wouldn't really be a point of discussion.
>
> > People don't want changes. Ctrl-Z means undo and it should mean undo
> > on emacs BY DEFAULT or it'll be thrashed by masses of people who are
> > used to Ctrl-Z meaning undo.
>
> Well, it's always difficult to argue for a change to the standard
> behavior of a program that will have the effect of breaking the habits
> of the established user group in the hope of making it easier or new
> adopters. It can be done, but it will have the effect of annoying all
> of the existing users.
>
> And there is the C-U-A mode easily available to change that.
The problem is that windows users don't want to customize a thing, it
works on default by our *beloved* installer or unzipper or it's
thrash. So maybe that C-U-A mode installed BY DEFAULT just for the
Windows distro would make things run smoother.
>
> Besides, on my computer the control keys all belong to Emacs. And I
> still get to use Command-Z, Command-C, etc. with their standard
> meanings. But then again, I like to have nice, solid, usable software
> and operating systems, even if it means not using the most popular
> choices.
The problem is what the word usable means to you. Not being able to
play games , being forced into software renderer (I'm *happy* ATI GPU
user), cheap looking desktop environment (KDE looks great but
KUBUNTU has too many bugs for my taste) , using poor man alternatives
(like Totem vs Winamp ) , or being forced to jump through hoops to do
some trivial tasks like printing something (no Canon drivers for
Ubuntu just RedHat ) or go to temp folder to copy youtube videos and
paste them into somewhere while real player does needs only a click in
my browser.
I know that ATI and Canon are bastards for not providing drivers for
Ubuntu. I feel bad that Winamp and Real don't offer Linux edition
for their players (Real for linux is joke, nothing to do with win
version except the name) .
And I would like game studios tp use OpenGL instead of DX so they
could play well on linux, but I can't change them. The only thing I
can change is my OS.
>
> > People don't want t be corrected. Sure your comments are valid and
> > logical but humans aren't logical. Who wrote The Man Who Sold the
> > World ? Nirvana . Wrong it's a David Bowie's song. But correct
> > somebody and they'll say that you're wrong, and when you point them to
> > your sources they will hate you. Or start the baseline of Under
> > Pressure and everybody sings Ice ice baby. Truth matters the least,
> > unless it some strong law that reminds humans about reality everytime
> > they try something foolish (like Gravity). And History doesn't have
> > that power.
>
> Well, this is perhaps a generally valid observation of human behavior.
> On the other hand, surrendering the truth just because it is
> inconvenient seems to me to be a bad philosophy to want to follow.
It's sad affair, but it seems truth is really hard to defend. Week ago
on a party people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
ranging from homeopathy through people never landed on the Moon right
to we're using 5% of our brain so if we could use 30% we'll be able to
teleport, theory of evolution is invalid. Whenever I stated facts
about the matters as they are, and thanks god we had an internet
connection, they retreated just to start another garbage 2 minutes
later. Now I realize that people wants to be deceived, showing them
the truth is right way to make yourself look bad. People suck, Dogbert
rules.
http://homepage.eircom.net/%257Eodyssey/Quotes/Popular/Comics/Dilbert.html
http://www.nikkanen.org/dilbert/Insult.jpg
http://kerstein.org/dilbert/dilbert_internet_porn.jpg
http://kerstein.org/dilbert/dogbert_helpdesk.jpg
http://ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/DilbertDogbertTheConsultant.gif
http://www.ginside.com/content/2007/12/comic-dogbert-tech-support.jpg
http://delab.csd.auth.gr/~alex/dogbert.jpg
http://kerstein.org/dilbert/dogbert-network-admin.jpg
http://kerstein.org/dilbert/dilbert_dogbert_techsupport.jpg
http://www.awgibbs.com/images/dogbert_on_education.gif
http://bp0.blogger.com/_LbhpIVNcizI/RcEOCh9H1oI/AAAAAAAAAPM/9eLxeRuVcVk/s400/dilbert20024435370117.gif
>The
> disparagement of "the reality-based community" in some political circles
> seems to me to be a really insidious and evil development.
>
> Not to mention that it flies in the face of the basic tenets of the
> scientific process.
>
> --
> Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
On Jul 16, 5:54 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
>It's sad affair, but it seems truth is
>really hard to defend. Week ago
>on a party people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
>ranging from homeopathy
Your medical knowledge is apparently at the same
low level as your knowledge of operating systems.
By the way, the spelling is "trash", not "thrash"
and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses far
longer than you have been in existence.
Please don't give us the usual nonsense about Homeopathy,
about how there's no atoms of anything in the high dilution
remedies or its just water or any of the usual uninformed nonsense.
The only problem with Homeopathy is that it was invented 200 years
ahead of its time.
First, go to some Homeopathy sites and EDUCATE yourself,
or for example THIS ONE:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
which is a presentation of current Homeopathic
research by a real scientist.
A list of cites from her presentation can
be seen here:
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,173
Next, get rid of your buggy monopolistic and bloated
operating system and get something better - like LINUX.
Good luck.
Citizen Jimserac
On Jul 16, 1:23 pm, Citizen Jimserac <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses far
> longer than you have been in existence.
>
> Please don't give us the usual nonsense about Homeopathy,
> about how there's no atoms of anything in the high dilution
> remedies or its just water or any of the usual uninformed nonsense.
> The only problem with Homeopathy is that it was invented 200 years
> ahead of its time.
All the "usual nonsense" actually seems like very reasonable
criticism. There's no scientific (i.e. justifiable, reasonable) basis
I can see for homeopathy.
Yes, IT'S JUST WATER == it's a placebo. Your anger at his criticising
your cult-medicine doesn't undermine any argument.
On Jul 16, 11:30 am, Oisín Mac Fhearaí <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 1:23 pm, Citizen Jimserac <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses far
> > longer than you have been in existence.
>
> > Please don't give us the usual nonsense about Homeopathy,
> > about how there's no atoms of anything in the high dilution
> > remedies or its just water or any of the usual uninformed nonsense.
> > The only problem with Homeopathy is that it was invented 200 years
> > ahead of its time.
>
> All the "usual nonsense" actually seems like very reasonable
> criticism. There's no scientific (i.e. justifiable, reasonable) basis
> I can see for homeopathy.
>
> Yes, IT'S JUST WATER == it's a placebo. Your anger at his criticising
> your cult-medicine doesn't undermine any argument.
Excuse me but neither your high school chemistry misconceptions nor
anyone else's constitute the science necessary either to validate
Homeopathy nor condemn it. To THAT we must leave the work of
qualified and well credentialed researchers which is just what they
are doing right now. The fact that the British medical journal
"Lancet" wanted to mount some sort of vendetta against it, supported
by science "writers" such as ben goldacre, does not change the science
of it by an iota.
It is NEITHER cult medicine nor placebo and some of their
high dilution remedies do indeed have no atoms of the original
substance in them - and yet still work. How can this be?
How can relativity be? how can quantum physics be?? In each
of these things are phenomena which go well beyond
your common sense or violate your sense of how things should
behave and yet research has confirmed the predicted phenomena of
relativity and quantum physics, or much of it.
Try reading the following and keeping an open mind
instead of superstitious witchunts against phenomena
which is just now starting to be investigated after
2 centuries of hysterical innuendo and opposition.
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
Volume 323, 15 May 2003, Pages 67-74
Thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and
sodium chloride
Louis Rey
Received 10 December 2002.
Available online 28 February 2003.
"Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and
sodium chloride (10-30 gcm-3) have been
irradiated by X- and ã-rays at 77 K, then
progressively rewarmed to room temperature.
During that phase, their thermoluminescence
has been studied and it was found that,
despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro
number, the emitted light was specific of
the original salts dissolved initially."
I repeat the conclusion for EMPHASIS:
"IT WAS FOUND THAT,
DESPITE THEIR DILUTION BEYOND THE AVOGADRO
NUMBER, THE EMITTED LIGHT WAS SPECIFIC OF
THE ORIGINAL SALTS DISSOLVED INITIALLY."
Hopefully we won't be hearing about media generated
falsehoods on Homeopathy never having
passed any double blinded placebo tests
or any other nonsense. The following
link, to a presentation by a REAL scientist
describing REAL research, might... just might
prove of interest.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
A full list of cited journal articles
can be found at:
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,173
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> The following
> link, to a presentation by a REAL scientist
> describing REAL research, might... just might
> prove of interest.
The problem is, on any subject, for any hypothesis, there's a good
possibility of finding at least one scientist who will defend it, or
present seemingly valid tests. As a layman (and I would think most c.l.l
readers are medical and biochemical laymen, for the example of
homeopathy), it's hard to verify the validity of these hypotheses.
Therefore, we have to rely on an established consensus among the experts
of a particular area. Unorthodox hypotheses from individual experts are
often cited by interest groups for dubious reasons (that is, in an
attempt to substantiate their belief system and not for scientific
advance) and sometimes sponsored and clearly influenced by them, and
therefore should be considered highly suspect when they appear in such a
context. Without doubt, the pharmaceutical industry has quite a few
experts at hand who will assert that homeopathy works, even though the
majority of scientists tell us that there's nothing indicative of that.
One should not forget that homeopathy is a huge market.
From: Tamas K Papp
Subject: must you discuss this here? [was: Re: Good Lisp editor for Win]
Date:
Message-ID: <6e8s9kF5sdb1U1@mid.individual.net>
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:18:04 +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
>
>> The following
>> link, to a presentation by a REAL scientist describing REAL research,
>> might... just might prove of interest.
>
> The problem is, on any subject, for any hypothesis, there's a good
> possibility of finding at least one scientist who will defend it, or
> present seemingly valid tests. As a layman (and I would think most c.l.l
> readers are medical and biochemical laymen, for the example of
> homeopathy), it's hard to verify the validity of these hypotheses.
> Therefore, we have to rely on an established consensus among the experts
> of a particular area. Unorthodox hypotheses from individual experts are
> often cited by interest groups for dubious reasons (that is, in an
> attempt to substantiate their belief system and not for scientific
> advance) and sometimes sponsored and clearly influenced by them, and
> therefore should be considered highly suspect when they appear in such a
> context. Without doubt, the pharmaceutical industry has quite a few
> experts at hand who will assert that homeopathy works, even though the
> majority of scientists tell us that there's nothing indicative of that.
> One should not forget that homeopathy is a huge market.
Apparently both sides have strong opinions, and feel that they need to
share them.
But why here? Would you please continue the discussion on
misc.health.alternative, or somewhere else?
Thanks,
Tamas
On Jul 17, 8:29 am, Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:18:04 +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> > CitizenJimseracwrote:
>
> >> The following
> >> link, to a presentation by a REAL scientist describing REAL research,
> >> might... just might prove of interest.
>
> > The problem is, on any subject, for any hypothesis, there's a good
> > possibility of finding at least one scientist who will defend it, or
> > present seemingly valid tests. As a layman (and I would think most c.l.l
> > readers are medical and biochemical laymen, for the example of
> > homeopathy), it's hard to verify the validity of these hypotheses.
> > Therefore, we have to rely on an established consensus among the experts
> > of a particular area. Unorthodox hypotheses from individual experts are
> > often cited by interest groups for dubious reasons (that is, in an
> > attempt to substantiate their belief system and not for scientific
> > advance) and sometimes sponsored and clearly influenced by them, and
> > therefore should be considered highly suspect when they appear in such a
> > context. Without doubt, the pharmaceutical industry has quite a few
> > experts at hand who will assert that homeopathy works, even though the
> > majority of scientists tell us that there's nothing indicative of that.
> > One should not forget that homeopathy is a huge market.
>
> Apparently both sides have strong opinions, and feel that they need to
> share them.
>
> But why here? Would you please continue the discussion on
> misc.health.alternative, or somewhere else?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tamas
Agree.
Have ended my comments on off topic subject.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses far
> longer than you have been in existence.
Never worked for me.
Then again, maybe I have too many "bad vibes".
> Next, get rid of your buggy monopolistic and bloated
> operating system and get something better - like LINUX.
Let me rephrase this:
Next, get rid of your buggy monopolistic and bloated operating system -
like LINUX, and get something better.
However, the question remains: what, and where from?
On Jul 16, 2:23 pm, Citizen Jimserac <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:54 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's sad affair, but it seems truth is
> >really hard to defend. Week ago
> >on a party people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
> >ranging from homeopathy
>
> Your medical knowledge is apparently at the same
> low level as your knowledge of operating systems.
>
> By the way, the spelling is "trash", not "thrash"
Your spelling is invaluable for discussion.
> and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses far
> longer than you have been in existence
No it's ripping the gullible with placebo effect.
>
> Please don't give us the usual nonsense about Homeopathy,
> about how there's no atoms of anything in the high dilution
> remedies or its just water or any of the usual uninformed nonsense.
> The only problem with Homeopathy is that it was invented 200 years
> ahead of its time.
>
> First, go to some Homeopathy sites and EDUCATE yourself,
> or for example THIS ONE:http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
> which is a presentation of current Homeopathic
> research by a real scientist.
I did, here's my favourite :
1986, The Lancet [official journal of the British Medical Association]
published the results of a double-blind trial of homeopathic pollens
30 C. . . .
COMMENT: The term "30 C" refers to the most popular degree of dilution
employed in preparing homeopathic mixtures. In this case it means that
one measure by weight of pollen has been mixed with the number of
measures of water represented by the box shown here. This is
equivalent to taking one grain of salt and mixing it into the amount
of water that would fill ten thousand billion spheres the diameter of
our solar system.
http://www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U
>
> A list of cites from her presentation can
> be seen here:
>
> http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,173
>
> Next, get rid of your buggy monopolistic and bloated
> operating system and get something better - like LINUX.
I already have an ubuntu system. But I still use mostly windows for
reasons stated above.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Citizen Jimserac
On Jul 17, 2:20 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2:23 pm, CitizenJimserac<········@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 16, 5:54 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >It's sad affair, but it seems truth is
> > >really hard to defend. Week ago
> > >on a party people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
> > >ranging from homeopathy
>
> > Your medical knowledge is apparently at the same
> > low level as your knowledge of operating systems.
>
> > By the way, the spelling is "trash", not "thrash"
>
> Your spelling is invaluable for discussion
Actually that's the standard
English spelling, not mine.
.> and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses
far
> > longer than you have been in existence
>
> No it's ripping the gullible with placebo effect.
The placebo effect is an unscientific rationalization -
a way of standard medicine to deal with the unknown,
particularly when the "unknown" does better.
>
> > Please don't give us the usual nonsense about Homeopathy,
> > about how there's no atoms of anything in the high dilution
> > remedies or its just water or any of the usual uninformed nonsense.
> > The only problem with Homeopathy is that it was invented 200 years
> > ahead of its time.
>
> > First, go to some Homeopathy sites and EDUCATE yourself,
> > or for example THIS ONE:http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
> > which is a presentation of current Homeopathic
> > research by a real scientist.
>
> I did, here's my favourite :
> 1986, The Lancet [official journal of the British Medical Association]
> published the results of a double-blind trial of homeopathic pollens
> 30 C. . . .
>
> COMMENT: The term "30 C" refers to the most popular degree of dilution
> employed in preparing homeopathic mixtures. In this case it means that
> one measure by weight of pollen has been mixed with the number of
> measures of water represented by the box shown here. This is
> equivalent to taking one grain of salt and mixing it into the amount
> of water that would fill ten thousand billion spheres the diameter of
> our solar system.http://www.randi.org/jr/02-02-2001.html
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U
Wow! Pretty dilute, huh? Well then it must be
a VERY strong remedy. Does the idea of high dilutions terrify you
because the mode of action is unknown?
Please review research such as the one
mentioned in an earlier post that concluded:
"IT WAS FOUND THAT,
DESPITE THEIR DILUTION BEYOND THE AVOGADRO
NUMBER, THE EMITTED LIGHT WAS SPECIFIC OF
THE ORIGINAL SALTS DISSOLVED INITIALLY."
> > A list of cites from her presentation can
> > be seen here:
>
> >http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/view,173
>
> > Next, get rid of your buggy monopolistic and bloated
> > operating system and get something better - like LINUX.
>
> I already have an ubuntu system. But I still use mostly windows for
> reasons stated above.
> >
>
> > Good luck.
>
Ubuntu is good.
Still using Windows? Wrong reasons.
Citizen Jimserac
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:43:30 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac
<········@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 17, 2:20�am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2:23�pm, CitizenJimserac<········@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 16, 5:54�am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >It's sad affair, but it seems truth is
>> > >really hard to defend. Week ago
>> > >on a party people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
>> > >ranging from homeopathy
>>
>> > Your medical knowledge is apparently at the same
>> > low level as your knowledge of operating systems.
>>
>> > By the way, the spelling is "trash", not "thrash"
>>
>> Your spelling is invaluable for discussion
>Actually that's the standard
>English spelling, not mine.
Only if you really mean "trash" and not "thrash" 8-)
>> and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses
>> far longer than you have been in existence
>>
>> No it's ripping the gullible with placebo effect.
>
>The placebo effect is an unscientific rationalization -
>a way of standard medicine to deal with the unknown,
>particularly when the "unknown" does better.
The placebo effect has been studied extensively since it was first
identified by modern medicine. Medicine's major problem with it is
that it only works for some of the people some of the time and the
conditions under which it works are slippery and have not been
reliably identified.
Placebos are a staple of Eastern medicine (in addition to the very
real medicinal herbs), but the culture and tradition under which they
work are different. A number of studies have shown that the healing
ritual is critically important to the patient's acceptance of the
"cure". Westerners tend to eschew ritual in favor of instant
gratification, and correspondingly, studies have shown that placebos
are less effective in Western cultures.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jul 16, 2:23�pm, Citizen Jimserac <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 5:54�am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It's sad affair, but it seems truth is
>> >really hard to defend. Week ago
>> >on a party people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
>> >ranging from homeopathy
>>
>> Your medical knowledge is apparently at the same
>> low level as your knowledge of operating systems.
>>
>> By the way, the spelling is "trash", not "thrash"
> Your spelling is invaluable for discussion.
>> and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses far
>> longer than you have been in existence
> No it's ripping the gullible with placebo effect.
>>
>> Please don't give us the usual nonsense about Homeopathy,
>> about how there's no atoms of anything in the high dilution
>> remedies or its just water or any of the usual uninformed nonsense.
>> The only problem with Homeopathy is that it was invented 200 years
>> ahead of its time.
>>
>> First, go to some Homeopathy sites and EDUCATE yourself,
>> or for example THIS ONE:http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
>> which is a presentation of current Homeopathic
>> research by a real scientist.
> I did, here's my favourite :
> 1986, The Lancet [official journal of the British Medical Association]
> published the results of a double-blind trial of homeopathic pollens
> 30 C. . . .
>
> COMMENT: The term "30 C" refers to the most popular degree of dilution
> employed in preparing homeopathic mixtures. In this case it means that
> one measure by weight of pollen has been mixed with the number of
> measures of water represented by the box shown here. This is
> equivalent to taking one grain of salt and mixing it into the amount
> of water that would fill ten thousand billion spheres the diameter of
> our solar system.
So what? We all agree that there remains NO active (ie. toxic)
chemical molecule in homeopatic water. That's all the point of
homeopathic products: to be able to cure you without imposing the
stress of hazardous chemicals.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"What is this talk of "release"? Klingons do not make software
"releases". Our software "escapes" leaving a bloody trail of
designers and quality assurance people in its wake."
P� Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:39:16 +0200, skrev Pascal J. Bourguignon
<···@informatimago.com>:
>
> So what? We all agree that there remains NO active (ie. toxic)
> chemical molecule in homeopatic water. That's all the point of
> homeopathic products: to be able to cure you without imposing the
> stress of hazardous chemicals.
>
Indeed. But why bother with the diluting bit. Go directly to you tap and
fetch yourself a glass of water.
Much cheaper..
--------------
John Thingstad
P� Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:50:27 +0200, skrev John Thingstad
<·······@online.no>:
> P� Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:39:16 +0200, skrev Pascal J. Bourguignon
> <···@informatimago.com>:
>
>>
>> So what? We all agree that there remains NO active (ie. toxic)
>> chemical molecule in homeopatic water. That's all the point of
>> homeopathic products: to be able to cure you without imposing the
>> stress of hazardous chemicals.
>>
>
> Indeed. But why bother with the diluting bit. Go directly to you tap and
> fetch yourself a glass of water.
> Much cheaper..
>
> --------------
> John Thingstad
Or.. you could read this..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect
--------------
John Thingstad
Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
> ranging from homeopathy
If they believe it, the placebo effect is more likely to work. They have
better chances to be cured. That's why I do not confront people on such
matters.
Sacha
On Jul 17, 8:39 am, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 16, 2:23 pm, Citizen Jimserac <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 16, 5:54 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >It's sad affair, but it seems truth is
> >> >really hard to defend. Week ago
> >> >on a party people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
> >> >ranging from homeopathy
>
> >> Your medical knowledge is apparently at the same
> >> low level as your knowledge of operating systems.
>
> >> By the way, the spelling is "trash", not "thrash"
> > Your spelling is invaluable for discussion.
> >> and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses far
> >> longer than you have been in existence
> > No it's ripping the gullible with placebo effect.
>
> >> Please don't give us the usual nonsense about Homeopathy,
> >> about how there's no atoms of anything in the high dilution
> >> remedies or its just water or any of the usual uninformed nonsense.
> >> The only problem with Homeopathy is that it was invented 200 years
> >> ahead of its time.
>
> >> First, go to some Homeopathy sites and EDUCATE yourself,
> >> or for example THIS ONE:http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
> >> which is a presentation of current Homeopathic
> >> research by a real scientist.
> > I did, here's my favourite :
> > 1986, The Lancet [official journal of the British Medical Association]
> > published the results of a double-blind trial of homeopathic pollens
> > 30 C. . . .
>
> > COMMENT: The term "30 C" refers to the most popular degree of dilution
> > employed in preparing homeopathic mixtures. In this case it means that
> > one measure by weight of pollen has been mixed with the number of
> > measures of water represented by the box shown here. This is
> > equivalent to taking one grain of salt and mixing it into the amount
> > of water that would fill ten thousand billion spheres the diameter of
> > our solar system.
>
> So what? We all agree that there remains NO active (ie. toxic)
> chemical molecule in homeopatic water. That's all the point of
> homeopathic products: to be able to cure you without imposing the
> stress of hazardous chemicals.
Then drink a glass of clean water and pretend that it's helping you.
You won't get any hazardous chemicals and it's way cheaper.
On Jul 17, 9:06 am, Sacha <····@address.spam> wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
> > ranging from homeopathy
>
> If they believe it, the placebo effect is more likely to work. They have
> better chances to be cured. That's why I do not confront people on such
> matters.
Neither do I anymore. People deserve to be conned.
>
> Sacha
Because this group is about lisp and thing related to it I would cease
to reply about non lisp related topics.
BTW cool sig Pascal
On Jul 17, 3:42 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 17, 8:39 am, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Jul 16, 2:23 pm, CitizenJimserac<········@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 16, 5:54 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >It's sad affair, but it seems truth is
> > >> >really hard to defend. Week ago
> > >> >on a party people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
> > >> >ranging from homeopathy
>
> > >> Your medical knowledge is apparently at the same
> > >> low level as your knowledge of operating systems.
>
> > >> By the way, the spelling is "trash", not "thrash"
> > > Your spelling is invaluable for discussion.
> > >> and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses far
> > >> longer than you have been in existence
> > > No it's ripping the gullible with placebo effect.
>
> > >> Please don't give us the usual nonsense about Homeopathy,
> > >> about how there's no atoms of anything in the high dilution
> > >> remedies or its just water or any of the usual uninformed nonsense.
> > >> The only problem with Homeopathy is that it was invented 200 years
> > >> ahead of its time.
>
> > >> First, go to some Homeopathy sites and EDUCATE yourself,
> > >> or for example THIS ONE:http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
> > >> which is a presentation of current Homeopathic
> > >> research by a real scientist.
> > > I did, here's my favourite :
> > > 1986, The Lancet [official journal of the British Medical Association]
> > > published the results of a double-blind trial of homeopathic pollens
> > > 30 C. . . .
>
> > > COMMENT: The term "30 C" refers to the most popular degree of dilution
> > > employed in preparing homeopathic mixtures. In this case it means that
> > > one measure by weight of pollen has been mixed with the number of
> > > measures of water represented by the box shown here. This is
> > > equivalent to taking one grain of salt and mixing it into the amount
> > > of water that would fill ten thousand billion spheres the diameter of
> > > our solar system.
>
> > So what? We all agree that there remains NO active (ie. toxic)
> > chemical molecule in homeopatic water. That's all the point of
> > homeopathic products: to be able to cure you without imposing the
> > stress of hazardous chemicals.
>
> Then drink a glass of clean water and pretend that it's helping you.
> You won't get any hazardous chemicals and it's way cheaper.
>
> On Jul 17, 9:06 am, Sacha <····@address.spam> wrote:
>
> > Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> > > people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
> > > ranging from homeopathy
>
> > If they believe it, the placebo effect is more likely to work. They have
> > better chances to be cured. That's why I do not confront people on such
> > matters.
>
> Neither do I anymore. People deserve to be conned.
>
>
>
> > Sacha
>
> Because this group is about lisp and thing related to it I would cease
> to reply about non lisp related topics.
>
Ah but after having expressed your prejudices,
you must suffer the responses!
Citizen Jimserac
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jul 17, 8:39 am, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
>> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Jul 16, 2:23 pm, Citizen Jimserac <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 16, 5:54 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >It's sad affair, but it seems truth is
>> >> >really hard to defend. Week ago
>> >> >on a party people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
>> >> >ranging from homeopathy
>>
>> >> Your medical knowledge is apparently at the same
>> >> low level as your knowledge of operating systems.
>>
>> >> By the way, the spelling is "trash", not "thrash"
>> > Your spelling is invaluable for discussion.
>> >> and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses far
>> >> longer than you have been in existence
>> > No it's ripping the gullible with placebo effect.
>>
>> >> Please don't give us the usual nonsense about Homeopathy,
>> >> about how there's no atoms of anything in the high dilution
>> >> remedies or its just water or any of the usual uninformed nonsense.
>> >> The only problem with Homeopathy is that it was invented 200 years
>> >> ahead of its time.
>>
>> >> First, go to some Homeopathy sites and EDUCATE yourself,
>> >> or for example THIS ONE:http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
>> >> which is a presentation of current Homeopathic
>> >> research by a real scientist.
>> > I did, here's my favourite :
>> > 1986, The Lancet [official journal of the British Medical Association]
>> > published the results of a double-blind trial of homeopathic pollens
>> > 30 C. . . .
>>
>> > COMMENT: The term "30 C" refers to the most popular degree of dilution
>> > employed in preparing homeopathic mixtures. In this case it means that
>> > one measure by weight of pollen has been mixed with the number of
>> > measures of water represented by the box shown here. This is
>> > equivalent to taking one grain of salt and mixing it into the amount
>> > of water that would fill ten thousand billion spheres the diameter of
>> > our solar system.
>>
>> So what? We all agree that there remains NO active (ie. toxic)
>> chemical molecule in homeopatic water. That's all the point of
>> homeopathic products: to be able to cure you without imposing the
>> stress of hazardous chemicals.
>
> Then drink a glass of clean water and pretend that it's helping you.
> You won't get any hazardous chemicals and it's way cheaper.
But clean water contains only random information. It won't send your
cells interesting messages.
> On Jul 17, 9:06�am, Sacha <····@address.spam> wrote:
>> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
>> > people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
>> > ranging from homeopathy
>>
>> If they believe it, the placebo effect is more likely to work. They have
>> better chances to be cured. That's why I do not confront people on such
>> matters.
>
> Neither do I anymore. People deserve to be conned.
And animals? If it was a placebo effect homeopathy wouldn't work with
animals...
> Because this group is about lisp and thing related to it I would cease
> to reply about non lisp related topics.
It's related however. God created the universe with lambda. All the
physical, chemical and biologic processes embed a lot of information
flows and processing. You can open a door by banging on it until it
breaks, or you can press the little button on the right, sending the
right information to the right mechanism to have the door open.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On Jul 17, 5:35 am, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jul 17, 8:39 am, ····@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> > wrote:
> >> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > On Jul 16, 2:23 pm, CitizenJimserac<········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Jul 16, 5:54 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >It's sad affair, but it seems truth is
> >> >> >really hard to defend. Week ago
> >> >> >on a party people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
> >> >> >ranging from homeopathy
>
> >> >> Your medical knowledge is apparently at the same
> >> >> low level as your knowledge of operating systems.
>
> >> >> By the way, the spelling is "trash", not "thrash"
> >> > Your spelling is invaluable for discussion.
> >> >> and Homeopathy has been saving people's lives and curing illnesses far
> >> >> longer than you have been in existence
> >> > No it's ripping the gullible with placebo effect.
>
> >> >> Please don't give us the usual nonsense about Homeopathy,
> >> >> about how there's no atoms of anything in the high dilution
> >> >> remedies or its just water or any of the usual uninformed nonsense.
> >> >> The only problem with Homeopathy is that it was invented 200 years
> >> >> ahead of its time.
>
> >> >> First, go to some Homeopathy sites and EDUCATE yourself,
> >> >> or for example THIS ONE:http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M
> >> >> which is a presentation of current Homeopathic
> >> >> research by a real scientist.
> >> > I did, here's my favourite :
> >> > 1986, The Lancet [official journal of the British Medical Association]
> >> > published the results of a double-blind trial of homeopathic pollens
> >> > 30 C. . . .
>
> >> > COMMENT: The term "30 C" refers to the most popular degree of dilution
> >> > employed in preparing homeopathic mixtures. In this case it means that
> >> > one measure by weight of pollen has been mixed with the number of
> >> > measures of water represented by the box shown here. This is
> >> > equivalent to taking one grain of salt and mixing it into the amount
> >> > of water that would fill ten thousand billion spheres the diameter of
> >> > our solar system.
>
> >> So what? We all agree that there remains NO active (ie. toxic)
> >> chemical molecule in homeopatic water. That's all the point of
> >> homeopathic products: to be able to cure you without imposing the
> >> stress of hazardous chemicals.
>
> > Then drink a glass of clean water and pretend that it's helping you.
> > You won't get any hazardous chemicals and it's way cheaper.
>
> But clean water contains only random information. It won't send your
> cells interesting messages.
>
> > On Jul 17, 9:06 am, Sacha <····@address.spam> wrote:
> >> Slobodan Blazeski wrote:
> >> > people started talking all kind of supernatural thrash
> >> > ranging from homeopathy
>
> >> If they believe it, the placebo effect is more likely to work. They have
> >> better chances to be cured. That's why I do not confront people on such
> >> matters.
>
> > Neither do I anymore. People deserve to be conned.
>
> And animals? If it was a placebo effect homeopathy wouldn't work with
> animals...
>
> > Because this group is about lisp and thing related to it I would cease
> > to reply about non lisp related topics.
>
> It's related however. God created the universe with lambda. All the
> physical, chemical and biologic processes embed a lot of information
> flows and processing. You can open a door by banging on it until it
> breaks, or you can press the little button on the right, sending the
> right information to the right mechanism to have the door open.
>
> --
> __Pascal Bourguignon__
Well said!
Citizen Jimserac
In article
<····································@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 6:31�pm, ····@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> > Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <······@grex.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
> >
> > > I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> > > because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> > > natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
> >
> > Hmmm. �Interesting case of reverse causation.
> >
> > Emacs was created in 1976
> > MSDOS was created in 1981
> > Windows was create in 1983 (1985?)
> >
> > So, who went away from whom?
> Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows won the war,
> windows decides what is standard and what's not.
> People don't want changes. Ctrl-Z means undo and it should mean undo
> on emacs BY DEFAULT or it'll be thrashed by masses of people who are
> used to Ctrl-Z meaning undo.
That's why Aquamacs on the Mac is quite successful. It is
a distribution of GNU Emacs with Mac-like extensions.
command-z is undo, there. Btw., the z for undo, c for copy
x for cut, v for paste is coming from the Mac OS copied by MS.
Don't know if Xerox used zxcv, though...
> People don't want t be corrected. Sure your comments are valid and
> logical but humans aren't logical. Who wrote The Man Who Sold the
> World ? Nirvana . Wrong it's a David Bowie's song. But correct
> somebody and they'll say that you're wrong, and when you point them to
> your sources they will hate you. Or start the baseline of Under
> Pressure and everybody sings Ice ice baby. Truth matters the least,
> unless it some strong law that reminds humans about reality everytime
> they try something foolish (like Gravity). And History doesn't have
> that power.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas A. Russ, �USC/Information Sciences Institute
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org/
On Jul 15, 7:06 pm, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> In article
> <····································@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 6:31 pm, ····@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> > > Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <······@grex.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
>
> > > > I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> > > > because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> > > > natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
>
> > > Hmmm. Interesting case of reverse causation.
>
> > > Emacs was created in 1976
> > > MSDOS was created in 1981
> > > Windows was create in 1983 (1985?)
>
> > > So, who went away from whom?
> > Who cares. History is written by the winners, windows won the war,
> > windows decides what is standard and what's not.
> > People don't want changes. Ctrl-Z means undo and it should mean undo
> > on emacs BY DEFAULT or it'll be thrashed by masses of people who are
> > used to Ctrl-Z meaning undo.
>
> That's why Aquamacs on the Mac is quite successful. It is
> a distribution of GNU Emacs with Mac-like extensions.
> command-z is undo, there. Btw., the z for undo, c for copy
> x for cut, v for paste is coming from the Mac OS copied by MS.
> Don't know if Xerox used zxcv, though...
>
I can't agree more. When in Rome do as the Romans do. When I'm on
Ubuntu, emacs and especially slime are cool. Actually a preferred way
of developing than IDEs.
On Windows Emacs is unnatural FOR ME forcing me switch between Windows
and Emacs mental mode.
The good thing is that windows doesn't have so many shortcuts but
those ubiquotos one like Ctrl+z and Shitft+End are killing me.
> > People don't want t be corrected. Sure your comments are valid and
> > logical but humans aren't logical. Who wrote The Man Who Sold the
> > World ? Nirvana . Wrong it's a David Bowie's song. But correct
> > somebody and they'll say that you're wrong, and when you point them to
> > your sources they will hate you. Or start the baseline of Under
> > Pressure and everybody sings Ice ice baby. Truth matters the least,
> > unless it some strong law that reminds humans about reality everytime
> > they try something foolish (like Gravity). And History doesn't have
> > that power.
>
> > > --
> > > Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
>
> --http://lispm.dyndns.org/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jul 5, 4:39�pm, Francogrex <······@grex.org> wrote:
>
>> references to Emacs. In all honesty I tried Emacs and I hate it,
>
> I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
> because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
> natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
Sorry, you're wrong.
emacs has certain standard keystrokes that are second natural, and
then Smalltalk who copied from the same Lisp Machine as emacs went
away, and then MacOS who copied from Smalltalk went away from those,
and then MS-Window who copied from MacOS went even further away.
But the right way, the closest to the ancestral perfection represented
by Lisp Machines is emacs way. It's MS-Window that is awkward here.
>> want to use it with other lisp implementations, I can't). Are there
>> any other good free and light editors which let me run common lisp
>> from it (not just a code editor and then do the silly load...command!)?
>
> For a while I tried Corman Lisp but when you try and create GUI's it
> all falls apart UNLESS, you memorize Petzold's Win32 book cover to
> cover. If GUI's aren't a concern for you try Corman.
>
> I ended up purchasing Lispworks and it has everything you're looking
> for except the free part. Very easy to create GUI's AND you can set it
> up for Windows like keystrokes, copy, cut and paste, etc.
>
> They have a personal edition that will allow you to try it, but if
> your serious about programming, buying a commerical product is way
> better than downloading some freeby.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it!
Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!"
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> > natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
>
> Sorry, you're wrong.
>
Ok, Emacs is closer to some founding fathers programming, but to
people who started programming on Windows or in my case DOS and then
Windows, Emacs keystrokes are different than what we are used to. So
while, "which came first" may be incorrect, my point still stands, for
some of us, the keystrokes seem like unnatural.
If you like Emacs fantastic, but that doesn't mean I or this guy has
to.
William
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:26:25 -0700, Jacobite1607 wrote:
> Ok, Emacs is closer to some founding fathers programming, but to people
> who started programming on Windows or in my case DOS and then Windows,
> Emacs keystrokes are different than what we are used to. So while,
You make learning a new set of keystrokes sound like an insurmountable
obstacle. You only have to do it once, and then you can reap the
benefits of Emacs for the rest of your life. Not using an otherwise
excellent editor just because it has uses different keystrokes is quite a
luxury.
Tamas
Jacobite1607 wrote:
> but to
> people who started programming on Windows or in my case DOS and then
> Windows, Emacs keystrokes are different than what we are used to.
Ye gods, I started typing text on a manual typewriter, then the C64 and
proceeded through DOS to Unix, each platform with its own particular
user interface(s), keybindings, idioms etc. Just be a bit more flexible.
> Ye gods, I started typing text on a manual typewriter, then the C64 and
> proceeded through DOS to Unix, each platform with its own particular
> user interface(s), keybindings, idioms etc. Just be a bit more flexible.
When I was in school we had the old Teletype writer to a mainframe
where I played computer games, then I had a Commadore 64 and that is
what I started programming on when I was a teenager, then an Apple IIe
at work and then DOS and Windows.
Obviously this is like getting into the whole "which is better MAC or
PC discussion", people get so worked up over what is really nothing.
I'm sure emacs is a fine editor if you like it, I saw some neat
features in it. However, I prefer the Lispworks built in editor as it
works fine for me.
I think at this point this thread has exhausted it's usefullness.
Hi all,
I've done some research on emacs default shortcuts. Please see:
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts_pain.html
Below is a text version
-----------------
Why Emacs's Keyboard Shortcuts Are Painful
Xah Lee, 2007-07
A important aspect in designing a keyboard shortcut set, for a
application that has intensive, repetitive, prolonged human-machine
interaction (such as coding and text editing), is to consider
ergonomic principles. Specifically: allocate keyboard shortcuts for
the most frequently used commands, and, the top most frequently used
commands should have most easily-pressed keystrokes. For example,
they should be on the home row.
This article shows why Emacs's keyboard shortcut set is the most
ergonomically bad.
The Swapping of Control and Meta Modifiers
Emacs's keyboard shortcuts is very inefficient. The primary cause is
because, emacs's keyboard shortcuts are designed with a keyboard that
practically has the Ctrl and Alt key positions swapped.
Space Cadet keyboard
above: The Space-cadet keyboard (Source↗, 2007-07) .
The common keyboard used around emacs era in the 1980s are those
keyboards from Lisp Machines↗. (see Space-cadet keyboard↗) The
keyboard on lisp machines have the Control key right besides the space
bar (similar to the position of Alt keys on PC keyboards), and Meta to
the left of Control. So, the Control key is the primary modifier, and
the Meta is secondary to Control. This is why, the shortcuts for the
most used commands in emacs involve the Control key instead of the
Meta key. (Example: The cursor movements: C-p, C-n, C-f, C-b, C-a, C-
e, the cut/paste/undo C-w, C-y, C-/, the kill-line C-k, the mark C-
SPC, the search C-s.) Lisp Machine's keyboards fell out of use alone
with Lisp Machines. Since the 1990s, the IBM PC keyboard↗ (and its
decedents) becomes the most popular and is used by some 98% of
personal computers today. The PC keyboard does not have Meta key but
have Alt instead. The Alt is placed right beside the space bar, while
Control is placed far to the corner.
Emacs did not change its keyboard shortcut bindings to adapt the PC
keyboard. Emacs simply remapped its Meta shortcuts to the Alt key by
default. (and kept on using the terminology Meta)
The tragedy of the Control/(Alt/Meta) swap made emacs keyboard
shortcuts very painful, and the frequent need to press the far-away
Control key creates the Emacs Pinky syndrome. (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)
(For more photos of Lisp Machine's other keyboards (all have Control
as primary), see: Symbolics keyboard PN 364000↗ , Symbolics keyboard
PN 365407 Rev C↗ )
(The reason that Symbolics keyboards have Control as primary modifier,
is because in the early computing era, the use of Control Characters
as part of the non-printable chars from the ASCII↗ standard, is
important and frequent. This still can be seen in emacs today by the
standard use of “Form feed” character (ASCII 12, represented as ^L) as
a indication of “page break”/ section in much of Emacs Lisp's source
codes. (To go to the previous/next ^L, emacs uses the command forward-
page (C-x ]) and backward-page (C-x [)) At those times, there's not
much of the concept of “keyboard shortcuts”, but rather, modifier keys
are means to enter special data. Today, the Control key is primarily
used as a mechanism for keyboard shortcuts. Only in Telnet/ Terminal/
SSH applications, the Control key still remain of its original use.)
(The reason that modifier keys changed purpose, from special
characters data entry to being a shortcut to invoke commands for
software applications, is due to the change in computer use. In the
1970s, computer users are mathematicians and programers, and their
activity is writing programs for scientific research. Throughout the
decades, computers became cheaper, and PC was born and become a
household commodity. People use computers for its software
applications, beginning with application for professionals such as
word processor, spread sheets, image-editor in the 1990s, and today in
2007, most people use computer for email, web browsing, instant
messaging, gaming, music and video watching.)
The Choice Of Keys
The shortcut's key choices are primarily based on first letter of the
commands, not based on key position and finger strength or ease of
pressing the key. For example, the single char cursor moving shortcuts
(C-p previous-line ↑, C-n next-line ↓, C-b backward-char ←, C-f
forward-char →) are scattered around the keyboard with positions that
are most difficult to press. (these shortcuts all together accounts
for 43% of all commands executed by a keyboard shortcut) Of these, the
most frequently used is C-n (next-line), which accounts for 20% of all
shortcut calls, but is assigned to the letter n, positioned in the
middle of the keyboard, which is one of the most costly key to press.
Similarly, the second most used among these is the C-p (previous-
line), accounting for 16% of all shortcut command calls, is located in
a position above the right hand's pinky, also one of the most costly
key to press.
(Here we assumes the QWERTY keyboard layout. On the Dvorak layout, it
is about as bad.)
See also, a newsgroup post on “comp.emacs”. “Re: effective
emacs” (2008-06-01) by Daniel Weinreb↗. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs/msg/
0342e0bc1aa05c0d.
«Emacs's default cursor moving shortcuts are “Ctrl+f”, “Ctrl+b”,
“Ctrl +n”, “Ctrl+p”. The keys f, b, n, p are scattered around the
keyboard and are not under the home row.»
That's true. At the time Guy Steele put together the Emacs
default key mappings, many people in the target user community (about
20 people at MIT!) were already using these key bindings. It would
have been hard to get the new Emacs bindings accepted by the community
if they differed for such basic commands. As you point out, anyone
using Emacs can very easily change this based on their own ergonomic
preferences.
Outdated Commands
A significant portion of emacs's major shortcuts (those with M-‹key›
or C-‹key›) are mapped to commands that are almost never used today.
Some of these occupies the most precious space (Home row with thumb:
For example: M-s (center-line), M-j (indent-new-comment-line), M-k
(kill-sentence)). Most programer who have used emacs for years never
use these commands. For example:
digit-argument, M-1 to M-9
negative-argument, M--
move-to-window-line, M-r
center-line, M-s
transpose-words, M-t
tab-to-tab-stop, M-i
M-g prefix, M-g
indent-new-comment-line, M-j
tmm-menubar, M-'
zap-to-char, M-z
back-to-indentation, M-m
tags-loop-continue, M-,
find-tag, M-.
(Note: Conversely, some commands that are used by every emacs user
every hour, such as Open (find-file; C-x C-f), Save (save-buffer; C-x
C-s), Close (kill-buffer; C-x k), Next Window/Tab (next-buffer C-x →)
all require multiple keystrokes with the difficult Control key.)
No Employment of the Shift Key
For historical reasons, emacs do not use any keybindings involving the
Shift with a letter. (Example: there's no “meta shift a”, or “control
shift a”) This is so because in early computing environment, such key
combination cannot be distinguished, due to a practical combination of
ASCII↗, Computer terminal↗, telnet↗.
Today, however, employing the Shift key as part of a shortcut with
other modifiers is common and convenient. For example, on Mac OS X,
Undo and Redo are Cmd+Z and Cmd+Shift+Z, Save and Save As are Cmd+S
and Cmd+Shift+S. On Mac and Windows, moving to next/previous field/
window/application often use the Shift key for reversing direction. In
text editing on both Mac and Windows, a modifier key with a arrow key
will move cursor by word/paragraph, and with Shift down will select
them while moving.
Using the Shift key as a reverse operation is very easy to remember,
and doesn't take another precious shortcut letter. By not using the
Shift key, commands with a logical reverse operation necessarily have
to find other key space, and overall making the shortcut set more
difficult to remember, or scattered, or more difficult to press.
A Flaw in Keybinding Policy
Any major software, maintains a guide for the developers about the
choices of keyboard shortcuts, so that the shortcuts will be
consistent. Emacs has this in its Emacs Lisp manual: Elisp Manual: Key-
Binding-Conventions.
This guide, indicates that the only key space reserved for users to
define, are the function keys F5 to F9, and key stroke sequence
starting with Ctrl+c followed by a single letter key.
This is a severe restraint to the utility of customized shortcuts. F5
to F9 are only 6 keys. The key sequence starting with C-c followed by
a letter, is a difficult sequence to execute, and there are only 26
spaces there.
The function keys, F1 to F12, are very good candidates for user
defined shortcut space, similarly for the digit key shortcuts, 0 to 9.
These keys can be used with any combination of Control, Meta, Shift.
For example, a user might define them to insert various templates,
headers/footers, a system of customized HTML/XML tags. Or, she might
assign them to various special emacs modes such as dired, shell, ftp,
email, calendar, calc, *scratch*, make-frame-command (Open a new
window), insert signature.
It seems too drastic a policy, to limit user defined keys to only F5
to F9, and key sequence of Control+c followed by a single letter key.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epilogue: Failure to Change
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. These are
common conventions today in every application across Microsoft Windows
and Macintosh (and in Linux too in general).
These shortcut conventions are primarily brought about by Apple
Computer Inc's
Human interface guidelines↗ and IBM's Common User Access↗ in the
1990s.
In the early 1990s, DOS era software, each application has its own
scheme of
shortcuts. The following is a excerpt from the Wikipedia article on
Common
User Access↗:
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).
Some programs used [Esc] to cancel an action, some used it to
complete one; WordPerfect used it to repeat a character. Some programs
used [End] to go to the end of a line, some used it to complete
filling in a form. [F1] was often help but in WordPerfect that was
[F3]. [Ins] sometimes toggled between overtype and inserting
characters, but some programs used it for “paste”.
Thus, every program had to be learned individually and its
complete user interface memorized. It was a sign of expertise to have
learned the UIs of dozens of applications, since a novice user facing
a new program would find their existing knowledge of a similar
application absolutely no use whatsoever.
Commercial software have updated themselves with time (or went
extinct), but emacs has not.
If we take a survey of the market share of text editors (including
IDEs) among professional programers (as defined by those who make a
living by computer programing), then, it is my guess, that emacs from
mid 1980s to early 1990s, has more than 50% of market share, but
gradually declined. Today, perhaps less that 5% of professional
programers use emacs (possibly even below 1%). I think, part of the
reason being that emacs has not modernized (not in the sense of being
fashionable, but in the sense of keeping with hardware and software
changes in the IT industry). The other major reason, is because emacs
itself is not a IDE in a modern sense, and most programing development
using compiled languages such as Pascal, C, C++, Java, C#, have moved
on with IDE platforms integrated with these languages's compiler
application.
See also: The Modernization of Emacs.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On 16 Jul., 00:34, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> A important aspect in designing a keyboard shortcut set, for a
> application that has intensive, repetitive, prolonged human-machine
> interaction (such as coding and text editing), is to consider
> ergonomic principles. Specifically: allocate keyboard shortcuts for
> the most frequently used commands, and, the top most frequently used
> commands should have most easily-pressed keystrokes. For example,
> they should be on the home row.
Some remarks about some old influence from using the Lisp machine and
Zmacs.
Warning: obscure and old...
Zmacs documentation:
The TI Explorer Zmacs Manual
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ti/explorer/2243192-0001A_Zmacs_Jun87.pdf
The Symbolics Lisp Machine has for example things like:
c- for character level commands
m- for word-level commands
c-m- for Lisp-level commands
m-SPECIALKEY do more strongly ( SUSPEND enters a REPL, m-SUSPEND
enters the debugger)
symbol- for special characters
local- for local console commands
c-u numbers for numeric prefixes (like c-u 10 c-f moves ten
characters forward)
super- select from choices (in the debugger super-a selects
the first restart, super-b the second, ...)
hyper- modifier reserved for the user's personal commands
-sh modifier to the command
m-x Command invoke extended command
c-x Prefix
There is some more stuff like navigating in menus and options with the
keyboard or the 'various
quantities' command. The latter does for example things like m-4 c-q
F( which
moves forward four lists. Or m-3 c-q dd deletes the next three top-
level definitions.
> (The reason that Symbolics keyboards have Control as primary modifier,
> is because in the early computing era, the use of Control Characters
> as part of the non-printable chars from the ASCII↗ standard, is
> important and frequent.
The Lisp Machine had a different idea of character sets and also about
keys on the keyboard. Since all machines were using a GUI-based user
interface
with special keyboards, terminal control characters were not the
biggest influence on the
design of the keyboard commands.
> This still can be seen in emacs today by the
> standard use of “Form feed” character (ASCII 12, represented as ^L) as
> a indication of “page break”/ section in much of EmacsLisp'ssource
> codes. (To go to the previous/next ^L, emacs uses the command forward-
> page (C-x ]) and backward-page (C-x [)) At those times, there's not
> much of the concept of “keyboard shortcuts”, but rather, modifier keys
> are means to enter special data. Today, the Control key is primarily
> used as a mechanism for keyboard shortcuts. Only in Telnet/ Terminal/
> SSH applications, the Control key still remain of its original use.)
See above. The Lisp machine has tons of keyboards shortcuts. control-
something
was not to enter data - it was to issue a command.
> The shortcut's key choices are primarily based on first letter of the
> commands, not based on key position and finger strength or ease of
> pressing the key. For example, the single char cursor moving shortcuts
> (C-p previous-line ↑, C-n next-line ↓, C-b backward-char ←, C-f
> forward-char →) are scattered around the keyboard with positions that
> are most difficult to press.
Note that on the Lisp machine many commands get special keys. The
keyboard
layout is such that outer keys are bigger (easier to hit). Several
keys that the programmer might use get some special position:
parentheses
without shift, rubout is left, etc.
See here:
http://www.johnbear.net/symbolics-keyboard-paper/gnu-emacs-kbd-for-mac3.html
> (these shortcuts all together accounts
> for 43% of all commands executed by a keyboard shortcut) Of these, the
> most frequently used is C-n (next-line), which accounts for 20% of all
> shortcut calls, but is assigned to the letter n, positioned in the
> middle of the keyboard, which is one of the most costly key to press.
> Similarly, the second most used among these is the C-p (previous-
> line), accounting for 16% of all shortcut command calls, is located in
> a position above the right hand's pinky, also one of the most costly
> key to press.
I use cursor keys on 'normal' keyboards for that.
> Outdated Commands
>
> A significant portion of emacs's major shortcuts (those with M-‹key›
> or C-‹key›) are mapped to commands that are almost never used today.
> Some of these occupies the most precious space (Home row with thumb:
> For example: M-s (center-line), M-j (indent-new-comment-line), M-k
> (kill-sentence)). Most programer who have used emacs for years never
> use these commands. For example:
>
> digit-argument, M-1 to M-9
Above I use. m-3 c-m-f moves three lisp expressions forward.
> transpose-words, M-t
Above is quite often used. name-class with the cursor between the
words and doing M-t transposes the words.
Even more often I use C-M-t to transpose Lisp expressions or c-t to
transpose characters.
> find-tag, M-.
Above is very often used. It finds the source to a symbol in Lisp
code. In most Lisp environments.
> No Employment of the Shift Key
>
> For historical reasons, emacs do not use any keybindings involving the
> Shift with a letter. (Example: there's no “meta shift a”, or “control
> shift a”) This is so because in early computing environment, such key
> combination cannot be distinguished, due to a practical combination of
> ASCII↗, Computer terminal↗, telnet↗.
note that on the Lisp Machine, the shift key is used in commands.
For the user there is the HYPER- modifier. The system does not use it.
It is reserved for the user.
The user can also use three function keys: SQUARE, CIRCLE and
TRIANGLE.
> A Flaw in Keybinding Policy
>
> Any major software, maintains a guide for the developers about the
> choices of keyboard shortcuts, so that the shortcuts will be
> consistent. Emacs has this in its EmacsLispmanual: Elisp Manual: Key-
> Binding-Conventions.
I would hope that there would be more.
hi Rainer!
Thanks a lot for the corrections. My bad history gussing about lisp
machine keyboard's use of Control key is removed. (and you are
credited in the bottom, if you don't object ^_^ )
--------------------------
Some other comment i don't totally agree, with some qualifications...
You mentioned that the following commands are often used:
> transpose-words, M-t
> find-tag, M-.
in my context, i'd like to know if they are used or often used with
respect to all emacs users, regardless whether they are lisp coders.
Suppose we are god and we are omniscient. So, if we look al all emacs
users, who has used, say emacs for 2 accumulated solid years in day
job. Then, we check how often, they use the above commands, or at all.
I think the result is that majority, don't use it.
But anyway, thanks for your input it was valuable. (i myself never
found the transpose commands useful. (it was in BBEdit in the 1990s
probably still there)
and i find the transpose commands somehow distasteful.
I'd be interested to know, if Xcode, MS Visual Studio, Microsoft Word,
Eclipse, IntelliSense, has the transpose command. As far as i've
checked, it's not in Apple's Xcode, TextEdit. Could anyone say if it
is in Visual Studio, MS Word, Eclipse, IntelliSense?
)
As for the tag related command... i still haven't looked into what it
actually do. One time i looked at info and read i'll need some C code
or some tool to compile the tags outside emacs... so i kinda stopped
at that.
---------------------
Rainer wrote:
> > A Flaw in Keybinding Policy
>
> > Any major software, maintains a guide for the developers about the
> > choices of keyboard shortcuts, so that the shortcuts will be
> > consistent. Emacs has this in its EmacsLispmanual: Elisp Manual: Key-
> > Binding-Conventions.
>
> I would hope that there would be more.
You mean you wish there's more key spaces reserved by emacs, or more
key spaces reserved for user to define?
----------------------
A better way to gather emacs usage stat is actually to log it of
course. Emacs users, please get the lisp code at the bottom of:
http://xahlee.org/emacs/command-frequency.html
send me the result after you used emacs for a week. I'll incorporate
your usage stat into the report. Thanks.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
> No Employment of the Shift Key
On Jul 15, 5:22 pm, ·······@corporate-world.lisp.de" <······@corporate-
world.lisp.de> wrote:
> On 16 Jul., 00:34, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A important aspect in designing a keyboard shortcut set, for a
> > application that has intensive, repetitive, prolonged human-machine
> > interaction (such as coding and text editing), is to consider
> > ergonomic principles. Specifically: allocate keyboard shortcuts for
> > the most frequently used commands, and, the top most frequently used
> > commands should have most easily-pressed keystrokes. For example,
> > they should be on the home row.
>
> Some remarks about some old influence from using the Lisp machine and
> Zmacs.
> Warning: obscure and old...
>
> Zmacs documentation:
>
> The TI Explorer Zmacs Manual
> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ti/explorer/2243192-0001A_Zmacs_Jun87.pdf
>
> The Symbolics Lisp Machine has for example things like:
>
> c- for character level commands
> m- for word-level commands
> c-m- for Lisp-level commands
> m-SPECIALKEY do more strongly ( SUSPEND enters a REPL, m-SUSPEND
> enters the debugger)
> symbol- for special characters
> local- for local console commands
> c-u numbers for numeric prefixes (like c-u 10 c-f moves ten
> characters forward)
> super- select from choices (in the debugger super-a selects
> the first restart, super-b the second, ...)
> hyper- modifier reserved for the user's personal commands
> -sh modifier to the command
> m-x Command invoke extended command
> c-x Prefix
>
> There is some more stuff like navigating in menus and options with the
> keyboard or the 'various
> quantities' command. The latter does for example things like m-4 c-q
> F( which
> moves forward four lists. Or m-3 c-q dd deletes the next three top-
> level definitions.
>
> > (The reason that Symbolics keyboards have Control as primary modifier,
> > is because in the early computing era, the use of Control Characters
> > as part of the non-printable chars from the ASCII↗ standard, is
> > important and frequent.
>
> The Lisp Machine had a different idea of character sets and also about
> keys on the keyboard. Since all machines were using a GUI-based user
> interface
> with special keyboards, terminal control characters were not the
> biggest influence on the
> design of the keyboard commands.
>
> > This still can be seen in emacs today by the
> > standard use of “Form feed” character (ASCII 12, represented as ^L) as
> > a indication of “page break”/ section in much of EmacsLisp'ssource
> > codes. (To go to the previous/next ^L, emacs uses the command forward-
> > page (C-x ]) and backward-page (C-x [)) At those times, there's not
> > much of the concept of “keyboard shortcuts”, but rather, modifier keys
> > are means to enter special data. Today, the Control key is primarily
> > used as a mechanism for keyboard shortcuts. Only in Telnet/ Terminal/
> > SSH applications, the Control key still remain of its original use.)
>
> See above. The Lisp machine has tons of keyboards shortcuts. control-
> something
> was not to enter data - it was to issue a command.
>
> > The shortcut's key choices are primarily based on first letter of the
> > commands, not based on key position and finger strength or ease of
> > pressing the key. For example, the single char cursor moving shortcuts
> > (C-p previous-line ↑, C-n next-line ↓, C-b backward-char ←, C-f
> > forward-char →) are scattered around the keyboard with positions that
> > are most difficult to press.
>
> Note that on the Lisp machine many commands get special keys. The
> keyboard
> layout is such that outer keys are bigger (easier to hit). Several
> keys that the programmer might use get some special position:
> parentheses
> without shift, rubout is left, etc.
>
> See here:
>
> http://www.johnbear.net/symbolics-keyboard-paper/gnu-emacs-kbd-for-ma...
>
> > (these shortcuts all together accounts
> > for 43% of all commands executed by a keyboard shortcut) Of these, the
> > most frequently used is C-n (next-line), which accounts for 20% of all
> > shortcut calls, but is assigned to the letter n, positioned in the
> > middle of the keyboard, which is one of the most costly key to press.
> > Similarly, the second most used among these is the C-p (previous-
> > line), accounting for 16% of all shortcut command calls, is located in
> > a position above the right hand's pinky, also one of the most costly
> > key to press.
>
> I use cursor keys on 'normal' keyboards for that.
>
> > Outdated Commands
>
> > A significant portion of emacs's major shortcuts (those with M-‹key›
> > or C-‹key›) are mapped to commands that are almost never used today.
> > Some of these occupies the most precious space (Home row with thumb:
> > For example: M-s (center-line), M-j (indent-new-comment-line), M-k
> > (kill-sentence)). Most programer who have used emacs for years never
> > use these commands. For example:
>
> > digit-argument, M-1 to M-9
>
> Above I use. m-3 c-m-f moves three lisp expressions forward.
>
> > transpose-words, M-t
>
> Above is quite often used. name-class with the cursor between the
> words and doing M-t transposes the words.
> Even more often I use C-M-t to transpose Lisp expressions or c-t to
> transpose characters.
>
> > find-tag, M-.
>
> Above is very often used. It finds the source to a symbol in Lisp
> code. In most Lisp environments.
>
> > No Employment of the Shift Key
>
> > For historical reasons, emacs do not use any keybindings involving the
> > Shift with a letter. (Example: there's no “meta shift a”, or “control
> > shift a”) This is so because in early computing environment, such key
> > combination cannot be distinguished, due to a practical combination of
> > ASCII↗, Computer terminal↗, telnet↗.
>
> note that on the Lisp Machine, the shift key is used in commands.
>
> For the user there is the HYPER- modifier. The system does not use it.
> It is reserved for the user.
> The user can also use three function keys: SQUARE, CIRCLE and
> TRIANGLE.
>
> > A Flaw in Keybinding Policy
>
> > Any major software, maintains a guide for the developers about the
> > choices of keyboard shortcuts, so that the shortcuts will be
> > consistent. Emacs has this in its EmacsLispmanual: Elisp Manual: Key-
> > Binding-Conventions.
>
> I would hope that there would be more.
On 16 Jul., 03:40, ·······@gmail.com" <······@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi Rainer!
>
> Thanks a lot for the corrections. My bad history gussing about lisp
> machine keyboard's use of Control key is removed. (and you are
> credited in the bottom, if you don't object ^_^ )
>
> --------------------------
> Some other comment i don't totally agree, with some qualifications...
>
> You mentioned that the following commands are often used:
>
> > transpose-words, M-t
> > find-tag, M-.
>
> in my context, i'd like to know if they are used or often used with
> respect to all emacs users, regardless whether they are lisp coders.
about transpose:
If you have data or code in the buffer of this form:
((do-something) <- cursor is here
(do-something-a)
(do-something-b)
(do-something-c))
pressing c-m-t will move the (do-something) form down one place.
This can be repeated to move it further down.
Similar:
(apples <cursor is here> oranges bananas cherries)
and you want apples to be behind bananas: m-2 m-t
The basic idea is that this should work in all modes where there is an
idea of 'words' (m-t)
or expressions (c-m-t) or any other quantity which you would use
(sentences, pages, paragraphs, ...).
> Suppose we are god and we are omniscient. So, if we look al all emacs
> users, who has used, say emacs for 2 accumulated solid years in day
> job. Then, we check how often, they use the above commands, or at all.
> I think the result is that majority, don't use it.
I have no idea. But I find the task of transposing things (characters,
words, sentences, expressions, ...)
relatively common. I often write some Lisp forms and want to reorder
them (sort, transpose, reverse, ...).
> As for the tag related command... i still haven't looked into what it
> actually do. One time i looked at info and read i'll need some C code
> or some tool to compile the tags outside emacs... so i kinda stopped
> at that.
You might want to check it out. It allows Emacs to find the source
code for symbols. Not just in Lisp, but in several other programming
languages.
For Lisp systems (like most Common Lisp environments) M-. usually
would consult the running Lisp system, since it keeps track of the
source locations.
But Find Tags in Emacs allows you to use a precomputed mapping from
"symbol -> source position". So, you could generate a TAGS file
for a bunch of C files and use that to find the source location of any
symbol in those files. When you are editing in some
of these C files, then you can press M-. on any symbol to find its
definition. The only drawback: you need to recompute
the TAGS file contents when your files are changing from time to time.
So it basically helps you to move around
in source code and follow the definitions. Zmacs also has the idea of
'tags'.
In other Lisp editors M-. calls "Find Source" (LispWorks) or "Edit
Definition" (Zmacs).
>
> ---------------------
>
> Rainer wrote:
> > > A Flaw in Keybinding Policy
>
> > > Any major software, maintains a guide for the developers about the
> > > choices of keyboard shortcuts, so that the shortcuts will be
> > > consistent. Emacs has this in its EmacsLispmanual: Elisp Manual: Key-
> > > Binding-Conventions.
>
> > I would hope that there would be more.
>
> You mean you wish there's more key spaces reserved by emacs, or more
> key spaces reserved for user to define?
I would hope that there is a better definition how to
choose key-commands for some functionality (with 'more' content
describing
the various conventions that should be used). Should be used as a
guideline
by developers of editor 'modes'.
Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008:
>> Ye gods, I started typing text on a manual typewriter, then the C64 and
>> proceeded through DOS to Unix [...]
> When I was in school we had the old Teletype writer to a mainframe [...]
"I used to walk 10 miles through the snow, uphill, in darkness..."
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
I don't have any evidence for it, but something tells me if Spartacus ever got
you in a scissor-lock, you'd be sore for about a week.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> writes:
> Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008:
>>> Ye gods, I started typing text on a manual typewriter, then the C64 and
>>> proceeded through DOS to Unix [...]
>> When I was in school we had the old Teletype writer to a mainframe [...]
>
> "I used to walk 10 miles through the snow, uphill, in darkness..."
====================================================^ Both directions
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
> I don't have any evidence for it, but something tells me if Spartacus ever got
> you in a scissor-lock, you'd be sore for about a week.
> -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
On 2008-07-15, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> wrote:
> Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008:
>>> Ye gods, I started typing text on a manual typewriter, then the C64 and
>>> proceeded through DOS to Unix [...]
>> When I was in school we had the old Teletype writer to a mainframe [...]
>
> "I used to walk 10 miles through the snow, uphill, in darkness..."
Which is, of course, a stretch. Only the first five miles were in
the dark, and that part of the ascent was below the snowline. :)
On Jul 15, 5:14 pm, Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously this is like getting into the whole "which is better MAC or
> PC discussion", people get so worked up over what is really nothing.
> I'm sure emacs is a fine editor if you like it, I saw some neat
> features in it. However, I prefer the Lispworks built in editor as it
> works fine for me.
Sounds like you didn't really examine Emacs with an open mind. There's
a lot of really interesting, useful features in it. The features for
controlling the cursor, the multi-item clipboard which can be
controlled easily with keyboard shortcuts, being able to navigate s-
expressions. On top of this, it's programmable so if you have cool
ideas that make it easier to navigate text/source code/etc? you can
implement them in ELisp (although as a newbie to Emacs, I haven't done
much more than swap the [] and () characters which makes it easier to
write Lisp code).
Seems like you overlooked all the possibilities and features just
because you found it uncomfortable to adapt to different shortcuts for
some things (C-_ for undo, big deal!).
> I think at this point this thread has exhausted it's usefullness.
If you're not interested in the possibility of improving your tools,
sure. I am, though.
On Jul 16, 11:42 am, Oisín Mac Fhearaí <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 5:14 pm, Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Obviously this is like getting into the whole "which is better MAC or
> > PC discussion", people get so worked up over what is really nothing.
> > I'm sure emacs is a fine editor if you like it, I saw some neat
> > features in it. However, I prefer the Lispworks built in editor as it
> > works fine for me.
>
> Sounds like you didn't really examine Emacs with an open mind. There's
> a lot of really interesting, useful features in it. The features for
> controlling the cursor, the multi-item clipboard which can be
> controlled easily with keyboard shortcuts, being able to navigate s-
> expressions. On top of this, it's programmable so if you have cool
> ideas that make it easier to navigate text/source code/etc? you can
> implement them in ELisp (although as a newbie to Emacs, I haven't done
> much more than swap the [] and () characters which makes it easier to
> write Lisp code).
>
> Seems like you overlooked all the possibilities and features just
> because you found it uncomfortable to adapt to different shortcuts for
> some things (C-_ for undo, big deal!).
>
> > I think at this point this thread has exhausted it's usefullness.
>
> If you're not interested in the possibility of improving your tools,
> sure. I am, though.
While not at all the ultimate solution there are a number
of things which made Emacs the editor of choice for professional
software development and few, if any, editors specialized
for that task have, in my opinion, yet come close
to match it, thought there are a number of quite
good ones out there.
The key is elisp. It is both the boon and bane
of Emacs. Its obvious advantages are the specialized
editing for certain programming languages - for example, I could not
have done work in complicated C++ projects without
some of the features which made negotiating functions and class
hierarchies possible, although NONE of them ever worked properly.
The drawback is that writing elisp is time consuming and filled with
version conflicts, updated functions that one does not know about and
other impedimentia.
A lot of programmers don't have the time or means to learn and use
elisp and both Emacs and Xemacs have the additional drawback of having
the world's most goofy menus for trying to utilize the wonderously
infinite things you can customize.
So the search goes on for the perfect tool.
Citizen Jimserac
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac <········@gmail.com> said:
| ...
| writing elisp is time consuming and filled with
| version conflicts, updated functions that one does not know about and
| other [impedimenta].
... Lambda is not lambda
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
Oh, no, it is an ever fixed point...
_________
(With apologies to the Globe Hacker. Puns intended.)
---Vassil.
--
Peius melius est. ---Ricardus Gabriel.
Jacobite1607 <············@gmail.com> wrote in news:cedeb1e4-ce58-43d1-
·················@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> I think at this point this thread has exhausted it's usefullness.
That's an important milestone in any thread. At that point the thread
shifts to a higher gear and starts accelerating towards cruising speed.
"Jacobite1607" <············@gmail.com> wrote in message
·········································@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 5, 4:39 pm, Francogrex <······@grex.org> wrote:
>I didn't care for emacs either. To me it seemed unnatural, largely
>because Windows has certain standard keystrokes that are second
>natural, Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward.
cua mode might solve your problem?
--
Joseph Iacobucci
Email: ·······@mail.gatecch.edu
On Jul 15, 7:56 am, "Joseph Iacobucci" <·······@mail.gatech.edu>
wrote:
> "Jacobite1607" <············@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> cua mode might solve your problem?
>
Thanks, that's very interesting and it may help the original poster of
this thread.
It's certainly worth a try.