On Feb 20, 9:00 am, Jens Thiele <·····@berlios.de> wrote:
> Xah Lee <······@gmail.com> writes:
> > no time. The simple problem is that nobody uses it, excerpt maybe just
> > 100 core GNU fanatics around the world.
>
> I don't consider myself a fanatic and still I really like reference
> documentation in info format. The info browser in emacs is really nice -
> searching and navigating the documentation is fast and easy.
>
> jens
i too, find emacs info system fantastic. As far as i know, better than
any other integrated system i'm familiar with. (possibly except
Mathematica. Though, i know that for example Macintosh CodeWarior,
ThinkPascal, etc IDE has simular features that are comparable, but i
haven't used these much to confidently remark)
However, in the context of this thread, i don't support info, or
support advancing it in anyway. Yes, it is great in emacs, but
basically it is 1980's technology. Far advanced at its time, but
today, it is fairly inferior comparative to other IDE's system such as
Mathematica, or whatever is today's version of MCW, or perhaps
Microsoft's VisualStudio)
For example, in other systems, it can include graphics, syntax
coloring, multiple panes or tabs in the help system. Though, these are
probably technically possible with info, but basically is not done and
incompatible with info's nature.
as another example, many today's IDE integrated help system are based
on HTML/XML and associated tech (javascript, DOM, css, etc). With
these, its technical power is quite beyond what info can do. Such
power include, for example, integration with the web, usable in
browser too, post-processing with hundreds of tools, dynamic
generation with hundreds of tools, interactivity with js or
visualbasic and other langs etc. (just look at google's various
services, such as gmail, blogger, google code, igoogle, google map
etc.)
as another example, info's source is based on texinfo, with
effectively one single tool. For html based ones, there are literally
few hundred times more tools, in wide variety of languages, or user
level applications, and few THOUSANDS times more developers.
texinfo and info, is basically outdated in many ways, technical and
social, that it cannot support itself into the future. Though, it
works great today still, but in coming years, if emacs insists on
sticking with info today, it'll pose a problem. (as another example,
unix man pages, which info and FSF intend to replace, are today
basically already obsolete)
I would suggest, that emacs developers start to embrace html/xml,
which is standardized system in the industry. Put aside the cultish
thought that emacs info is superior, which ceased to be true since
perhaps 2000.
emacs already has lots of packages that deals with html/xml. Muse,
planner, org, all deal with documentation in some mark-down format
that are oriented with html. Then there's nxml-mode which is today one
of the most advanced system for xml, written by the well-known xml
expert James Clark. There's also js2-mode, and ejacs by Steve Yegge,
which is also very advanced. Each of these is over 10k lines in elisp.
if emacs dev put aside the “emacs way” mentality, there are many
opportunities to advance emacs forward in major ways.
I'm not saying that we should ditch info or right away, just not
insist on it. Embracing the above tech can easily pave a way that
naturally replace info's role in emacs.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
Le Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:46:27 -0800 (PST),
Xah Lee a écrit :
> [furiously sniped]
If my cell phone use Lisp to manage my bookmarks, can I talk
about cell phone here ?
Please explain me what's the relation between :
"Which is better between Texinfo and Muse?"
and Lisp ?
I guess none, thus don't crosspost anywhere, please.
Thanks,
--
Jacques.
Xah Lee <······@gmail.com> writes:
> On Feb 20, 9:00 am, Jens Thiele <·····@berlios.de> wrote:
>> Xah Lee <······@gmail.com> writes:
>> > no time. The simple problem is that nobody uses it, excerpt maybe just
>> > 100 core GNU fanatics around the world.
>>
>> I don't consider myself a fanatic and still I really like reference
>> documentation in info format. The info browser in emacs is really nice -
>> searching and navigating the documentation is fast and easy.
>>
>> jens
>
> i too, find emacs info system fantastic. As far as i know, better than
> any other integrated system i'm familiar with. (possibly except
> Mathematica. Though, i know that for example Macintosh CodeWarior,
> ThinkPascal, etc IDE has simular features that are comparable, but i
> haven't used these much to confidently remark)
>
> However, in the context of this thread, i don't support info, or
> support advancing it in anyway. Yes, it is great in emacs, but
> basically it is 1980's technology. Far advanced at its time, but
> today, it is fairly inferior comparative to other IDE's system such as
> Mathematica, or whatever is today's version of MCW, or perhaps
> Microsoft's VisualStudio)
>
> For example, in other systems, it can include graphics, syntax
> coloring, multiple panes or tabs in the help system. Though, these are
> probably technically possible with info, but basically is not done and
> incompatible with info's nature.
The current Lilypond info documentation contains extensive use of
inlined graphics. Quite convenient.
--
David Kastrup