Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Hans BKK]

Since some of my ideas here may run counter to the canonical "emacs way" dogma, thought I'd post this separately rather than side-tracking the original thread: http://groups.google.com/d/msg/gnu.emacs.help/1wWyCzr6TDo/4Anbnr_PsFgJ


On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Robert Thorpe wrote:
>> Before I start getting to know emacs as an end-users - which I'm
>> highly motivated to do, despite the amazingly steep learning curve to
>> do the most basic things - I plan to of course highly customize my
>> emacs environment to suit my needs, before starting the muscle-memory
>> training required to become efficient.
>
> There's no one right way to learn Emacs.  But, I think the way you're
> choosing is a lot of work.
>
> You can start off using it for everyday editing, that's what I did and
> what lots of people do.  I expect you've done the tutorial and learned
> the keybindings, that's very useful.  Then read a bit of the manual
> and the internet resources occasionally and learn more.
>
> You only really need to looks for customizations, enable non-default
> packages, etc. when you run into a problem or you feel something is
> inefficient.  Why change the standard behaviour if it's not a problem?
<snip>

I am learning customization before ordinary usage in editing very intentionally; emacs' value as a portable lifetime meta-OS dev/org/comms platform is far more important to me than its comparatively trivial role as an editor.

The whole point to me of bothering with the learning curve [1] of a complex platform like emacs is to create my own highly-customized version, and the keybindings seems (again, to me) to be a logical place to start, ideally before getting sucked into the vanilla-emacs shift-Alt-Ctrl-Super-Meta-Cmd (IMO sorry-but-insane ancient-legacy) default keybindings for routine navigation and editing usage.

I will of course leave many hundreds of commands alone, especially for the more obscure and complex, less frequently used modes and packages not worth taking the time to customize.

Ideally my emacs will be keystroke-compatible with the de-facto standard bindings for the most-used editing-basic functions, as followed by most other mainstream editors released in recent decades, so my 5-y.o. kid and grandmother could juat sit down and use it.

If that's not practical then I'll choose/adapt one of the vi modes, I've got some previous muscle-memory invested there already and like the freedom to use simpler home-row keys offered by vim's modal aspect.

The whole purpose of this initial delta-parsing-via-diff project is to settle on one of these starter-kit keybinding packages and then to bring over the best-of-breed features from the also-rans as needed/desired.

THEN to start learning to use "my emacs" as much as possible in my daily workflow, optimizing my muscle-memory training.

[1] http://jaleelchen.com/archives/469

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Emanuel Berg]

Hans BKK <hansbkk@gmail.com> writes:

> I am learning customization before ordinary usage in
> editing very intentionally

Do both at the same time. You are using Emacs when you
customize Emacs. Also, how do you know what makes sense
to configure, and what doesn't, without using the
program to begin with? Seems to me, you are thinking of
implementing an idea from scratch, and then be done
with it. That's very seldom a good way. It is much
better to incorporate configuration in normal usage -
do one improvement every day, instead. It should be an
evolutionary processes, if you will, not a single
Hercules-deed.

> emacs' value as a portable lifetime meta-OS
> dev/org/comms platform is far more important to me
> than its comparatively trivial role as an editor.

Say what?! The *editor* is the thing you use when you
do all those things you mention.

A computer system is data, organized into files. Which
an editor manipulates (as well as creates, deletes,
etc.) The editor is by far the single most important
tool for general computer work.

Emacs isn't exactly an OS in the non-interactive kernel
sense (though you can schedule things with Emacs).

> The whole point to me of bothering with the learning
> curve [1] of a complex platform like emacs is to
> create my own highly-customized version, and the
> keybindings seems (again, to me) to be a logical
> place to start, ideally before getting sucked into
> the vanilla-emacs shift-Alt-Ctrl-Super-Meta-Cmd (IMO
> sorry-but-insane ancient-legacy) default keybindings
> for routine navigation and editing usage.

Some of the Emacs default keybindings are great, for
example the M-f, C-p, etc. for cursor movements.

Some are not so good. Those that are not so good are
either too long (involve lots of keydowns) *or* they
are what I call "far" - so you have to *reach* for
them, and then reset your hands to start typing again.

A third category (that I don't like) is in "non-typing
modes" (e.g., w3m, browsing man-pages) when the whole
keyboard is available (as there isn't any typing) - to
still use long, bulky combinations. Use one letter
keydowns instead! "a" for append, "p" for previous, and
so on.

One of my favourite customization that I setup for
every and all modes (that I use) - just to give an
example how I think it should be, in general - is M-i
and M-k (for scroll up one line, and down one line,
respectively). If you try those out with correct hand
positions, you should notice what minimal hand (finger)
movement they require.

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

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 13:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Hans BKK <hansbkk@gmail.com>
> 
> > There's no one right way to learn Emacs.  But, I think the way you're
> > choosing is a lot of work.
> >
> > You can start off using it for everyday editing, that's what I did and
> > what lots of people do.  I expect you've done the tutorial and learned
> > the keybindings, that's very useful.  Then read a bit of the manual
> > and the internet resources occasionally and learn more.
> >
> > You only really need to looks for customizations, enable non-default
> > packages, etc. when you run into a problem or you feel something is
> > inefficient.  Why change the standard behaviour if it's not a problem?
> <snip>
> 
> I am learning customization before ordinary usage in editing very intentionally; emacs' value as a portable lifetime meta-OS dev/org/comms platform is far more important to me than its comparatively trivial role as an editor.

Almost no one uses Emacs as merely an editor.  I think most, if not
all, of those who write in this forum are like you: they use Emacs for
much more than just editing text.  Therefore, the suggestions you get
here is not limited to editing.  You are well advised to take those
suggestions under consideration, even if you don't agree with them
eventually.  Don't dismiss them too quickly: they have a very large
number of combined man-years of experience behind them.

> The whole point to me of bothering with the learning curve [1] of a complex platform like emacs is to create my own highly-customized version, and the keybindings seems (again, to me) to be a logical place to start, ideally before getting sucked into the vanilla-emacs shift-Alt-Ctrl-Super-Meta-Cmd (IMO sorry-but-insane ancient-legacy) default keybindings for routine navigation and editing usage.

There are emulation packages (like cua-mode) that do that for you.  No
need to roll out your own bindings (which might not work well, because
some CUA shortcuts conflict with very important Emacs keybindings,
which you don't want to break).

In any case, the above is exactly in line with what you were advised:
start Emacs in its default configuration, then identify your special
needs that aren't satisfied by that (Emacs by default already supports
several CUA standard keys), then try looking for an optional bundled
package which already does what you want, and only of all of the above
fails, proceed to rolling your own.

> I will of course leave many hundreds of commands alone, especially for the more obscure and complex, less frequently used modes and packages not worth taking the time to customize.

Alas, there's no practical way of discovering which is which.  If you
intended to go over all of the commands provided by Emacs, then that's
impractical, as there are too many of them, even if you restrict
yourself to the default configuration.  IOW, the way you intend to
take is much longer and less efficient than what was suggested to you.

> Ideally my emacs will be keystroke-compatible with the de-facto standard bindings for the most-used editing-basic functions, as followed by most other mainstream editors released in recent decades, so my 5-y.o. kid and grandmother could juat sit down and use it.

Again, if you turn on cua-mode, you will have most, if not all, of
what your kid and grandmother need.  No need to take this philosophy
farther than it needs to go.  As soon as you start talking about
features that are not text editing, there are no de-facto standards
for most keybindings, so you either adopt what Emacs provides, or come
up with yet another incompatible set of bindings.

One significant advantage of using the standard Emacs bindings is that
your muscle memory will still be applicable when you need to work on
someone else's machine, or even explain to someone else how to solve a
problem in their Emacs.  This isn't something to dismiss easily in the
long run.

Happy hacking!

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1214 bytes --]

() Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
() Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:06:23 +0300

   > leave many hundreds of commands alone, especially for the more
   > obscure and complex, less frequently used modes and packages not
   > worth taking the time to customize.

   Alas, there's no practical way of discovering which is which.  If
   you intended to go over all of the commands provided by Emacs, then
   that's impractical, as there are too many of them, even if you
   restrict yourself to the default configuration.  IOW, the way you
   intend to take is much longer and less efficient than what was
   suggested to you.

I agree OP's way is impractical and inefficient, but that doesn't mean
it is impossible or undesirable.  It's no problem for people to scope
out the joint before joining the party; the door is always open and the
Software is (as always, thank GNU very much) Free.  Too, some sidewalk
spectacle is its own reward, and keeps the puke out of the punchbowl...

-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:39:50 +0200
> 
> I agree OP's way is impractical and inefficient, but that doesn't mean
> it is impossible or undesirable.

Really?  I thought they were one and the same, at least in most
quarters.

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Florian v. Savigny]

  > From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>
  > 
  > I agree OP's way is impractical and inefficient, but that doesn't mean
  > it is impossible or undesirable.  It's no problem for people to scope
  > out the joint before joining the party; the door is always open and the
  > Software is (as always, thank GNU very much) Free.  Too, some sidewalk
  > spectacle is its own reward, and keeps the puke out of the punchbowl...

Hmm. I am a bit unsure about what precisely you mean by "keeping the
puke out of the punchbowl" - would you mind explaining that?

Provided this expression does not completely change the meaning, I
understand you mean that it is an interesting experiment, to which I
would agree. It would seem to me that Hans' list of symbols function
could turn out useful as an additional diagnostic tool for people who
are trying to take a look behind the scenes for whatever reason, but
at the same time finding it to cumbersome to read the whole source
code of whatever package or functionality.

Nevertheless, Hans, I have to admit I still do not really understand
how you are going to understand Emacs better by looking at hundreds of
symbols (or maybe I have got something wrong). From my experience, the
Lisp symbols actually in use range from the highly important to the
rather obscure (i.e. those which only have a role for working around
some glitch, or which the programmer only introduced because (s)he had
no better idea, or whatever).

I am particularly puzzled because you are calling the learning curve
for Emacs amazingly steep. That might be true, even if I am far from
sure about that -- it would seem to me that the learning curve chiefly
has to do with the keybindings, which are manageable, and probably the
fact that there is always more to learn, but the latter is something
you do not HAVE to do, and otherwise actually a nice fact - you often
discover additional functionality as you start desiring it. (AKA
"There should be a function that...," followed by the discovery that
it actually already exists.)  But most importantly, I cannot imagine
how the learning curve with your method can be any less steep, instead
of, I imagine, about 10 times steeper.

As to the keybindings, I think you do have a point here, but the issue
is actually complicated. The double (not to mention even longer)
combinations a la C-x C-f can indeed be cumbersome if you need them
often. If, that is. C-x C-f is not a good example, because it is used
rarely enough not to make itself noticeable as cumbersome. And some
commands are so rarely used that it actually makes more sense to call
them with M-x and by their names.

Nevertheless, even if Microsoft bindings such as C-v for paste and C-c
for copy can be called a standard with good reason, given the
prevalence of Windows systems, I think you need to take into account
that those which "everybody" knows only call a small handful of
functions (I, for one, can think of C-c, C-x, C-v, C-o, C-p, C-a, C-s,
C-z, and C-y), and it is obvious that this scheme cannot accomodate
more than 26 commands. (Alt- always calls a menu.)  Thus, those
bindings are not that powerful if looked at closely, while the Emacs
bindings are almost infinitely extensible. I virtually never call a
menu when I work in Emacs. (When I do, I literally use them as
"menus", i.e. to have a look at what else is on offer.)

Second, from my experience, many grandmothers work at Windows PCs
without even using (or knowing) C-c and the like.

Third, the Emacs style of keybindings is also a standard (as, as I
suppose, the vi-style bindings are, but I have no experience with
vi). It is used, for example, on the bash command line, and in many
Unix programs.

Fourth, some, perhaps many, Emacs keybindings are more ergonomic: C-e
and C-a are easier to reach than End or Home, and M-f and M-b more so
than C-left arrow and C-right arrow. (And, arguably, reserving
Alt-Letter for menus can be called a design error in that respect.)
Marking a region is also more ergonomic...

What I do agree with is that the unfamiliarity of Emacs bindings can
turn people away from Emacs before they notice it is not actually a
big deal. (My impression is actually that it is important how memnonic
the key combinations are - M-f and M-b, for example, are easy to
remember, while C-w is unintuitive. It is natural to me now, but only
because I have used it for years.) What is also a bit of a problem is
the concurrence of the two standards - I regularly have to work in
LibreOffice Writer, and sometimes inadvertently use Emacs keys there.

Thus, it might be a really worthy undertaking to explore if it is
possible to find a scheme that reasonably reconciles these two
standards, i.e. finds the best subset, both in terms of memnonics and
ergonomics (but then I don't know anything about Mac bindings - still
different?). A bit like a Unicode for keyboard commands, that is.

Independently, the most useful approach is probably an individual
one. As others have pointed out, impractical keybindings do exist (C-c
C-o C-a, for example, for nxml-show-all, is really an absurd monster.)
But then it would be best to observe which functions you call how
often, and define really short keybindings for them. As others have
pointed out, you can always find such free short keybindings. And even
if you really don't, you can still redefine keys.

(My personal favourite for more rare commands is the style C-c a [abc]
for a related family of commands, i.e. using a single letter (here, "a")
as another prefix key. In this example, you'd get C-c a a, C-c a b, or
C-c a c, i.e. three commands which start with C-c a.)

By the way, is there a function analogous to open-dribble-file, which
records all the COMMAND calls (not keys), and which would enable you
to statistically evaluate how often you call which function? That
would certainly be of great help to anybody wishing to define more
keyboard commands that enable them to write more ergonomically.


[Sorry if this has got rather long. I have shortened, but now I am
running out of time.]

-- 

Florian von Savigny
Melanchthonstr. 41
33615 Bielefeld

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Rusi]

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 1:36:23 PM UTC+5:30, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> One significant advantage of using the standard Emacs bindings is that
> your muscle memory will still be applicable when you need to work on
> someone else's machine, or even explain to someone else how to solve a
> problem in their Emacs.  This isn't something to dismiss easily in the
> long run.

I once discovered that a co-worker was very mad at me.
I then discovered it was because for some reason he had to turn on my machine,
then he could not turn it off.
I had flipped CAPSLOCK and Ctrl so Ctrl-Alt-Del stopped being what he thought it
 was :-) (Windows machine)

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Florian v. Savigny]

Sorry:

  > at the same time finding it to cumbersome to read the whole source

                               too cumbersome


, of course.


-- 

Florian von Savigny
Melanchthonstr. 41
33615 Bielefeld

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 809 bytes --]

() Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
() Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:04:21 +0300

   Really?  I thought they were one and the same, at least in most
   quarters.

For some (maybe most) people, making the effort to understand what makes
a goal impractical in the eyes of the experienced is the most important
practice to undertake.  (Insert destination/journey blurb here.)

If OP can vaunt the small hurdles along the way, who knows, maybe the
big ones we (think we) see will prove easily surmountable after all
(with a SMOP :-D).  This is how the "old" can learn from the "young".

-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:12:29 +0200
> 
> For some (maybe most) people, making the effort to understand what makes
> a goal impractical in the eyes of the experienced is the most important
> practice to undertake.

I could explain that, if needed.  It's not hard to understand.

> If OP can vaunt the small hurdles along the way, who knows, maybe the
> big ones we (think we) see will prove easily surmountable after all
> (with a SMOP :-D).  This is how the "old" can learn from the "young".

There's nothing the "old" can learn from the "young" (for some values
of "old" and "young").  Wisdom flows in the other direction.

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 886 bytes --]

() florian@fsavigny.de (Florian v. Savigny)
() Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:00:13 +0200

   Hmm. I am a bit unsure about what precisely you mean by "keeping the
   puke out of the punchbowl" - would you mind explaining that?

It's an expression that alliterates on the "p" sound, that fits in with
the party analogy (another "p" word), and is somewhat tasteless but not
entirely vulgar (like some other "p" words you can probably imagine).

Personally (another "p" word), i have done my part (and another!):
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-gnu-emacs/2013-11/msg00360.html>
since 2008, but hope to get back to jamming once gnugo.el bumps version.

-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Hans BKK]

I haven't the bandwidth to respond to all the comments, and don't want to waste yours either, but thanks to all for the valuable advice.

Just to clarify, I'm not planning on doing all my learning by just exploring my list of functions etc. I'm looking at the A-B diff's more so than the whole collection, the idea is to be able to see in one place what **changes** these "better default" packages make to the vanilla settings, and to enable me to systematically compare them to each other. 

"Test-driving" them and trying to understand their source code are of course also part of the process.

My goal isn't to flatten the "usage" learning curve, but to help me climb the "customizing" one faster - and the process of putting code together and diving into emacs' internals is all part of that. I also didn't mean to put so much focus on the keybindings issue, just that's why I'm holding off on the hands-on usage for the moment until I've got a good set in mind, checking out the various key popular packages bundled in these "out of the box" starter kits is also part of the project.

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Bob Proulx]

Rusi wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > One significant advantage of using the standard Emacs bindings is that
> > your muscle memory will still be applicable when you need to work on
> > someone else's machine, or even explain to someone else how to solve a
> > problem in their Emacs.  This isn't something to dismiss easily in the
> > long run.

One problem is that the standard emacs keys appear to be changing.  I
like the traditional emacs keys.  But many people prefer CUA mode.
CUA mode drives me crazy.  Much of my .emacs file is to change things
back to traditional settings.

In practice I find that remapping keys like control to capslock is not
a problem.  I set a few custom keys.  I can type at my own keyboard.
I can type at other people's keyboards.  I notice the difference
because I prefer my own mapping but there isn't any problem.  Rather
the same as when I use vi.  I can switch back and forth between vi and
emacs and not have any problems.  I also know people who use native
Dvorak key layouts.  They also claim that they prefer Dvorak but
switch between it and Qwerty without it being a problem.  I can only
imagine this is similar to when people are fluently bi-lingual and can
switch languages without problem.

> I once discovered that a co-worker was very mad at me.
> I then discovered it was because for some reason he had to turn on
> my machine, then he could not turn it off.
> I had flipped CAPSLOCK and Ctrl so Ctrl-Alt-Del stopped being what
>  he thought it was :-) (Windows machine)

CapsLock always becomes control for me too.  I have a label maker.  I
put a sticker "Ctrl" on that key, "ESC" on another.  Problem solved!

Bob

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:13:12 -0600
> From: Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com>
> 
> Rusi wrote:
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > One significant advantage of using the standard Emacs bindings is that
> > > your muscle memory will still be applicable when you need to work on
> > > someone else's machine, or even explain to someone else how to solve a
> > > problem in their Emacs.  This isn't something to dismiss easily in the
> > > long run.
> 
> One problem is that the standard emacs keys appear to be changing.  I
> like the traditional emacs keys.  But many people prefer CUA mode.
> CUA mode drives me crazy.  Much of my .emacs file is to change things
> back to traditional settings.

The standard keybindings are changing (slowly) to be more friendly to
newcomers.  We the veteran users count less, since we already know how
to customize Emacs to behave like we are used to.

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Robert Thorpe]

Hans BKK <hansbkk@gmail.com> writes:

> I also didn't mean to put so much focus on the keybindings issue, just
> that's why I'm holding off on the hands-on usage for the moment until
> I've got a good set in mind, checking out the various key popular
> packages bundled in these "out of the box" starter kits is also part of
> the project.

I don't use the starter kits, but in general they don't change the
default keybindings much.  Often they do things like displaying a
different buffer menu if C-x C-b is pressed.  But that doesn't really
change the meaning of the C-x C-b is still means "bring up the buffer
menu".

As far as I can tell from it's documentation Emacs-starter-kit changes
nothing.

Prelude makes the following changes:
* C-M-h is changed from mark-defun to backward kill word.
* C-- is changed from negative argument to shrink font.
* C-x m is changed from write email to eshell.
* M-o is changed from set face to insert line with indentation.

Graphene makes only one significant change C-x k always kills the
current buffer.  Default Emacs asks for a buffer to kill and default to
the current one.

You're not likely to notice any of those differences for a long time.
Using C-x m for eshell instead of email would confuse me, that's the
only big change though.

Regular Emacs and all the starter kits come with cua-mode and evil so
you can use CUA or VI keybindings if you want.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Emanuel Berg]

Hans BKK <hansbkk@gmail.com> writes:

> My goal isn't to flatten the "usage" learning curve,
> but to help me climb the "customizing" one faster

Again, I don't see any conflict.

This is how I did it:

Make a keystroke to go instantly to the .emacs file (or
directory of config/extension files, when .emacs starts
to get big).

When you get an idea, hit the keystroke and try to
implement it - and start small. Keystrokes, face
colors, etc. are ideal to begin with (and the result
immediately felt). Later, you can rewrite the search
function or whatever.

Sometimes in the course of daily (nightly) activity,
you get an idea, but you don't want to loose focus on
the task at hand. Then I have an interactive todo list
[1], to which I just add an item. That todo list is
never empty for me, no matter how much stuff I do :)
Again, a keystroke to bring up the todo file will get
you there instantly whenever you feel like
playing/working with Elisp extension/configurations
(this can be a pleasant way to relax
actively/constructively, as well) - so at that point,
you don't have to think "what do I do now?" - just pick
of item by item on the todo list.

OK - there are several ways to do things, and this is
just an example (but, I think, a good way) - but the
underlying principle is *activity* - activity leads to
activity. Be active, and configuration will
come. Drawing UML diagrams and the like on a blackboard
on the other hand, won't get anyone anywhere... Don't
plan, *do it*!

> and the process of putting code together and diving
> into emacs' internals is all part of that. I also
> didn't mean to put so much focus on the keybindings
> issue, just that's why I'm holding off on the
> hands-on usage

That doesn't make any sense. I hope you don't get angry
now but I just know that is incorrect. If you want to
be a boxer, you should throw 1000 punches a day. A
programmer: write 1000 lines of code a day. An Emacs
user: use Emacs all night long, and configure/extend a
couple of things every night and day.

This will *not* make you a "mechanical" moron - on the
contrary, doing the basics one million times will open
your body/mind for what is more advanced. And the more
skilled you get at the "mechanical" side to it, the
less resources does your brain have to put to it -
also, the brain will get more skilled at decoding the
signals, produced by the mechanical activity.

To "just do it" does not mean your brain shuts off!

[1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/emacs-init/todo-did.el

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

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Florian v. Savigny]

  > From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>
  > Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:50:15 +0200
  > 
  > It's an expression that alliterates on the "p" sound, that fits in with
  > the party analogy (another "p" word), and is somewhat tasteless but not
  > entirely vulgar (like some other "p" words you can probably imagine).

I did understand it is apparently a (n extended) metaphor that fits in
with the "party" (even if I did not notice the alliteration) but I am
still too dumb to understand WHAT you mean by it. I would definitely
like to.


  > Personally (another "p" word), i have done my part (and another!):
  > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-gnu-emacs/2013-11/msg00360.html>
  > since 2008, but hope to get back to jamming once gnugo.el bumps version.

I enjoyed your linguistic creativity there (which for me personally is
a particularly nice part of the whole GNU experience), but I would,
honestly, be happy if you tried to be understandable to more people
than just the initiated. "To jam" could, as far as I have been able to
determine (and I have checked general dictionaries, the New Hacker's
dictionary, and the Urban Dictionary), have a vast range of meanings,
starting from "to relax" and ending with the implausible (and
unmentionable). Determining that took me about 8 minutes, and I do not
know if the remark was even important enough.

-- 

Florian von Savigny
Melanchthonstr. 41
33615 Bielefeld

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Hans BKK]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 4:26:00 AM UTC-4, Florian v. Savigny wrote:
>   > It's an expression that alliterates on the "p" sound, that fits in with
>   > the party analogy (another "p" word), and is somewhat tasteless but not
>   > entirely vulgar (like some other "p" words you can probably imagine).
> 
> I did understand it is apparently a (n extended) metaphor that fits in
> with the "party" (even if I did not notice the alliteration) but I am
> still too dumb to understand WHAT you mean by it. I would definitely
> like to.

The original context:

>> I agree OP's way is impractical and inefficient, but that doesn't mean it is impossible or undesirable.  It's no problem for people to scope out the joint before joining the party; the door is always open and the Software is (as always, thank GNU very much) Free.  Too, some sidewalk spectacle is its own reward, and keeps the puke out of the punchbowl... 

I interpret this to mean that he is saying my (apparently quixotic) efforts in this little project may if nothing else provide you (plural) bystanders with some entertainment.

Analogy being that the emacs "in-group" are having a party, apparently including in the substance-abusing sense.

My remaining "outside" is perhaps allowing the insiders to continue having fun, as if my going over the top in such unorthodox ways could perhaps spoil the party, as when an out-of-control reveler vomits into the punch bowl at a bacchanalia.

>> Personally (another "p" word), i have done my part (and another!):
>> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-gnu-emacs/2013-11/msg00360.html>
>> since 2008, but hope to get back to jamming once gnugo.el bumps version.

Jamming in this context implies having fun, but not necessarily relaxing - as in music or dance, while in a state of flow, perhaps even ecstasy while being "productive" - again, implications of a transcendental state.

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Rusi]

On Monday, April 21, 2014 12:21:17 AM UTC+5:30, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote
> > One problem is that the standard emacs keys appear to be changing.  I
> > like the traditional emacs keys.  But many people prefer CUA mode.
> > CUA mode drives me crazy.  Much of my .emacs file is to change things
> > back to traditional settings.
> 
> The standard keybindings are changing (slowly) to be more friendly to
> newcomers.  We the veteran users count less, since we already know how
> to customize Emacs to behave like we are used to.

Thank you for these sentiments!

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Bob Proulx]

Rusi wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote
> > > One problem is that the standard emacs keys appear to be changing.  I
> > > like the traditional emacs keys.  But many people prefer CUA mode.
> > > CUA mode drives me crazy.  Much of my .emacs file is to change things
> > > back to traditional settings.
> > 
> > The standard keybindings are changing (slowly) to be more friendly to
> > newcomers.  We the veteran users count less, since we already know how
> > to customize Emacs to behave like we are used to.
> 
> Thank you for these sentiments!

Sorry but I disagree.  Unfortunately that sounds all too much like the
common, "I love you.  You're perfect.  Now change."  :-(

I really don't mind people creating new modes and new programs with
different keybindings.  That's great.  It is only when that breaks it
for existing users that I think it is bad.

Bob

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Robert Thorpe]

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Robert Thorpe]

Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> writes:
> Sorry but I disagree.  Unfortunately that sounds all too much like the
> common, "I love you.  You're perfect.  Now change."  :-(
>
> I really don't mind people creating new modes and new programs with
> different keybindings.  That's great.  It is only when that breaks it
> for existing users that I think it is bad.

I've been using Emacs for 14 years and I can't remember very many
changes.  Did M-; change? I remember some of the CC mode keys changing.
Anyway the changes have never interferred with my usage.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:01:28 -0600
> From: Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com>
> 
> I really don't mind people creating new modes and new programs with
> different keybindings.  That's great.  It is only when that breaks it
> for existing users that I think it is bad.

Each such change is accompanied with an entry in NEWS which is
supposed to tell how to get the old behavior back.  If you don't see
that there, please report a bug (and using the pretest Emacs is the
recommended way of finding such problems and fixing them before the
official release).

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start (was: Generating a listing of all symbols)

[Rusi]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:31:28 AM UTC+5:30, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Rusi wrote:
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Bob Proulx wrote
> > > > One problem is that the standard emacs keys appear to be changing.  I
> > > > like the traditional emacs keys.  But many people prefer CUA mode.
> > > > CUA mode drives me crazy.  Much of my .emacs file is to change things
> > > > back to traditional settings.
> > > The standard keybindings are changing (slowly) to be more friendly to
> > > newcomers.  We the veteran users count less, since we already know how
> > > to customize Emacs to behave like we are used to.
> > Thank you for these sentiments!

> Sorry but I disagree.  Unfortunately that sounds all too much like the
> common, "I love you.  You're perfect.  Now change."  :-(

Yes we disagree!

> I really don't mind people creating new modes and new programs with
> different keybindings.  That's great.  It is only when that breaks it
> for existing users that I think it is bad.

Old keybindings are lower priority (for me) than new users

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Nicolas Richard]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>
>>  This is how the "old" can learn from the "young".
> There's nothing the "old" can learn from the "young" (for some values
> of "old" and "young").

I'm not sure you /learn/ it, but I guess you practice a lot : patience.

-- 
Nico.

Re: Learning "my emacs" from the start

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Nicolas Richard <theonewiththeevillook@yahoo.fr>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:47:19 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>
> >>  This is how the "old" can learn from the "young".
> > There's nothing the "old" can learn from the "young" (for some values
> > of "old" and "young").
> 
> I'm not sure you /learn/ it, but I guess you practice a lot : patience.

I certainly try.