Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Emanuel Berg]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

> Programs were typed in using keypunches which wrote
> to punched cards or using devices that wrote to paper
> tape.  The program was then submitted as a stack of
> cards or a tape to the sysadmins who ran the
> computer.  The computer would then "SPOOL" copying
> the paper information to magnetic tape where it could
> be accessed later.  Once that happened the user could
> do various things like edit the code, compile it and
> so on.
>
> This meant there was a delay between the user's
> information being sent and the program execution.
> Often in that time errors could be found.  In that
> case the user could run an editor from a teletype and
> fix the errors.  Doing that wouldn't necessarily
> require the teletype to print out each line of code
> being changed.  That's why in early editors there
> were commands to print out lines of code, but things
> could be done without them.
>
> This was all high technology compared to the early
> days when everything submitted on cards was compiled
> and executed without question.  In those early days
> there were no editors.  Everything depended on
> punched cards and there were special machines to deal
> with them which were a partial substitute.  (Even in
> the 1970s most small IBM computers were only sold
> with peripheral for reading and punching cards.)

I suppose this would be a lot easier to understand if
you could actually see (and touch) the machines. I have
heard that in the US (Boston and San Francisco) there
are computer museum, sometimes associated with the
companies themselves.

Perhaps I can steal some LEGO and build small models...

But as for the delay between coding and execution, that
sounds really relaxing - that way, you'd never be
tempted to do shortcuts or do trial-and-error until it
works.

Of course you can program that way today as well but
sometimes time and the volume of work just make you
type and hit RET until it works, and that's always less
satisfactory then when you understand everything 100%.

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: editor and word processor history

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:
>
>> Programs were typed in using keypunches which wrote
>> to punched cards or using devices that wrote to paper
>> tape.  The program was then submitted as a stack of
>> cards or a tape to the sysadmins who ran the
>> computer.  The computer would then "SPOOL" copying
>> the paper information to magnetic tape where it could
>> be accessed later.  Once that happened the user could
>> do various things like edit the code, compile it and
>> so on.
>>
>> This meant there was a delay between the user's
>> information being sent and the program execution.
>> Often in that time errors could be found.  In that
>> case the user could run an editor from a teletype and
>> fix the errors.  Doing that wouldn't necessarily
>> require the teletype to print out each line of code
>> being changed.  That's why in early editors there
>> were commands to print out lines of code, but things
>> could be done without them.
>>
>> This was all high technology compared to the early
>> days when everything submitted on cards was compiled
>> and executed without question.  In those early days
>> there were no editors.  Everything depended on
>> punched cards and there were special machines to deal
>> with them which were a partial substitute.  (Even in
>> the 1970s most small IBM computers were only sold
>> with peripheral for reading and punching cards.)
>
> I suppose this would be a lot easier to understand if
> you could actually see (and touch) the machines. I have
> heard that in the US (Boston and San Francisco) there
> are computer museum, sometimes associated with the
> companies themselves.

You can always use simulators:

http://www.masswerk.at/google60/


Otherwise, it wouldn't be too hard to configure emacs to reproduce the
feel and constraints of software development in the 60s or 70s.

M-x caps-mode RET
M-x computer-paper RET  (https://gitorious.org/com-informatimago/emacs/source/master:pjb-computer-paper.el)


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/
"Le mercure monte ?  C'est le moment d'acheter !"

Re: editor and word processor history

[Emanuel Berg]

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:

> You can always use simulators:
>
> http://www.masswerk.at/google60/
>
> Otherwise, it wouldn't be too hard to configure emacs
> to reproduce the feel and constraints of software
> development in the 60s or 70s.
>
> M-x caps-mode RET M-x computer-paper RET
> (https://gitorious.org/com-informatimago/emacs/source/master:pjb-computer-paper.el)

I'll save those links and if I ever get the people I'm
associated with right now to publish a magazine, I'll
write an article on this topic, trying that stuff out.

The attraction of the past is of course that then only
(or almost so) computer people used computers. Then
along came the masses which of course is a good thing
(well, it's complicated). What surprises me so much
though is that computer work still is so focused on
technology - then, it made sense, a necessity even, but
now? As an illustration, during my 5-6 years of
extremely focused hacking I never felt the need for a
single program that didn't already exist in I don't
know how many flavours. I had to change a lot of things
a lot, every day actually, but never an entire
program. Still, when I talk to people, it is always, we
are doing a new application, a new programming
language, a new cloud-based service... I don't
understand that. What's going on? And, even though
there were programmers in the 60s and 70s, in absolute
figures, aren't there one zillion more today? So there
is something wrong with the picture which I don't get.

Anyway, speaking of computers, the 60s, and chess, I
was sent the following interesting review of the
documentary (?) "Computer Chess":

As an inveterate computer chess aficionado for many
years dating back to Sargon II on my Apple II+ and
carried up to the present-day domination of chess
programs Houdini, Komodo and Stockfish (not joking,
non-computer chess people), I can certainly appreciate
many little details in this film [...] that might pass
unnoticed. Captured is the weird mix of collegiality,
rivalry and paranoia that has always been endemic to
the hobby, represented in this film by a collection of
marginal characters, deranged charlatans, academic
uber-geeks and scruffy pot-smoking counterculture types
in a Holiday Inn sometime in the 1979-1982
period. Especially laudatory is the film`s authenticity
with respect to the tournament scenes: you see glimpses
of awkward board positions that could only have been
produced by primitive chess programs of that era, and
the still-operational hardware of the period dug up for
these scenes is simply fabulous. Likewise we can enjoy
the preposterous grooming and clothing of the
post-disco era, captured en passant with pitiless
candor. Juxtaposed against the participants of this
computer tournament are a motley collection of
encounter group' New Agers occupying the hotel at the
same time; they serve to put the chess geeks into
perspective and produce a number of very funny
interactions. Another reviewer notes that this film is
Felliniesque: that is precisely correct, and an apt
approach to the whole idea of computer age pioneers
hauling now-archaic hardware hundreds of miles to play
in a computer chess tournament in some cheap hotel. (NH
aka 'Cato the Younger' in computer chess circles.)

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Emanuel Berg]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

> In those days programs were punched onto cards using
> keypunches or punched onto paper tape.  Sometimes
> they were written on paper and someone else would
> punch them in.  In those early days editors were
> there to help people fix mistakes afterwards once a
> file existed on a tape or disk.  Only later were they
> used for the whole writing process.

OK, but then how did the data get on the tape/disk in
the first place?

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Barry Margolin]

In article <87k394mbwd.fsf@debian.uxu>,
 Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote:

> Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:
> 
> > In those days programs were punched onto cards using
> > keypunches or punched onto paper tape.  Sometimes
> > they were written on paper and someone else would
> > punch them in.  In those early days editors were
> > there to help people fix mistakes afterwards once a
> > file existed on a tape or disk.  Only later were they
> > used for the whole writing process.
> 
> OK, but then how did the data get on the tape/disk in
> the first place?

IIRC, Teletypes could be put into local mode, where what you typed was 
punched directly onto the paper tape.

For punch cards, there were key punches -- they were essentially 
typewriters that punched onto cards instead of writing onto paper.

The ASCII code for DEL is 127 because that was all the bits on a 
7-column paper tape. So if you made a mistake while punching the tape, 
you could back up and press DEL, and it would punch all the holes in 
that row -- it was the paper-tape equivalent of White-Out. Applications 
that read text from paper tape would ignore that code.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Robert Thorpe]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
> OK, but then how did the data get on the tape/disk in
> the first place?

Barry Margolin gave most of the answers.

Programs were typed in using keypunches which wrote to punched cards or
using devices that wrote to paper tape.  The program was then
submitted as a stack of cards or a tape to the sysadmins who ran the
computer.  The computer would then "SPOOL" copying the paper information
to magnetic tape where it could be accessed later.  Once that happened
the user could do various things like edit the code, compile it and so
on.

This meant there was a delay between the user's information being sent
and the program execution.  Often in that time errors could be found.
In that case the user could run an editor from a teletype and fix the
errors.  Doing that wouldn't necessarily require the teletype to print
out each line of code being changed.  That's why in early editors there
were commands to print out lines of code, but things could be done
without them.

This was all high technology compared to the early days when everything
submitted on cards was compiled and executed without question.  In those
early days there were no editors.  Everything depended on punched cards
and there were special machines to deal with them which were a partial
substitute.  (Even in the 1970s most small IBM computers were only sold
with peripheral for reading and punching cards.)

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: RTF for emacs

[Robert Thorpe]

I appreciate everyone's replies.

Emanuel Berg distinguishes between different types of documents.
Firstly, there are very simple documents that just contain text, those
can be written as text files.  There are webpages which can be
written in HTML.  Large documents can be written using LaTeX.  ToDo
lists and organization can be written using Org mode.

There's another type of document though, those that are simple, but too
complex to make using plain text.  I was talking about writing letters
earlier.  Even that case is tricky.  Have you tried printing a letter
containing Unicode characters?  On my Xubuntu 12.04 system that doesn't
work, they appear as escape codes.  Unfortunately, lots of programs
still don't treat UTF-8 correctly.

For someone who knows LaTeX writing small documents isn't a problem.  I
have only done a few simple things with LaTeX.  I haven't used AucTex,
only Emac's LaTeX mode.  In my job I write reports in Microsoft Word,
I've never had a opportunity to write a long document in LaTeX.  In the
future, if I have the time I'd like to learn LaTeX.  I understand though
that it's a large and complex system, until I read this discussion I
didn't know there were so many different dialects withe different
capabilities.  It would take me months to learn it properly.  Similarly,
Org mode is complex.  I intend to learn that sometime in the future too,
but I haven't the time at present.  I spend quite a lot of time
organizing things, so I expect that'll be time well spent.

James Freer asked about this first, I think his situation is similar to
mine.  I can't justify the time I'd need to learn LaTeX since I'd use it
so infrequently.  That's why I'll continue using LibreOffice until
something better comes along that won't take too long to learn.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: RTF for emacs

[Emanuel Berg]

James Freer <jessejazza3.uk@gmail.com> writes:

> I just wanted to know if emacs was going to produce a
> word processor plugin or whatever.

Come to think of it, perhaps that's not a bad idea and
some people should have done something to that extent,
I'm sure (because there are zillion Emacs projects) -
perhaps checkout the Emacs Wiki for "RTF" or "word
processor"? Perhaps those projects lost steam with the
Org-mode success.

Before this thread, I thought Org-mode was sort of the
Emacs equivalent of a word processor but turns out it
is some sort of markup system which sounds like another
markup language to learn - might as well use HTML or
LaTeX directly in that case, it would seem...

The reason I don't like word processors in general are
they typically rely on the mouse, or/and the cursor
keys, and/or the "Page Up"/"Page Down" keys, to do
cursor movement and scrolling, which I find moronic
compared to the Emacs way. Also, they use the CUA keys
(Ctrl-C to copy etc.) which I consider inferior to the
kill ring (killing and yanking), but not by far by as
wide a margin. Also, word processors are not
programmable like Emacs and the result produced is
proprietary or at best less portable. People tend to
fiddle with fonts and margins and God knows what for
hours just to have another computer or printer
view/print it with other fonts and specifications
anyway...

> I'm not an IT grad and I don't find emacs easy to
> learn.

Being an IT grad typically doesn't apply to that as
much as those educations are theoretical for the most
part, however the same people that are on those
educations often have an interest for tools and the
practical side to it (or "obsession" perhaps is more to
it), so you are both right and wrong. But if you are a
practical man with an interest in how you do things,
and for computers, Emacs shouldn't be difficult to
learn, or acquire a working understanding of, at
least. How it works under the hood, the C and Lisp,
programmers in general don't understand, only those who
have taken special time and interest (lots of both).

> I use it for editing prose text as features I love
> namely; mid cursor positioning (very useful when
> typing pages and pages... irritating in other editors
> to constantly type at the bottom of the screen)

Interesting. I never thought (or used) that, what is
it? I can't say I have a problem typing anywhere but I
use a projector so when I have my head straight my eyes
are actually at the bottom 4th or 5th of the "screen".

> wordstar keybindings (still the most efficient and
> still popular with writers)

I never heard of WordStar - it doesn't seem to be
related to Oracle's StarOffice either because it
originated from a program called StarWriter. The Emacs'
keybindings for point movement, the C-f, C-b, M-f, M-b,
etc. and the whole char/word/line/etc. division is
obviously fantastic, one of the things with Emacs that
I always mention as it makes typing a whole other
experience.

> visual line mode (softwrap or whatever you want to
> call the equivalent) which few editors do
> effectively...

I used visual-line-mode in my early Emacs days but then
I got more into the "it should look exactly as it is"
so I switched to auto-fill-mode.

> my other favourite editor is gedit

gedit? Isn't that the basic editor you get with GNOME
that's hardly more than notepad?

> My gripe with emacs is that it takes a lot of
> learning. Natural app for the IT graduate. I'd love
> to have a LUG group where I could sit down for an
> hour with someone and go through a few things to
> reduce the learning curve.

I think you overestimate the IT graduates. Most IT
graduates have horrible taste just like anyone else and
they are not passionate about their editors. They just
use what's in front of them - Eclipse, for
example... Anyway, lacking a LUG you can use this
list. It is what it is for. A lot of the loud
discussion may concern coding and other advanced topics
but it is just what people enjoy to discuss. Very basic
questions are just as fine and people enjoy answering
them as well. Good luck!

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Emanuel Berg]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> I never heard of WordStar - it doesn't seem to be
> related to Oracle's StarOffice either because it
> originated from a program called StarWriter.

Wait... It's coming back to me. Like a blue, gray, and
white star as the splash screen, for the early PC? Back
then, I used computers from the accursed Apple world,
so the word processors were MacWrite, M$ Word, and,
much later, ClarisWorks (shivers). On the PC at
somewhat the same time, perhaps a bit later, there were
the WordPerfect, which was simpler, along with Word.

For the Unix world, I have read there was once an
editor called ed that didn't showed the file being
manipulated at all - the "state" of the file, as it was
called (unbelievable). Some people actually liked that,
so some other people made em ("ed for mortals") which I
believe showed a single line - that project (em) forked
to ex (extended editor) and ded (display editor). ex
later became vi (visual editor) and even later vim ("vi
improved").

Emacs (or EMACS, the macro editor) came from the MIT
project TECO (text/tape editor and corrector).

nano is another very basic editor yet to be mentioned.

sed (stream editor) is not really an editor - a batch
editor perhaps, but then there are many Unix tools that
maps input to output, where both currencies are text
streams.

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Emanuel Berg]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> Emacs (or EMACS, the macro editor) came from the MIT
> project TECO (text/tape editor and corrector).

Or perhaps "Editing MACroS" is more correct.

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[James Freer]

On Thu, 29 May 2014, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:
>
>> I never heard of WordStar - it doesn't seem to be
>> related to Oracle's StarOffice either because it
>> originated from a program called StarWriter.
>
> Wait... It's coming back to me. Like a blue, gray, and
> white star as the splash screen, for the early PC? Back
> then, I used computers from the accursed Apple world,
> so the word processors were MacWrite, M$ Word, and,
> much later, ClarisWorks (shivers). On the PC at
> somewhat the same time, perhaps a bit later, there were
> the WordPerfect, which was simpler, along with Word.
>
> For the Unix world, I have read there was once an
> editor called ed that didn't showed the file being
> manipulated at all - the "state" of the file, as it was
> called (unbelievable). Some people actually liked that,
> so some other people made em ("ed for mortals") which I
> believe showed a single line - that project (em) forked
> to ex (extended editor) and ded (display editor). ex
> later became vi (visual editor) and even later vim ("vi
> improved").
>
> Emacs (or EMACS, the macro editor) came from the MIT
> project TECO (text/tape editor and corrector).
>
> nano is another very basic editor yet to be mentioned.

Wordstar may have 'died' long ago but it had the most efficient keybindings of 
any editor/word processor - experts tell me! Writers still use it. Word Perfect 
and Word replaced it as you say - they were simpler to learn.

Somehow 'oldies' like me - the WS keybindings don't leave you... even when you 
are over 50 and 30 years has past. As for editors there are hundreds and yet 
very few are suitable for prose unless they have a true wordwrap like emacs, 
gedit, and dare I say it an editor beginning with 'V'.

The Wordstar keybindings don't seem to fully work in emacs so I am going to 
learn the emacs ones.

james

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Allan Streib]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> writes:

> For the Unix world, I have read there was once an
> editor called ed that didn't showed the file being
> manipulated at all - the "state" of the file, as it was
> called (unbelievable).

Teletypes and other brands of paper-based "terminals" were commonplace
then. You didn't need (nor was it practical) for the editor to display
the contents of the file, when it was already printed on the paper in
front of you. So you used sed-like search/replace commands.

Even the first CRTs were dumb (aka "glass teletypes") and didn't have
addressable cursors. You cloud clear and redraw the screen maybe, which
was painful at 110 or 300 baud.

Allan

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Robert Thorpe]

Allan Streib <astreib@indiana.edu> writes:
> Teletypes and other brands of paper-based "terminals" were commonplace
> then. You didn't need (nor was it practical) for the editor to display
> the contents of the file, when it was already printed on the paper in
> front of you. So you used sed-like search/replace commands.

The evolution of TECO was similar.  The first versions were made for
teletypes and later on versions were made for CRTs terminals.

In those days programs were punched onto cards using keypunches or
punched onto paper tape.  Sometimes they were written on paper and
someone else would punch them in.  In those early days editors were
there to help people fix mistakes afterwards once a file existed on a
tape or disk.  Only later were they used for the whole writing process.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Bob Proulx]

Allan Streib wrote:
> Emanuel Berg writes:
> > For the Unix world, I have read there was once an
> > editor called ed that didn't showed the file being
> > manipulated at all - the "state" of the file, as it was
> > called (unbelievable).

Once was and still is too.  The GNU ed is available.

  http://www.gnu.org/software/ed/

> Teletypes and other brands of paper-based "terminals" were commonplace
> then. You didn't need (nor was it practical) for the editor to display
> the contents of the file, when it was already printed on the paper in
> front of you. So you used sed-like search/replace commands.

When I was at university I wrote thousands of lines of code using qed
(a precurser to ed on the old Honeywell GCOS system) and paper
terminals over acoustic coupled modems.  If nothing else it will teach
you how to use regular expressions at a very deep level!  Editors like
ed are actually very efficient if you know how to use them.

> Even the first CRTs were dumb (aka "glass teletypes") and didn't have
> addressable cursors. You cloud clear and redraw the screen maybe, which
> was painful at 110 or 300 baud.

Agreed.  Very painful.  From first hand experience.

Here is a funny modern day ed story.  Well it is funny to me anyway.
At one time I and another buddy George were helping someone with a
problem he was working on.  It came time to edit a file.  I told him
"Edit the file by your favorite method."  I usually avoid saying
"emacs the file" or "vi(m) the file".  Everyone prefers a different
editor.  Use whatever editor you normally use.

For whatever reason this person typed in "ed thefilename" and then
looked up at me.  I knew it was a typing mistake.  I should have said,
"Do you really mean to use ed on that file?"  But instead I looked at
George.  George looked at me.  We had both used ed a lot in the past.
Out of a sense of perversity we both said together, "Okay.  Let's do
it!"  And then we began to give him 'ed' editing instructions for the
file.  It was a short file so "1,$p" to see it all and then
"3s/foo/bar/p", "g/baz/s//foo/" and so forth to make the needed
changes.  Editing went pretty quick.  "wq" writes the file and quits.

Afterward this person asked George and myself why had we used ed?  I
said that we didn't have anything to do with that choice.  He was
driving the keyboard.  The choice of editor was his!  I am still
chuckling about it.  But I guess this is one of those where you had to
be there...

I still prefer emacs however.

Bob

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Rusi]

On Friday, May 30, 2014 9:01:18 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Allan Streib wrote:
> > Emanuel Berg writes:
> > > For the Unix world, I have read there was once an
> > > editor called ed that didn't showed the file being
> > > manipulated at all - the "state" of the file, as it was
> > > called (unbelievable).

> Once was and still is too.  The GNU ed is available.

>   http://www.gnu.org/software/ed/

> > Teletypes and other brands of paper-based "terminals" were commonplace
> > then. You didn't need (nor was it practical) for the editor to display
> > the contents of the file, when it was already printed on the paper in
> > front of you. So you used sed-like search/replace commands.

> When I was at university I wrote thousands of lines of code using qed
> (a precurser to ed on the old Honeywell GCOS system) and paper
> terminals over acoustic coupled modems.  If nothing else it will teach
> you how to use regular expressions at a very deep level!  Editors like
> ed are actually very efficient if you know how to use them.

> > Even the first CRTs were dumb (aka "glass teletypes") and didn't have
> > addressable cursors. You cloud clear and redraw the screen maybe, which
> > was painful at 110 or 300 baud.

> Agreed.  Very painful.  From first hand experience.

> Here is a funny modern day ed story.
:
:
> I still prefer emacs however.

Yeah I had a friend who staunchly believed that using ed
would clarify the thoughts and purify the soul.

I sometimes get the feel that we emacs users look like analogous cartoons to
the current generation.

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Emanuel Berg]

Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> Yeah I had a friend who staunchly believed that using
> ed would clarify the thoughts and purify the soul.

If you don't mind (no pun intended), why not put a
little more effort on sensible quotes? (Look above.)
[Actually I had to remove it, Gnus wouldn't let me send
it.]

But, the whole clarification of thoughts and
purification of the (analytic) soul is something I
have spent years on now. I'm pretty sure this can be
achieved with Emacs, you don't have to dig deeper than
that. Or you can keep that digging to Emacs, its
enough, perhaps I should say...

But one aspect that isn't mentioned that often is that
it works both ways. A couple of years ago, I could do
Windows and MS Access or whatever at day, and then get
a quick fix of much-needed oxygen at night with the
sweet Linux shell and Emacs. Now I refuse to do that,
it is actually painful mentally and physically. When I
see a programmer operate such a program, clicking on
everything and all that, sticking his head into the
monitor on the laptop (on the table) with a minimal
keyboard, I have to remind myself he is actually doing
sensible work - because to me it looks like it is some
show at the zoo or circus. Ha-ha, no joke, it is
lonesome at the top... :)

> I sometimes get the feel that we emacs users look
> like analogous cartoons to the current generation.

Yes, it would be very, very interesting to know how
those guys think about software and tools! I only know
how I think - good question, how do they think?!

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Emanuel Berg]

James Freer <jessejazza3.uk@gmail.com> writes:

> Wordstar may have 'died' long ago but it had the most
> efficient keybindings of any editor/word processor -
> experts tell me! Writers still use it. Word Perfect
> and Word replaced it as you say - they were simpler
> to learn.

What were the WS keybindings characteristics and what
makes them superior in your mind?

And what do you mean by "writers" - do you mean writers
of novels, plays, etc.? Or do you mean writers like you
and me, right now?

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[James Freer]

On Fri, 30 May 2014, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> James Freer <jessejazza3.uk@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Wordstar may have 'died' long ago but it had the most
>> efficient keybindings of any editor/word processor -
>> experts tell me! Writers still use it. Word Perfect
>> and Word replaced it as you say - they were simpler
>> to learn.
>
> What were the WS keybindings characteristics and what
> makes them superior in your mind?
>
> And what do you mean by "writers" - do you mean writers
> of novels, plays, etc.? Or do you mean writers like you
> and me, right now?

Ws keybindings were the most efficient requiring less movement across the 
keyboard. Designed when Caps lock was the ctrl key (also the same with emacs of 
years ago). Many writers (do a google) i.e. authors have an old PC that they 
keep for running WS on DOS. Just found Wordtsar (I mean the TSAR) a project 
started on a cross platform 'wordstar' but the project seem to have slowed 
down.

DOS Word is popular too with writers it seems e.g. George Martin. But if 
someone had introduced him to emacs then.... We are all writers in the sense we 
use a word processor. I may be wrong but for me I find a console is less tiring 
on the eyes... another reason for me considering emacs, the console version 
will fit in with my console email client.

To me emacs offers a lot for a writer, and I am experimenting with the WS 
keybindings but I think there is a bit of adjustment if one then switches to 
Org or something similar. Remaining with emacs keybindings is perhaps a better 
move. I'm just experimenting for a few days.

james

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Emanuel Berg]

James Freer <jessejazza3.uk@gmail.com> writes:

> Ws keybindings were the most efficient requiring less
> movement across the keyboard.

Yeah, but that's what I always say about the Emacs
bindings. They are close and short, except a few, which
I have redefined :)

> DOS Word is popular too with writers it seems
> e.g. George Martin.

A friend sent me this interview with GRRM:

- I have two computers, one for email, taxes, surfing,
etc. And I have a writing computer, a DOS-machine, not
connected to the internet.
   
- A DOS machine?
   
- Yeah, remember DOS?
   
- I'm curious to why you would stick with this old
program?
   
- I use WordStar 4.0 (DOS) I like it, it does
everything I want a word processing program to do, and
it doesn't do anything else. I don't want any help, you
know, I hate some of these modern systems where you
type a lower case letter and it becomes capital. I
don't want it capital, If I wanted it capital, I would
have typed it capital, I know how to work the shift
key! I hate spell check, especially since I write about
the realm of 'Orbitor'.

> We are all writers in the sense we use a word
> processor.

Or an editor (which of course processes words in the
general sense, just as a word processor edits files in
the general sense).

> I may be wrong but for me I find a console is less
> tiring on the eyes...

That's absolutely right but I suspect that has to do
with the color scheme (bright-on-dark), much less
distractions and movements (none, unless you type), and
no mouse use where you have to squeeze your eyes and
"aim", move you hand back and forth (look down to
"reset"), and such things.

> another reason for me considering emacs, the console
> version will fit in with my console email client.

Yeah, I use Gnus, the other guy use RMAIL, that's very
common and a huge advantage.

> To me emacs offers a lot for a writer, and I am
> experimenting with the WS keybindings but I think
> there is a bit of adjustment if one then switches to
> Org or something similar. Remaining with emacs
> keybindings is perhaps a better move.

Yes.

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[James Freer]

On 30/05/2014, Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote:
> James Freer <jessejazza3.uk@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Ws keybindings were the most efficient requiring less
>> movement across the keyboard.
>
> Yeah, but that's what I always say about the Emacs
> bindings. They are close and short, except a few, which
> I have redefined :)

You could well be right - I'm just experimenting with emacs. Using WS
keys could well conflict with others... I have read this but yet to
test it for myself. I noticed how having installed Org that certain
menu bars 'grey out' so I wonder what conflicts there are to show
their face.

>> DOS Word is popular too with writers it seems
>> e.g. George Martin.
>
> A friend sent me this interview with GRRM:
>
> - I have two computers, one for email, taxes, surfing,
> etc. And I have a writing computer, a DOS-machine, not
> connected to the internet.
>
> - A DOS machine?
>
> - Yeah, remember DOS?
>
> - I'm curious to why you would stick with this old
> program?
>
> - I use WordStar 4.0 (DOS) I like it, it does
> everything I want a word processing program to do, and
> it doesn't do anything else. I don't want any help, you
> know, I hate some of these modern systems where you
> type a lower case letter and it becomes capital. I
> don't want it capital, If I wanted it capital, I would
> have typed it capital, I know how to work the shift
> key! I hate spell check, especially since I write about
> the realm of 'Orbitor'.

LOL - I quoted incorrectly... you're right he uses Wordstar not Word.
I had read that and I was quoting from memory.

> That's absolutely right but I suspect that has to do
> with the color scheme (bright-on-dark), much less
> distractions and movements (none, unless you type), and
> no mouse use where you have to squeeze your eyes and
> "aim", move you hand back and forth (look down to
> "reset"), and such things.
>
>> another reason for me considering emacs, the console
>> version will fit in with my console email client.
>
> Yeah, I use Gnus, the other guy use RMAIL, that's very
> common and a huge advantage.

I tried setting up Gnus and abandoned it with the intention of trying
again. Mh is the other one. Thing is I like to use an email client to
read (in my case) the imap server rather than downloading all the
headers... remote use I believe it's called. Use Alpine and like it...
tried Mutt but took too long to set up (for me anyway!). Gnus canbe
set up the same way and I'll give it another go sometime.

james

Re: editor and word processor history (was: Re: RTF for emacs)

[Emanuel Berg]

Allan Streib <astreib@indiana.edu> writes:

> Teletypes and other brands of paper-based "terminals"
> were commonplace then. You didn't need (nor was it
> practical) for the editor to display the contents of
> the file, when it was already printed on the paper in
> front of you.

Oh, man, what a disappointment!

I thought it was like blind chess or something!

When I had (more severe) eye problems a couple of years
back, I learned that you don't have to see, write, and
type everything, you can do a lot by just closing your
eyes and visualize things, and then, when the situation
improves, just let your hands go, it's all there.

This insight was helpful - however, it required a very
high degree of focus which most people around couldn't
understand (which was understandable, looking back) and
this led to many unpleasant situations.

Speaking of blind chess, I read somewhere that in the
Soviet Union, the most brilliant (and fanatical)
chess-brains decided to outdo the rest of the chess
community by having tournaments playing several blind
games in parallel - and that the government eventually
had to put an end to it, as it was dangerous to
maintain such an super-human mental effort, in a
competitive setting, and for such an amount of time, at
that.

Unbelievable! Can you imagine what happened after that?
Like chess players sneaking around the streets of
Alma-Ata and Tbilisi, banging on steel doors with
little windows, passing passwords just to get into
illegal tournaments...! "Hey Andrei, open the good damn
door, the KGB is all over the place!"

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573