Re: Will default key bindings spell the death of Emacs?

[David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup)]

"Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:

> David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup) wrote:
> 
>    I was giving an example for a user interface.  What Emacs has nowadays
>    does not really deserve that name.
> 
> But that particular kind of user interface is not the only kind that
> exists.  Emacs provides two excellent user interfaces.

No.  It provides an interface to the functionality, but "user
interface" implies something more than just the capability to manually
edit some configuration files.  Even if the format of the
configuration files can be found in "user documentation".

> My point is that there are several different kinds of user interface.
> It is misleading to say that
> 
>     .... an example for a user interface.  What Emacs has nowadays
>     does not really deserve that name.
> 
> because that suggests that Emacs lacks a decent user interface.

It does.  It is an interface, but not a user interface.

> On the contrary, Emacs provides two really good user interfaces that
> should not be devalued:
> 
>   * a user interface for people who are permanently or situationally
>     blind (Emacs does), and,
> 
>   * a user interface for people who desire to change more than three
>     bindings at one time efficiently and who are willing to spend
>     time, but less than the time of doing it awkwardly, learning how
>     to do this.

I don't see how the ability to edit .emacs should count as one user
interface, let alone two.

> I agree that Emacs could do better to also provide a user interface
> for people who are sighted and who do not want to learn a more
> efficent technique, but it is a mistake to write as if that
> particular kind of user interface is the only worthy kind.

Does `customize' not play together with things like Emacspeak?

>    > But at the same time, Emacs should also provide ...
> 
>    This is a somewhat orthogonal aim.  I don't see why one should
>    make the availability of one user interface depend on that of
>    another.
> 
> I am not saying we should make one depend on another.  I am saying
> that a user interface for the blind is important, as is a user
> interface for those who desire to work with computers comfortably,
> quickly, and efficiently.

It is the internal Emacs interface to key bindings and thus will
remain usable, and in fact, underlying any attempt of creating a user
interface to keybindings.

> And neither of these two kinds of user interface should be relegated
> to the near invisible status of a notion that does `not really
> deserve [a] name.'

Oh, it deserves a name, just not that of a user interface.  Being able
to call functionality with Lisp does not make it a user interface.
You could call the _interactive_ binding of global-set-key and its ilk
a user interface, if you really wanted to, but this interface is not
catering for persistence: you still have to edit your .emacs manually
if you want your keybindings to stay.  Not even the somewhat quaint
`disabled' commands require you to do the editing yourself in case you
want to enable commands for permanent.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum