Re: GTK file selector

[Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>]

I sent the below to Juri alone, and it bounced. To my surprise--strategies
of 친애하는 지도자 being criticised on emacs-devel? what?--people seem to
want to discuss the matter further here, so I’m sending it on.  

 Ar an séú lá déag de mí na Nollaig, scríobh Juri Linkov: 

 > > Do you not understand what the GTK2 people did? They didn’t remove
 > > features, it’s just as possible to use the new dialog box in the same
 > > way as the old.
 > 
 > The filename entry field (with available TAB completion like in Emacs) was
 > a very useful feature.  Neither C-l nor a small text box that appears
 > after starting typing is an acceptable replacement.

What the Gnome people have implemented is an acceptable replacement; it
gives the same functionality as the old but without its confusing features.
If you don’t accept that, then I’ve no confidence that you’ve ever used the
new file selection dialog. 

 > > And yes, making GNU Emacs behave more like a Win32 app, like Notepad,
 > > _will_ make naïve users happy. Look at the success of CUA-mode.
 > 
 > CUA-mode doesn't disable useful Emacs features.

What on Earth gave you the idea that I suggested disabling useful features?

 > > Hang round with Win32 users looking for an advanced editor, and they’ll
 > > go for Notepad++ long before GNU Emacs, because all their habits from
 > > Notepad work in Notepad++, and not in emacs.
 > 
 > Notepad++ is not easier to use for naive users than Emacs.

It’s much easier to use for a naïve Win32 user than is any emacs, and in
2005 the number of users who come to Emacs before encountering Win32 and
gaining some experience is infinitesimally small compared to the number with
previous Win32 experience. 

 > > Emacs is more featureful, but not enough to overcome the pain of finding
 > > out what CUA-mode is
 > 
 > The top-level menu item in the Options menu that enables CUA-mode
 > and its tooltip are self-descriptive enough.

I disagree. 

 > > and doing all the other donkey-work to have the editor behave like what
 > > they’re used to.
 > 
 > Experts can do this easily anyway.

And an editor that makes it unnecessary is still more attractive than one
where it must be done. 

 > > They abandon it because of stagnant development, the design and
 > > implementation clusterfuck that is Mule from the perspective of European
 > > language users (search for ö not working again!)
 > 
 > Not in the unicode-2 branch.

And? Emacs Multi-TTY has been stable for years, and there’s no sign of it
being integrated. Unicode-2 isn’t even stable yet. 

 > > and minimal consideration for GUI users in this age of 17"
 > > screens. Among other reasons.
 > >
 > > Eclipse, VIM or Notepad++ seem to be what most of the power users I
 > > know who chose an advanced editor recently are using.
 > 
 > I don't think VIM belongs to the category of Notepad-like editors.

And? I do know some Unix power-users. 

-- 
I AM IN JAIL AND ALLOWED SEND ONLY ONE CABLE SINCE WAS ARRESTED WHILE
MEASURING FIFTEEN FOOT WALL OUTSIDE PALACE AND HAVE JUST FINISHED COUNTING
THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDERED TWENTY TWO NAMES WHOS WHO IN MIDEAST.