master 55f46cc77c: Decrease use of the word "Emacsen" in docs

master 55f46cc77c: Decrease use of the word "Emacsen" in docs

[Eli Zaretskii]

What's wrong with using "Emacsen"?

Re: master 55f46cc77c: Decrease use of the word "Emacsen" in docs

[Stefan Kangas]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> What's wrong with using "Emacsen"?

When talking about older versions of Emacs, it's just jargony and
unhelpful.  Better to say what is actually meant.

When contrasting with XEmacs, see '(efaq) Difference between Emacs and XEmacs':

   If you want to talk about these two versions and distinguish them,
please call them "Emacs" and "XEmacs."  To contrast "XEmacs" with "GNU
Emacs" would be misleading, since XEmacs too has its origin in the work
of the GNU Project.  Terms such as "Emacsen" and "(X)Emacs" are not
wrong, but they are not very clear, so it is better to write "Emacs and
XEmacs."

Re: master 55f46cc77c: Decrease use of the word "Emacsen" in docs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2022 18:15:23 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > What's wrong with using "Emacsen"?
> 
> When talking about older versions of Emacs, it's just jargony and
> unhelpful.  Better to say what is actually meant.

This is too much.  You are removing words we used for decades in Emacs
development for no good reason.  You think they are "just jargony and
unhelpful", but for me and others this part of our culture and our
history of involvement in the Emacs development.  We treasure that
history.  Right now, I feel like a chunk of my personal history has
been rewritten.

There still are "other Emacsen" out there, even though most of them
are all but moribund nowadays.  But even if they were completely dead,
the word doesn't have to be removed.  It does no harm by just being
there.

I think these changes are misguided.  They go way beyond the
reasonable.  Please don't do that.

Re: master 55f46cc77c: Decrease use of the word "Emacsen" in docs

[Stefan Kangas]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> This is too much.  You are removing words we used for decades in Emacs
> development for no good reason.  You think they are "just jargony and
> unhelpful", but for me and others this part of our culture and our
> history of involvement in the Emacs development.  We treasure that
> history.  Right now, I feel like a chunk of my personal history has
> been rewritten.

I think the change clarifies the documentation, but if you feel
strongly about it we can of course revert it.

> There still are "other Emacsen" out there, even though most of them
> are all but moribund nowadays.  But even if they were completely dead,
> the word doesn't have to be removed.  It does no harm by just being
> there.

Well, it does cause confusion.  AFAIK, none of the other Emacsen will
work with semantic, TRAMP, or any of the other Lisp packages where I
removed that term.  Maybe XEmacs will work with some of them still,
but that's kind of besides the point these days.  For better or for
worse, in the context of these packages, there is exactly one Emacs
implementation that is relevant.

Re: master 55f46cc77c: Decrease use of the word "Emacsen" in docs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2022 19:26:44 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > This is too much.  You are removing words we used for decades in Emacs
> > development for no good reason.  You think they are "just jargony and
> > unhelpful", but for me and others this part of our culture and our
> > history of involvement in the Emacs development.  We treasure that
> > history.  Right now, I feel like a chunk of my personal history has
> > been rewritten.
> 
> I think the change clarifies the documentation

I don't see how it could do that.

> > There still are "other Emacsen" out there, even though most of them
> > are all but moribund nowadays.  But even if they were completely dead,
> > the word doesn't have to be removed.  It does no harm by just being
> > there.
> 
> Well, it does cause confusion.  AFAIK, none of the other Emacsen will
> work with semantic, TRAMP, or any of the other Lisp packages where I
> removed that term.  Maybe XEmacs will work with some of them still,
> but that's kind of besides the point these days.  For better or for
> worse, in the context of these packages, there is exactly one Emacs
> implementation that is relevant.

The text is careful enough to not imply that every flavor is capable
of each feature.  I don't see why we would need to remove those words.

Re: master 55f46cc77c: Decrease use of the word "Emacsen" in docs

[Po Lu]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> This is too much.  You are removing words we used for decades in Emacs
> development for no good reason.  You think they are "just jargony and
> unhelpful", but for me and others this part of our culture and our
> history of involvement in the Emacs development.  We treasure that
> history.  Right now, I feel like a chunk of my personal history has
> been rewritten.
>
> There still are "other Emacsen" out there, even though most of them
> are all but moribund nowadays.  But even if they were completely dead,
> the word doesn't have to be removed.  It does no harm by just being
> there.

In addition, "Emacsen" refers not only to the "other Emacsen", but old
versions of Emacs, many of which are still used (all the way back to
CJK-modified versions of Emacs 19.5x.)