Re: RTF for emacs

Re: RTF for emacs

[Emanuel Berg]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

>> Really, what *is* the use-case for "RTF"?
>
> What about writing a letter to your bank?

Your *what*? :)

> Or writing a short technical document that has to
> include diagrams?  Plain text can't really do these
> things.  Latex can do these things, but it's
> complicated.

It is, but you can usually make it work *once*, then
re-use the solution as your taste probably don't change
that much. (You don't need to bring up old stuff and
compare. Just do a skeleton and type in the new
stuff. Who cares if it gets wastefully intense. It
doesn't matter. It is not programming in that sense.)

The basic stuff isn't difficult, and the basic stuff
certainly includes the RTF stuff (boldface, lists,
simple math formulas etc.). Actually, the basic stuff
(that isn't difficult) gets you a lot more than from a
word processor.

Then, to get the details exactly the way you want can
take some time, yes. I always said, if people had
better taste to begin with, there wouldn't be such a
huge need to configure everything :P

I usually give it a couple of hours. For a detail, it
is insane, and even I (a perfectionist) would think it
crazy if it wasn't reusable ever after. Example: When I
wrote my BS thesis, I put as much time on the LaTeX as
on the silly M$ Access/VBA problem, then I wrote the MS
thesis and at that time I actually missed the LaTeX
hacking just a bit as there wasn't much left to do, I
had to focus on the actual task...

If you fail to get the detail right despite efforts,
turn to the SX TeX site or comp.text.tex - the TeX
people are very friendly and social, they are not like
programmers (I won't pretend to analyze that).

> Whenever I need to use Latex I have to look at lots
> of examples from the internet or the last time I used
> it.  Since I never write large reports using Latex
> it's syntax never sticks in my head.

Well, yeah, it is difficult like everything else and no
one said it should be simple.

> I use a word processor for these kind of things a
> present, Libreoffice.  I'd rather not do that though,
> it's clumsy.  If I had the time I'd help with adding
> RTF editing and/or word-processing to Emacs.
>
> Something I'm considering is using info format.  The
> info makeup is very simple (for the GNU manuals it's
> compiled from sources in a TeX dialect called
> TeXInfo, but it can be written directly).  Another
> possibility is using HTML.

Cool facts! But I don't think writing letters in info
or HTML makes any sense, sorry. Again, why not use
plain text and, if need be, LaTeX - it is better (than
RTF) and not that difficult, really, and, as for the
clumsy word processors, you don't get any of that just
typing away ASCII and LaTeX in your favourite editor...

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

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

[James Freer]

On Sun, 25 May 2014, Robert Thorpe wrote:

> 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

It's not that I haven't the time to learn Latex - i just wanted to know if 
emacs was going to produce a word processor plugin or whatever. I'm not an IT 
grad and I don't find emacs easy to learn. 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), wordstar keybindings (still the most efficient and still popular 
with writers), visual line mode (softwrap or whatever you want to call the 
equivalent) which few editors do effectively... even vim - my other favourite 
editor is gedit. Only editor I know of that does mid cursor positioning is Pico 
but doesn't do wordwrap.

I am going to give Latex a go. Had a look earlier today at some of the small 
apps like Gimme and Texstudio  - using those as an intro was worthwhile. I take 
on board the comments folk have made. You can use Latex for simple docs as well 
as the more sophisticated maths/scientific manual... and it's fantastic.

As for word processing, LO-writer and Abiword have had their day - both buggy 
I've found. Online Zoho and google docs for me have replaced them. Of course 
there are online latex apps which I'm going to have a look at. Then I'll try 
emacs.

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'd love to 
customise the menus to remove the coders stuff so I am left with a basic UI 
with just what I want.

yours
james

Re: RTF for emacs

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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.

Word, LibreOffice, LaTeX, Emacs, Windows, Android, Firefox, ...
are all "large and complex systems".

> It would take me months to learn it properly.

No, it doesn't take months to use them properly.  Usually it takes
between a few minutes to a few hours to be able to use them (tho
obviously, in limited ways).  And then you learn more as your
needs grow.  And yes, you may keep learning new things about it for
years, but that doesn't mean it takes years to be able to use
them properly.

"Writing a simple letter" is actually a very good first step in the use
of LaTeX.  Look for a template on the web, and do it.


        Stefan

Re: RTF for emacs

[Robert Thorpe]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> 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.
>
> Word, LibreOffice, LaTeX, Emacs, Windows, Android, Firefox, ...
> are all "large and complex systems".

Yes, some of them hide the complexity well, like Word and LibreOffice.
Even Emacs can be used as a fancy notepad and the extra features tackled
gradually.  The others I've already learned.

>> It would take me months to learn it properly.
>
> No, it doesn't take months to use them properly.

I think you're a much smarter fellow than me.  Over the years I've tried
several times to learn LaTeX by spending a day or two reading tutorials
and using it.  But, I've never been able to write practical documents
that way.  It's possible to copy templates, but understanding how they
work so small changes can be made is more difficult.

BR,
Robert Thorpe

Re: RTF for emacs

[Stefan Monnier]

> I think you're a much smarter fellow than me.

That can't be it: there are so many people using it, it can't be that hard.

> Over the years I've tried several times to learn LaTeX by spending
> a day or two reading tutorials and using it.  But, I've never been
> able to write practical documents that way.  It's possible to copy
> templates, but understanding how they work so small changes can be
> made is more difficult.

Use comp.text.tex or http://tex.stackexchange.com/ and you'll learn much
more quickly (and with much less frustration).


        Stefan

Re: RTF for emacs

[Rusi]

On Monday, May 26, 2014 9:11:56 AM UTC+5:30, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Use comp.text.tex or http://tex.stackexchange.com/ and you'll learn much
> more quickly (and with much less frustration).

Thanks -- looks like sound advice!

Ive been struggling with xetex for a few days without much progress.
Is there a mailing list equivalent of comp.text.tex?
And/or does googlegroups work?

[My experience is that many usenet lists dont allow google groups posts until there is a separate mailing list membership]

Re: RTF for emacs

[Rusi]

On Monday, May 26, 2014 6:09:14 PM UTC+5:30, Rusi wrote:
> On Monday, May 26, 2014 9:11:56 AM UTC+5:30, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Use comp.text.tex or http://tex.stackexchange.com/ and you'll learn much
> > more quickly (and with much less frustration).
> 
> Thanks -- looks like sound advice!
> 
> 
> 
> Ive been struggling with xetex for a few days without much progress.
> 
> Is there a mailing list equivalent of comp.text.tex?
> And/or does googlegroups work?
> 
> 
> [My experience is that many usenet lists dont allow google groups 
> posts until there is a separate mailing list membership]

[Answering my own [somewhat OT] question]
Evidently I have managed to subscribe to the list via GG

Re: RTF for emacs

[Emanuel Berg]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> I think you're a much smarter fellow than me.
>
> That can't be it: there are so many people using it,
> it can't be that hard.

Good point, there just can't be that many intelligent
people around :)

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

Re: RTF for emacs

[Rusi]

On Monday, May 26, 2014 7:19:12 AM UTC+5:30, Robert Thorpe wrote:
> Stefan Monnier  writes:
> > No, it doesn't take months to use them properly.
> 
> I think you're a much smarter fellow than me.  Over the years I've tried
> several times to learn LaTeX by spending a day or two reading tutorials
> and using it.  But, I've never been able to write practical documents
> that way.  It's possible to copy templates, but understanding how they
> work so small changes can be made is more difficult.

If latex bugs you, just use the odt (aka libreoffice) backend of org mode.

Just to add to Charles' suggestion:
1. Start using the org that comes ready with emacs.
2. Play around with the functionality from the menu until 
basic structure editing makes sense and you dont need to fish
around in the menu for the keys.
3. Use tables and the table editor
4. Try all the exporters that it offers but dont do any significant
customization
5. Around this point you will have to decide whether for you org is 
- in the Latex category [Large complex non-working system]
- in the *I just LOVE it* category

If you fall into the second, switch from default org (which can be a
couple of MAJOR versions behind whats bundled with emacs) to a recent one, get that working and join the org mailing list :D.

Re: RTF for emacs

[Emanuel Berg]

Robert Thorpe <rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com> writes:

> I think you're a much smarter fellow than me.

Remember the saying on IRC: "stupid is, as stupid does"
- it works the other way around, too. Use the smart
tools, you get smart as well. I mean, otherwise, you
won't get anything done at all :)

> Over the years I've tried several times to learn
> LaTeX by spending a day or two reading tutorials and
> using it.

Then perhaps that method isn't the best? I never spend
a day doing anything, I do everything everyday, and I
only consult tutorials when I look for a specific
answer to a specific problem. I don't know if that
would work for you but at least it is different from
what you know *don't* work, so why not try it?

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

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

[Glyn Millington]

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 

If you are running a unix-style system, chances are that ed is still
there. Try 'man ed'. Ex and vi are likely to be there too.

Have you seen this?

http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html

atb

Glyn

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

[Haines Brown]

I was once such a Describe enthusiast that I have to drop its name. If I
recall correctly, I ran it under OS/2. It was a modified desktop
publishing application. The author abandoned it, unfortunately, without
releasing it into the public domian.

Haines Brown

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

From: Sharon Kimble, Subject: Re: editor and word processor history

[Emanuel Berg]

I got this as a mail, but I suspect it was intended for
the list, so I send it without asking. By the way, this
has started to happening a lot lately - it was actually
one of the first thing I asked on this list, I often
get CC of posts (as mails) that are intended as posts -
that doesn't bother me as I've instructed Gnus to put
those in a cc group, and those posts go to the group as
well, so no harm - however, what I can see, this was
just a pure mail and didn't reach the group (correct me
if I'm wrong). So, there must be something with my
posts that tells other clients "this guy isn't on the
list, include a CC" *or* (worse) "this isn't even a
post, reply as mail".

Anyway, here is the lost (?) and found post from
Sharon:

Back in 1980 I joined a commercial office suppliers in
Norwich as I didn't want to work with computers, and
the following week ........ they got a computer to do
the accounts on! I've got a feeling that it was an
"Olivetti" something, with data being stored on
magnetic tape in a cartridge about the same size as the
average novel! And for some reason it always got jammed
into its holder every Friday afternoon at 1630, which
required the company secretary to sort it out with two
big screwdrivers! After about 7 weeks of this happening
the company secretary worked out that we started the
close down procedure at 1630 and we were hurrying to
start the weekend. From then on, we started at 1600,
and didn't have to hurry so no more data cartridge
jams! All the customers accounts were kept on cardboard
sheets with a paper sheet in front of it, we kept the
cardboard sheets and sent the paper sheet to the
customer as their statement, and they had to be
inserted by hand into the machine and then held in
place whilst the data was hammered onto the sheets.

After a couple of years we were upgraded with another
Olivetti machine, this time with what I think was
called a "Winchester cartridge" a big disc in a big
plastic holder that was backed up to twice a day. This
was a big improvement on the old machine, which had had
to be dismantled to get it out of the building, when
they found that some previous operand had used it as an
ashtray, complete with dead matches and tab ends! I
managed to kill two keyboards on the new machine over
the years, by eating crisps with my left hand whilst
key-pounding, data entering with the right hand, and
somehow salt getting into the keyboard. This was
compounded by the company secretary "cleaning the salt
out" with some cleaning fluid which had the effect of
seizing everything up!  Somehow I managed to
"programme" the new computer to flash "Happy Birthday"
when the company secretary used it on his birthday, and
he went ape-s**t and made me promise not to try
anything like that again, on pain of being sacked! Oh,
happy days!

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

Re: From: Sharon Kimble, Subject: Re: editor and word processor history

[Barry Margolin]

In article <87mwdyyv6i.fsf_-_@debian.uxu>,
 Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote:

> I got this as a mail, but I suspect it was intended for
> the list, so I send it without asking. By the way, this
> has started to happening a lot lately - it was actually
> one of the first thing I asked on this list, I often
> get CC of posts (as mails) that are intended as posts -
> that doesn't bother me as I've instructed Gnus to put
> those in a cc group, and those posts go to the group as
> well, so no harm - however, what I can see, this was
> just a pure mail and didn't reach the group (correct me
> if I'm wrong). So, there must be something with my
> posts that tells other clients "this guy isn't on the
> list, include a CC" *or* (worse) "this isn't even a
> post, reply as mail".

The newsgroup is gatewayed to a mailing list. People who read it as  
email are likely to do Reply-All, so the poster gets a copy.

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

Re: From: Sharon Kimble, Subject: Re: editor and word processor history

[Emanuel Berg]

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> The newsgroup is gatewayed to a mailing list. People
> who read it as email are likely to do Reply-All, so
> the poster gets a copy.

Yeah, and that's OK, but in this case, I got it not as
a CC but as a "To". I searched the headers, but
couldn't find a single reference to gnu.emacs.help -
and that happens from time to time. Of course, those
could all be unrelated mistakes with no symmetry to
them.

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

Re: From: Sharon Kimble, Subject: Re: editor and word processor history

[Sharon Kimble]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 984 bytes --]

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

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> The newsgroup is gatewayed to a mailing list. People
>> who read it as email are likely to do Reply-All, so
>> the poster gets a copy.
>
> Yeah, and that's OK, but in this case, I got it not as
> a CC but as a "To". I searched the headers, but
> couldn't find a single reference to gnu.emacs.help -
> and that happens from time to time. Of course, those
> could all be unrelated mistakes with no symmetry to
> them.

Yes Emanuel, I put my hand up and say in my defence. that I'm still
learning my way around gnus and sent a "wide reply and yank" instead
of what I really wanted, a "very wide reply and yank". I was unaware
of the difference, but now I know better, sorry!

Sharon.
-- 
A taste of linux = http://www.sharons.org.uk
my git repo = https://bitbucket.org/boudiccas/dots
TGmeds = http://www.tgmeds.org.uk
Debian testing, MATE 1.8.1, emacs 24.3.91.1

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]

Re: From: Sharon Kimble, Subject: Re: editor and word processor history

[Emanuel Berg]

Sharon Kimble <boudiccas@skimble.plus.com> writes:

> Yes Emanuel, I put my hand up and say in my
> defence. that I'm still learning my way around gnus
> and sent a "wide reply and yank" instead of what I
> really wanted, a "very wide reply and yank". I was
> unaware of the difference, but now I know better,
> sorry!

Ha-ha, absolutely no problem, we are all here to learn,
and often we actually succeed.

I enjoyed the story by the way, especially the part
with the cigarettes and that stiff guy who didn't
appreciate the greeting.

I remember playing a game as a kid, "Beyond Dark
Castle", it was the coolest game ever because you moved
the guy with A, S, D, and W, and aimed his
rock-throwing arm with the mouse (and hit the mouse
button to throw) - so when people got all exited about
Quake (where you did the exact same thing, only in 3D),
I guess that's nothing to be all ecstatic about... (but
that game rocked, too) - anyway, in BDC, if you played
that at Christmas Eve, instead of some other detail,
which I don't remember, there was a huge, decorated
tree! It was so cool because until that point I hadn't
contemplated the computer actually would know the
current date...

As for smoking, some people have the sense of smell to
tell if a used computer belonged to a smoker or not. If
that happened, I wonder how you would ever get it away?
The keyboard can be cleaned of hair, of course...

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

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

Re: editor and word processor history

[Emanuel Berg]

Glyn Millington <glyn.millington@gmail.com> writes:

> If you are running a unix-style system

Ha-ha, don't insult me :)

> chances are that ed is still there. Try 'man ed'. Ex
> and vi are likely to be there too.

On 64-bit Debian Wheezy, ed is not installed by default
but it is available (for example) in the Jessie
repositories. I can't find ex or plain vi, though there
are many forks of vi (vile - "vi like Emacs", nvi - a
4.4BSD vi, etc.) aside from vim, which is there (also
in many flavours), of course.

Interestingly, I have a "vi" (by way of several links
actually /usr/bin/vim.tiny) and I don't remember
installing that.

I remember installing Emacs, which isn't installed by
default which of course it should be. (On the other
hand, installing with aptitude (or apt-get) is so easy
I don't see what it matters really.)

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

Re: RTF for emacs

[Rusi]

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:25:09 AM UTC+5:30, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> James Freer 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...

Yeah org is a "some sort of markup system"


* Html export and web publishing
* Latex publishing
* odt (libreoffice) export

* Tables and spreadsheets

Yeat but its a rather strange sort of markup system.

Eg it supports

* Brainstorming
* My-own-private hyperlink system (aka wiki-like)

* Time/project mgmt
*** Agenda
*** Time tracking
*** Effort estimates
*** GTD
*** Journalling

* Syncing with IOS/Android
* Reproducible research and literate programming
* Meta-programming system

... yeah a rather strange kind of markup system

Re: RTF for emacs

[Emanuel Berg]

Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> * My-own-private hyperlink system (aka wiki-like)

Links (bookmarks) are very useful - one of the most
helpful things that I thought of was to whenever I
Google I thing, I make a bookmark, and as the title, I
use the piece of code that solved my problem.

The reason I started to do that is that I realized that
often I had Googled something the other day, only to
have to do it again, and not finding that good site
that solved it (because I couldn't remember the exact
search phrase) - also, if you make an effort to really
write the titles, the bookmarks file (plain .html in
Emacs-w3m) becomes sort of a quick reference.

To make it fast, I wrote a couple of defuns:

(defun w3m-bookmark-region-as-title ()
  (interactive)
  (let ((title-suggestion
         (if mark-active
             (buffer-substring (region-beginning) (region-end))
           w3m-current-title )))
    (w3m-bookmark-add w3m-current-url title-suggestion) ))

(defun w3m-bookmark-url-at-point ()
  (interactive)
  (w3m-bookmark-add (w3m-url-valid (w3m-anchor))) )

From: http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/emacs-init/w3m.el

> * Brainstorming ...
> * Time/project mgmt *** Agenda *** Time tracking ***
> Effort estimates *** GTD *** Journalling

That sounds like the things lamers like to fiddle with
to pretend they are working. Or am I wrong? (What is
"GTD"?)

> * Syncing with IOS/Android * Reproducible research
> and literate programming * Meta-programming system

I have no idea what any of that is. "Reproducible
research" sounds interesting though.

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

Re: RTF for emacs

[James Freer]

On Thu, 29 May 2014, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> 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!

Thanks for posting. I'll follow up with some basic questions and setting up my 
.emacs. I am determined to make a 'go' of emacs. I think we should close this 
thread now.

james

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: 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