From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: excalamus--- via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: (emacs) Intro [was: Making Emacs popular again with a video] Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 21:11:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <70bb51fd-447d-928c-4d69-1c9673a44471@online.de> <55fd40f2-0468-d724-425d-c28c9d17b301@online.de> <779cc2b0-c546-2a80-afd3-79f10bda1b7e@yandex.ru> Reply-To: excalamus@tutanota.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_94157_867024757.1589742717770" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="100897"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Emacs Devel , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=C3=83=C2=B6hler?= , Stefan Kangas , Richard Stallman To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 17 21:13:12 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jaOil-000Q65-FL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 21:13:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37486 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jaOik-0006V4-IZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:13:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45954) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jaOhh-0005rr-5S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:12:05 -0400 Original-Received: from w1.tutanota.de ([81.3.6.162]:59064) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jaOhf-0007Vk-1q; Sun, 17 May 2020 15:12:04 -0400 Original-Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164]) by w1.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF13CFA0612; Sun, 17 May 2020 19:11:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1589742717; s=s1; d=tutanota.com; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:References:Sender; bh=6tF0k33lIZM+7RmVIM33tiaygQ2xQ7X9yNpLBJv4iBM=; b=y822HOEbmEyPtjNXRdtDFqLaeDCq4UNXwsO2b4Flbc6h39y6Nb1CSMBEAs55z5cq WFue7f1+vOxNfnfUWiHik6tNbX0fSiguS3j4ogBcssUUggqrPCKFr/n6gAcA0bjyCcp 9h379BpsWh5c+rE3zmGDc20O4pCJpSqWfUr78Gm3HchuTVdOFejVs8Rr9WR5ZgTGAu+ hRVkE+TRbKvwhrUYAUpoMLfrAjL1t0MwYddlYpNp9zjRiR4Sj6dsbwZrD3LM5efZw+K 0RAaXOy4M3NQQQMMEtHLfVcM/fk/F/CGOvzTZMvQmfeVxLbyEVL98jJu+H1gGQIA6rG Z+XE4JcoJw== In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=81.3.6.162; envelope-from=excalamus@tutanota.com; helo=w1.tutanota.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/17 15:11:57 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:250649 Archived-At: ------=_Part_94157_867024757.1589742717770 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable May 14, 2020, 20:46 by dgutov@yandex.ru: > On your proposed text: > > built from the idea that each key calls a tiny program (or macro) > Keys don't call macros anymore (all commands must be functions, not macro= s). Seems like the meaning of the word "macro" has changed over the years. > My intent with this paragraph is to explain what "Emacs" is and what define= s an "Emacs", at a high level.=C2=A0 Emacs stands for=C2=A0 "Editor MACroS"= and the idea of explicitly associating a function with each key, as I see = it, is the defining aspect of an Emacs.=C2=A0 I think the etymology is an a= ppropriate starting place for explaining what "Emacs" is, especially since = it is an unusual word, potentially confused with something like "email" or = Apple's "mac" computer.=C2=A0 However, starting with the etymology restrict= s the author to using the term "macro" somewhere.=C2=A0 I agree that "funct= ion" is a better word.=C2=A0 But to=C2=A0Andreas R=C3=B6hler's point, I'm t= rying to strike a balance between programmer and non-programmer.=C2=A0 I us= ed "tiny program" instead of "function" for this reason.=C2=A0 I think a pr= ogrammer is likely to get the gist of "tiny program" whereas a non-programm= er would be confused by jargon like "function" (Based on my convos with no= n-programmers, aka., my girlfriend).=C2=A0"macro" is bad, maybe worse, but = etymologically unavoidable. I think the manual should cater to the non-prog= rammer; let the Emacs Lisp reference cater to programmers. So much for what Emacs is.=C2=A0=20 What *defines* an Emacs? Is it "the Emacs idea", as I've called it, that ea= ch key press is transparently associated with a function?=C2=A0 Word or Gma= il probably call a function on a keypress, but that's not exposed to the us= er like it is with Emacs.=C2=A0=C2=A0(This is partly what I was asking abou= t when I asked for Emacs' raison d'etre.)=C2=A0 Thoughts? > GNU Emacs is the GNU project's > incarnation of the Emacs idea. > > ...I'm not 100% sure what the idea is. Keys having bindings? I'll admit I= might have missed that in the original text. > You're right that it's confusing; it's not well expressed and not a complet= e thought.=C2=A0 Here's what I'm trying to get at: there is *an* Emacs, a p= iece of software characterized by *something*, and there is *the* GNU Emacs= .=C2=A0 Is Word an Emacs? No. Is Epoch an Emacs? Yes. Why is that? Further,= there is Lucid Emacs, DrRacket, Multics Emacs, Gosling Emacs, etc.=C2=A0 G= NU Emacs is only one *instance* of an Emacs.=C2=A0 What sets GNU Emacs apar= t, specifically? Is it just that it's currently the most active in developm= ent? Or, is there something more underpinning GNU Emacs' existence? Why is = it we're talking about GNU Emacs and not any of the others?=C2=A0 > The documentation even reaches down to the source code > itself! > > What does this mean? Functions having docstrings? Which they do everywher= e. > I mean the source code itself is documentation and that the user has easy a= cess to it.=C2=A0 Word has documentation, but no access to source code. Not= epad++ is free sotware, but the source code is not easily accessed (relativ= e to Emacs).=C2=A0 The immediate access to the source is, I feel, a key com= penent of the self-documentation of Emacs and what puts it in that unique s= pace between user and developer. > We love GNU Emacs because we > feel that no other editing environment rewards sustained user > investment quite like it. > > Personally, I don't love this sentiment. It implies that one must invest = a lot of time to get something good out of it. I'd rather emphasize power, = flexibility and interactivity rather than paint a picture of the user polis= hing his Emacs for decades. Which we do, but, well, a lot of professionals = in different industries do this too with their industry-specific tools. > This is a good point. I think Karl Fogel nailed it when he said, "Emacs's b= est prospects are with the sorts of people who *do* see -- or who can be pe= rsuaded to see -- text editing as worthy of investment."=C2=A0 I think the = only people who will make it far enough to read the manual are the sort of = people who are willing to invest in their time *and* have decided to invest= igate.=C2=A0 It's important to let them know they will be rewarded for that= and how.=C2=A0 The manual intro, I feel, is an appropriate place to do tha= t.=C2=A0 I agree we should emphasize power, flexibility, and interactivity = as a selling point, but that will/should have happened well before a user g= ets to the manual.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I am interesting in hearing more of th= em! ------=_Part_94157_867024757.1589742717770 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

May 14, 2020, 20:46 by dgutov@yandex.ru:
On your proposed text:
<= div>
built from the idea that each key calls a tiny program = (or macro)

Keys don't call macros anymore (all com= mands must be functions, not macros). Seems like the meaning of the word "m= acro" has changed over the years.
My intent with= this paragraph is to explain what "Emacs" is and what defines an "Emacs", = at a high level.  Emacs stands for  "Editor MACroS" and the idea = of explicitly associating a function with each key, as I see it, is the def= ining aspect of an Emacs.  I think the etymology is an appropriate sta= rting place for explaining what "Emacs" is, especially since it is an unusu= al word, potentially confused with something like "email" or Apple's "mac" = computer.  However, starting with the etymology restricts the author t= o using the term "macro" somewhere.  I agree that "function" is a bett= er word.  But to Andreas R=C3=B6hler's point, I'm trying to stri= ke a balance between programmer and non-programmer.  I used "tiny prog= ram" instead of "function" for this reason.  I think a programmer is l= ikely to get the gist of "tiny program" whereas a non-programmer would be c= onfused by jargon like "function" (Based on my convos with non-programmers= , aka., my girlfriend). "macro" is bad, maybe wo= rse, but etymologically unavoidable. I think the manual should cater to the non-programmer; let= the Emacs Lisp reference cater to programmers.
<= div>
So much for what Emacs is. 

What *defines* an Emacs? Is it "the Emacs idea", as I've called it, = that each key press is transparently associated with a function?  Word= or Gmail probably call a function on a keypress, but that's not exposed to= the user like it is with Emacs.  (This is partly what I was aski= ng about when I asked for Emacs' raison d'etre.)  Thoughts?
<= blockquote class=3D"tutanota_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8= ; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
GNU Emacs is the GNU project= 's
incarnation of the Emacs idea.

...I'm not 100% sure what the idea is. Keys having bindings? I'll admit = I might have missed that in the original text.
Y= ou're right that it's confusing; it's not well expressed and not a complete= thought.  Here's what I'm trying to get at: there is *an* Emacs, a pi= ece of software characterized by *something*, and there is *the* GNU Emacs.=   Is Word an Emacs? No. Is Epoch an Emacs? Yes. Why is that? Further, = there is Lucid Emacs, DrRacket, Multics Emacs, Gosling Emacs, etc.  GN= U Emacs is only one *instance* of an Emacs.  What sets GNU Emacs apart= , specifically? Is it just that it's currently the most active in developme= nt? Or, is there something more underpinning GNU Emacs' existence? Why is i= t we're talking about GNU Emacs and not any of the others? 
<= blockquote class=3D"tutanota_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8= ; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
The documentation even reach= es down to the source code
itself!

<= div>What does this mean? Functions having docstrings? Which they do everywh= ere.
I mean the source code itself is documentat= ion and that the user has easy acess to it.  Word has documentation, b= ut no access to source code. Notepad++ is free sotware, but the source code= is not easily accessed (relative to Emacs).  The immediate access to = the source is, I feel, a key compenent of the self-documentation of Emacs a= nd what puts it in that unique space between user and developer.
We love GNU Emacs because we
=
feel that no other editing environment rewards sustained user
investment quite like it.

Person= ally, I don't love this sentiment. It implies that one must invest a lot of= time to get something good out of it. I'd rather emphasize power, flexibil= ity and interactivity rather than paint a picture of the user polishing his= Emacs for decades. Which we do, but, well, a lot of professionals in diffe= rent industries do this too with their industry-specific tools.
This is a good point. I think Karl Fogel nailed it when he = said, "Emacs's best prospects are with the sorts of people who *do* see -- = or who can=20 be persuaded to see -- text editing as worthy of investment."  I think= the only people who will make it far enough to read the manual are the sor= t of people who are willing to invest in their time *and* have decided to i= nvestigate.  It's important to let them know they will be rewarded for= that and how.  The manual intro, I feel, is an appropriate place to d= o that.  I agree we should emphasize power, flexibility, and interacti= vity as a selling point, but that will/should have happened well before a u= ser gets to the manual.  

Thank you = for sharing your thoughts! I am interesting in hearing more of them!
<= div>
------=_Part_94157_867024757.1589742717770--