Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Paul Thompson <paul@wubios.wustl.edu>]

it ain't possible, unless you reinvent word.  It is either WYSIWIG or a 
post-processor, or something worse.

Todd Wylie wrote:
> Paul Thompson <paul@wubios.wustl.edu> writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>have you ever heard of TeX/LaTeX????
> 
> 
> Of course ... I think you missed the point completely. Using Tex involves writing mark-up within your text. It is not real time like a word processor (which is what the original post was about). As a scientist, I use Tex frequently for scientific related articles. This isn't an anti-Emacs thread ... we simply would like to an application that gives another choice when using Emacs. I use whatever tool makes me the most productive for the job at hand. There are times when I would like the simplicity of a word processor with the power and keystroke ability of Emacs. 
> 
> Todd 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Todd Wylie wrote:
>>
>>>bobstopper@australispro.com.au writes:
>>>I, for one, would love to see an application that merged the WYSIWYG
>>>features of a word processor with the underlying power of
>>>Emacs. This may start the old "Emacs is a text processor not a word
>>>processor" debate... but there are times when I want a straight
>>>ahead editor (programming) and other times I want to view text in a
>>>word processor (I'm writing a book right now). Trying to get Emacs
>>>to show text in manuscript format is a pain in the butt
>>>(double-spacing lines without hard returns, specific margins,
>>>headers and footers with page numbers, etc.). However, no word
>>>processor I have ever found matches the power and scope of Emacs
>>>(try running a regex search in MS Word). I really do wish someone
>>>would merge the two concepts someday. If anyone responds directly to
>>>you about such a package existing -- please let me know. Thanks-
>>>TODD
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi
>>>>
>>>>This isn't really a request for help with Emacs but a request for knowledge
>>>>on Applications inspired by Emacs, specifically office type Applications.
>>>>
>>>>I love how Emacs is so extensible and provides so many features due to its
>>>>use of modes and elisp. So what I'm (very idly at this stage) considering
>>>>is the idea of an office kinda suite (yeah, like M$) all within the one
>>>>program through the use of emacs style modes and retaining a lot of
>>>>extensibility through a lisp dialect (probably guile).
>>>>
>>>>Emacs can probably do something similar to what I'm thinking
>>>>already if support was written for it, but I'm thinking Emacs would
>>>>probably remain,
>>>>well, ugly in the eyes of typical office workers and it would thus
>>>>be unappealing.
>>>>
>>>>Instead I'm envisioning something that looks a lot like current gnome
>>>>office products... only it's capable of doing all of them simply by loading
>>>>the appropriate modes (perhaps after first writing them ;).
>>>>
>>>>Gnome office is a great idea and I think it's a great alternative to M$
>>>>office but I think the idea of having separate programs attempting
>>>>to integrate through some additional system like bonobo or OLE will
>>>>still
>>>>remain somewhat unintegrated and perhaps not as consistent in its interface
>>>>as what I'm suggesting would be. I imagine typical office users would be
>>>>much more satisfied if they only needed the one app that could do everything
>>>>and I imagine advanced office users and programmers would be much more
>>>>satisfied if they can extend that app to do almost anything they please.
>>>>
>>>>So if something *better* (rather than just equivalent) than M$ office is
>>>>written as part of the GNU/Linux project then we have much more clout for
>>>>winning the average user over. I imagine for this sort of goal the app
>>>>would almost certainly have to have a fully featured M$ Windows port so
>>>>it can first appeal to all these M$ windows users, and once they're won
>>>>over it's a small step to realising that if everything they need for
>>>>office work is in that app, and that app is available on GNU why not just
>>>>use GNU?
>>>>
>>>>So, with that description of my infant idea in mind, I have a couple of
>>>>questions:
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
>>>>or is in the process of being written etc?
>>>>
>>>>and of course:
>>>>
>>>>Is my idea stupid, infeasible, lacking in some major consideration, too
>>>>damned hard etc or is it actually a good idea?
>>>>
>>>>I'm looking forward to any kinds of comments/suggestions. Thanks!
>>>