Re: When do you prefer windows instead of frames? Was: When do you prefer frames instead of windows?

[MBR <mbr@arlsoft.com>]

Be very careful with the phrase "use ... as easily as you can use ...".  
There are some people out there who consider pointing with the mouse 
easy.  I, on the other hand find it easier to use the keyboard.  The 
keyboard, along with Emacs' wide array of cursor positioning commands, 
gives me the ability to quickly and easily get to specific precise 
positions - at least precise based on character position in a character 
cell terminal or editor window.

There are probably other areas where different Emacs users would have 
diametrically opposite views on what they consider to be easy.

    Mark Rosenthal

On 11/25/14 10:46 AM, Drew Adams wrote:
>>> I would ask an opposite question: IF you could use Emacs frames
>>> as easily as you can use Emacs windows, in what scenarios would
>>> you prefer using Emacs windows, and why?
>> For supporting tasks only: Imagine you are starting from a full-screen
>> window and want to see temporarily a variable definition in a second
>> window while still hacking away.  The advantage is that window
>> operations, like C-x } enlarge-window-horizontally,
>> delete-other-windows-vertically,... operate simultaneously on all
>> windows.  In such situations it seems to me much more convenient to
>> use windows than set it up with frames.
> Again - but what "IF you could use Emacs frames as easily as you
> can use Emacs windows"?  That's the question.
>
> Pop up a *Help* frame instead of a *Help* window to show help.  Hit
> `C-x 0' to get rid of that frame when you're done.  You probably do
> not need to resize the frame (e.g., if the frame is automatically
> fit to the size of just the *Help* text).  But if you do, then use
> keys to resize it, just as you would for a window.
Yes, but typing C-x o is something I can do easily because it involves 
two fingers on the left hand immediately followed by one finger on the 
right hand, without fingers my ever having to leave home position.  C-x 
5 o, on the other hand involves my typing two successive characters with 
my left hand before I can switch to the right hand for the "o".  And, 
worse than that, "x" is in the bottom row but "5" is in the top row, 
which means that even though my fingers' average position is over home 
position, they're jumping Saturday as far as they ever do on vertically.

All this means that my mental focus on the code I'm writing doesn't get 
distracted when I type C-x 0, but when I type C-x 5 o, I have to take 
some of my focus away from the code to make sure I don't miss the "5" 
after the "x".
>
> IOW, think past what you can do with a window (resize, move, control
> where it pops up, etc.) that you think you cannot easily do with a
> frame now.
>
> I certainly agree that if frames are not made as convenient to
> interact with (i.e., the same kinds of operations you use on
> windows) then Emacs windows remain useful.  But if Emacs *did*
> support such operations with frames, out of the box,...
>
>