"like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

"like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[ken]

> [Making this change] brings default Emacs behaviour close
> to other modern text editors. ....

This is an invalid argument, more an appeal to fashion than an appeal to 
reason.  When switching from one application to another, we shouldn't 
expect the new one to behave just like the former one.  They are 
different pieces of software, after all.  When you start using different 
software, you should expect that it will operate differently.  You 
should expect that you'll have to learn new things.

Secondly, there are places in the world where people haven't ever used 
Windows; instead, their first and only experience with computers is with 
Linux.  What sense can it make to them that emacs' behavior is changed 
simply to mimic some other editor they've never seen or used?

I think that over the long term it will trend upwards that more people's 
first and only computer experience will be with FOSS.  So thinking ahead 
to those times, why should we alter the default behavior of Emacs to 
conform to a legacy editor?

Fourth, if we apply your argument to every difference between Emacs and 
(e.g.) Word, then we end up with Emacs behaving just like Word, and 
there being no difference between Emacs and Word.  Then we might as well 
just use Word. :/

Fifth, if we change emacs to comport with Word, and if in future Word 
changes the way it handles highlighted text to way emacs does now, 
should emacs then change back again, just to (again) follow the way Word 
works?

Finally, as said at the top, the argument to follow "other modern 
editors" is nothing more than an appeal to fashion.  And fashion is very 
subjective and capricious.  We should no more change emacs simply to 
comport with some other, even (currently) more popular software than you 
and I and all the other guys on this list should start dressing 
ourselves like the cool dudes on whatever soap opera is the most popular 
these days.

Let's just talk about what makes sense.

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Jai Dayal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2887 bytes --]

I'm confused as to why they conducted a poll in the first place.  Based on
the audience (pedantic pseudo-scientists who are simply programmers and not
scientists), it's obvious that the people who are against it will be hostile
for the most trivial of reasons (hence, they are simple programmers not
scientists).

No original functionality will be removed from emacs.  This is just a
simple, logical, edition.  To insert a given character, say 'a', who
actually highlights a block of text and types 'a'?  One simply moves the
cursor to the location and presses 'a'.  This emacs 'feature' is illogical
and useless, hence I strongly support the new editions.

But that's moot - the pedantic pseudo-scientists will simply bicker and
create the most anecdotal and trivial use cases to justify their position.

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:18 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:

> [Making this change] brings default Emacs behaviour close
>> to other modern text editors. ....
>>
>
> This is an invalid argument, more an appeal to fashion than an appeal to
> reason.  When switching from one application to another, we shouldn't expect
> the new one to behave just like the former one.  They are different pieces
> of software, after all.  When you start using different software, you should
> expect that it will operate differently.  You should expect that you'll have
> to learn new things.
>
> Secondly, there are places in the world where people haven't ever used
> Windows; instead, their first and only experience with computers is with
> Linux.  What sense can it make to them that emacs' behavior is changed
> simply to mimic some other editor they've never seen or used?
>
> I think that over the long term it will trend upwards that more people's
> first and only computer experience will be with FOSS.  So thinking ahead to
> those times, why should we alter the default behavior of Emacs to conform to
> a legacy editor?
>
> Fourth, if we apply your argument to every difference between Emacs and
> (e.g.) Word, then we end up with Emacs behaving just like Word, and there
> being no difference between Emacs and Word.  Then we might as well just use
> Word. :/
>
> Fifth, if we change emacs to comport with Word, and if in future Word
> changes the way it handles highlighted text to way emacs does now, should
> emacs then change back again, just to (again) follow the way Word works?
>
> Finally, as said at the top, the argument to follow "other modern editors"
> is nothing more than an appeal to fashion.  And fashion is very subjective
> and capricious.  We should no more change emacs simply to comport with some
> other, even (currently) more popular software than you and I and all the
> other guys on this list should start dressing ourselves like the cool dudes
> on whatever soap opera is the most popular these days.
>
> Let's just talk about what makes sense.
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3382 bytes --]

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Suvayu Ali]

Hi Ken,

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:18:11 -0400
ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:

> Secondly, there are places in the world where people haven't ever
> used Windows; instead, their first and only experience with computers
> is with Linux.  What sense can it make to them that emacs' behavior
> is changed simply to mimic some other editor they've never seen or
> used?

You wrongly assumed by modern editors I was talking about Windows
editors[1], you can check out other FOSS editors (in fact they are
pretty good for relatively simple use) like Geany, Kate, Gedit, Nedit
(this is actually pretty old), text input windows of most file/web
browsers, many GUI email clients and so on. And most of the friends I
was trying to introduce to org-mode were *nix users already (yes there
are non-techie people using *nix, and yes they made the decision
without any "friendly help" guiding them in that direction).

No need to start a(n) argument/flame-war here, RMS asked users' opinion
and I expressed myself. Don't get me wrong, I love Emacs and I couldn't
manage to work without it. But the first day experience in Emacs is
definitely one of my worst. My opinion was based on that experience.

Cheers,

Footnotes:

[1] BTW, MS Word is not an editor, its a word processor a parallel in
    the FOSS world would be LibreOffice Writer.

-- 
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Andreas Röhler]

Am 03.10.2011 15:24, schrieb Jai Dayal:
> I'm confused as to why they conducted a poll in the first place.  Based on
> the audience (pedantic pseudo-scientists who are simply programmers and not
> scientists),

Hi Jai,

I'm afraid that's a little bit high-eyebrowed.
Well, being ready to count any other wrong stand over nothing - however, 
you can do better.

If people spent their lifetime to present tool like Emacs, it fairly 
doesn't matter being estimated a scientist or whatever artist or not.

:)

Beside, usability questions are fairly complicated and are complicated 
with Emacs in a specific way.

Stay patient, cheers,

Andreas

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[ken]

On 10/03/2011 09:41 AM Suvayu Ali wrote:
> Hi Ken,
> 
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:18:11 -0400
> ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
> 
>> Secondly, there are places in the world where people haven't ever
>> used Windows; instead, their first and only experience with computers
>> is with Linux.  What sense can it make to them that emacs' behavior
>> is changed simply to mimic some other editor they've never seen or
>> used?
> 
> You wrongly assumed by modern editors I was talking about Windows
> editors[1], 

No, I wasn't assuming you were talking about Word.  Since you didn't say 
which editor you were talking about, I just picked Word as a foil.  If 
you re-read my post, you'll see on my first reference to Word I preceded 
it by "e.g.", implying the same thereafter.


> you can check out other FOSS editors (in fact they are
> pretty good for relatively simple use) like Geany, Kate, Gedit, Nedit
> (this is actually pretty old), text input windows of most file/web
> browsers, many GUI email clients and so on. And most of the friends I
> was trying to introduce to org-mode were *nix users already (yes there
> are non-techie people using *nix, and yes they made the decision
> without any "friendly help" guiding them in that direction).

My same argument still applies: What's done in other editors isn't 
relevant here.  Emacs doesn't have to do everything the same as [insert 
your favorite editor here].  *Again* we shouldn't try simply to follow 
what's fashionable.

Also, I don't understand the reason for making a distinction between 
"techie people" and others.


> 
> No need to start a(n) argument/flame-war here, RMS asked users' opinion
> and I expressed myself. ....

Agreed.  It's just that you were the second person to bring up the 
Following Fashion argument.  It seemed, then, worthwhile to consider 
which criteria are actually relevant to the issue.  How is that 
'starting a flame war'?



> ....
> 
> Footnotes:
> 
> [1] BTW, MS Word is not an editor, its a word processor a parallel in
>     the FOSS world would be LibreOffice Writer.

And, technically speaking, emacs is a text processor.  Relevance?

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Andreas Röhler]

[ ... ]

  Don't get me wrong, I love Emacs and I couldn't
> manage to work without it. But the first day experience in Emacs is
> definitely one of my worst. My opinion was based on that experience.
>

Would wish these kind of experience, which also has been mentioned as a 
steep learning curve, would get more attention still.

BTW my view is: Emacs tutorial should not that much teaching keys but 
commands - and indeed offer the common copy-and-paste keys for 
beginners, even if I prefer Emacs-keys.

Andreas

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Jeremiah Dodds]

Let me preface by saying that I don't really care very much about the
behavior of [DEL]
here, but I do care about people trying to call out arguments as
invalid with hogwash.

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:18 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>> [Making this change] brings default Emacs behaviour close
>> to other modern text editors. ....
>
> This is an invalid argument, more an appeal to fashion than an appeal to
> reason.  When switching from one application to another, we shouldn't expect
> the new one to behave just like the former one.  They are different pieces
> of software, after all.  When you start using different software, you should
> expect that it will operate differently.  You should expect that you'll have
> to learn new things.
>

Assumptions:

Other "modern text editors" behavior was not decided upon via reason.
All pieces of software are an island.

I don't disagree that people should expect to learn new things, but I'm also not
ignorant of patterns of behavior in categories of software, and how that can
influence a user's ability to learn things quickly as well as how that
can affect adoption.

Perhaps if you had some evidence that the behavior of [DEL] in other
modern editors
was pretty much a big unfortunate trend, this argument would hold. If
I had to guess though,
I would guess that at least one of the editors out there with the
behavior have some
closer to empirical data as to why they chose that behavior.

> Secondly, there are places in the world where people haven't ever used
> Windows; instead, their first and only experience with computers is with
> Linux.  What sense can it make to them that emacs' behavior is changed
> simply to mimic some other editor they've never seen or used?
>

Assumptions:

The Emacs community gives a crap about emacs making sense ;)
In these places in the world, the only editor available is emacs.

From the discussion, it seems more likely that they'd say something like
"Oh, well it looks like emacs does the same thing as these other editors now".
Then again, I wouldn't know. Maybe some of them are on the list, and would
like to say whether or not they'd be totally befuddled if the behavior of [DEL]
changed?


> I think that over the long term it will trend upwards that more people's
> first and only computer experience will be with FOSS.  So thinking ahead to
> those times, why should we alter the default behavior of Emacs to conform to
> a legacy editor?
>

This is just kinda sidestepping the argument.

A whoooole lot of Emacs behavior is the way it is because it was written before
there were a whole lot of text editors around. Emacs has a lot of
"legacy" behavior and
terminology.

If, in the future, the majority of text editors decided that a
different behavior for [DEL] was
better, presumably through some sort of study, then at that time we
might want to consider
modifying the behavior of [DEL] again. Oh no!

"Correct behavior" and "usability" and all that are not things that
are set in stone, they're
more like really slow rivers mixed with a clusterfuck of culture. Now,
whether or not the
emacs community cares too much about that is another matter .... but
then again, users
who like and use emacs enough *to* care about keeping the current
behavior are probably
knowledgeable enough to know how to configure emacs to keep it...

> Fourth, if we apply your argument to every difference between Emacs and
> (e.g.) Word, then we end up with Emacs behaving just like Word, and there
> being no difference between Emacs and Word.  Then we might as well just use
> Word. :/
>

This is ridiculous. If all differences could be considered equal,
maybe it wouldn't be.

> Fifth, if we change emacs to comport with Word, and if in future Word
> changes the way it handles highlighted text to way emacs does now, should
> emacs then change back again, just to (again) follow the way Word works?
>

Well, is the emacs community making the change to follow *one* editor,
or to follow a trend in
behavior across multiple editors? If the latter has occured, it might
be worth the
consideration of the community.

> Finally, as said at the top, the argument to follow "other modern editors"
> is nothing more than an appeal to fashion.  And fashion is very subjective
> and capricious.  We should no more change emacs simply to comport with some
> other, even (currently) more popular software than you and I and all the
> other guys on this list should start dressing ourselves like the cool dudes
> on whatever soap opera is the most popular these days.
>

This is sort of pointless. AFAICT, keeping the behavior isn't any less
an "appeal to fashion",
it's just an appeal to the current emacs fashion, other than in the
parts of the thread that were
actually bringing up *reasons* for keeping it around or changing it
that weren't just
emotional claptrap.

If the change is *entirely* superficial, then what's going on is a
bunch of bikeshedding, and this
whole discussion should be tossed into the firey inferno.

> Let's just talk about what makes sense.

Seriously.

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Richard Stallman]

The abstract arguments about this change have already been brought up
in discussions among the Emacs developers.  That is not the help we
need.

What I hope the poll will provide is additional factual information on
how the change affects Emacs users.  Thus, the poll asks you how the
change affects you in your own editing.  Without the poll, we have to
try to guess that.  With the poll, we will know.

    Secondly, there are places in the world where people haven't ever used 
    Windows; instead, their first and only experience with computers is with 
    Linux.

You can't have an experience with Linux as an end user, because Linux
is a kernel.  It has no user interface, and users don't talk to it
directly.

Since you are thinking of an operating system that might replace
Windows, I am sure the system you have in mind is the GNU system,
which is typically used with Linux.

When you talk about the system, please don't call it "Linux".  If you
do that, you give the credit for our work to someone else who got
involved much later and did a smaller part of the system.  Would you
please call the system "GNU/Linux" and give us equal mention?

For more explanation, see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html
and http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html for historical
background.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[ken]

(Again) Though some believe it makes more sense to bottom-post and/or 
respond interlinearly, most people using email top-post.  So we should 
all start doing what most people do.  :P

Moreover, in modern email apps the default behavior in replying to an 
email places the cursor at the top of your reply.  So they must have 
done a study on this and found top posting to be better.  :P

In keeping with the principle that the sole criterion for changing how 
emacs (or any software) works will be what's fashionable, emacs should 
make, among others, the following reassignments to its UI:

C-p - Print the file

C-n - New file

C-a - select All

C-q - Quit

These changes will make it easier for those new to emacs.  In that they 
are culturally biased towards those who speak English, there are good 
reasons for them.  And because so many other modern editors have these 
same key bindings, they must have done a series of studies on them and 
found them the most intuitive and therefore best for all (denen von eine 
einsiger engen Denk- und Mundart).


Enjoy.


On 10/03/2011 12:22 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
> Let me preface by saying that I don't really care very much about the
> behavior of [DEL]
> here, but I do care about people trying to call out arguments as
> invalid with hogwash.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:18 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>>> [Making this change] brings default Emacs behaviour close
>>> to other modern text editors. ....
>> This is an invalid argument, more an appeal to fashion than an appeal to
>> reason.  When switching from one application to another, we shouldn't expect
>> the new one to behave just like the former one.  They are different pieces
>> of software, after all.  When you start using different software, you should
>> expect that it will operate differently.  You should expect that you'll have
>> to learn new things.
>>
> 
> Assumptions:
> 
> Other "modern text editors" behavior was not decided upon via reason.
> All pieces of software are an island.
> 
> I don't disagree that people should expect to learn new things, but I'm also not
> ignorant of patterns of behavior in categories of software, and how that can
> influence a user's ability to learn things quickly as well as how that
> can affect adoption.
> 
> Perhaps if you had some evidence that the behavior of [DEL] in other
> modern editors
> was pretty much a big unfortunate trend, this argument would hold. If
> I had to guess though,
> I would guess that at least one of the editors out there with the
> behavior have some
> closer to empirical data as to why they chose that behavior.
> 
>> Secondly, there are places in the world where people haven't ever used
>> Windows; instead, their first and only experience with computers is with
>> Linux.  What sense can it make to them that emacs' behavior is changed
>> simply to mimic some other editor they've never seen or used?
>>
> 
> Assumptions:
> 
> The Emacs community gives a crap about emacs making sense ;)
> In these places in the world, the only editor available is emacs.
> 
> From the discussion, it seems more likely that they'd say something like
> "Oh, well it looks like emacs does the same thing as these other editors now".
> Then again, I wouldn't know. Maybe some of them are on the list, and would
> like to say whether or not they'd be totally befuddled if the behavior of [DEL]
> changed?
> 
> 
>> I think that over the long term it will trend upwards that more people's
>> first and only computer experience will be with FOSS.  So thinking ahead to
>> those times, why should we alter the default behavior of Emacs to conform to
>> a legacy editor?
>>
> 
> This is just kinda sidestepping the argument.
> 
> A whoooole lot of Emacs behavior is the way it is because it was written before
> there were a whole lot of text editors around. Emacs has a lot of
> "legacy" behavior and
> terminology.
> 
> If, in the future, the majority of text editors decided that a
> different behavior for [DEL] was
> better, presumably through some sort of study, then at that time we
> might want to consider
> modifying the behavior of [DEL] again. Oh no!
> 
> "Correct behavior" and "usability" and all that are not things that
> are set in stone, they're
> more like really slow rivers mixed with a clusterfuck of culture. Now,
> whether or not the
> emacs community cares too much about that is another matter .... but
> then again, users
> who like and use emacs enough *to* care about keeping the current
> behavior are probably
> knowledgeable enough to know how to configure emacs to keep it...
> 
>> Fourth, if we apply your argument to every difference between Emacs and
>> (e.g.) Word, then we end up with Emacs behaving just like Word, and there
>> being no difference between Emacs and Word.  Then we might as well just use
>> Word. :/
>>
> 
> This is ridiculous. If all differences could be considered equal,
> maybe it wouldn't be.
> 
>> Fifth, if we change emacs to comport with Word, and if in future Word
>> changes the way it handles highlighted text to way emacs does now, should
>> emacs then change back again, just to (again) follow the way Word works?
>>
> 
> Well, is the emacs community making the change to follow *one* editor,
> or to follow a trend in
> behavior across multiple editors? If the latter has occured, it might
> be worth the
> consideration of the community.
> 
>> Finally, as said at the top, the argument to follow "other modern editors"
>> is nothing more than an appeal to fashion.  And fashion is very subjective
>> and capricious.  We should no more change emacs simply to comport with some
>> other, even (currently) more popular software than you and I and all the
>> other guys on this list should start dressing ourselves like the cool dudes
>> on whatever soap opera is the most popular these days.
>>
> 
> This is sort of pointless. AFAICT, keeping the behavior isn't any less
> an "appeal to fashion",
> it's just an appeal to the current emacs fashion, other than in the
> parts of the thread that were
> actually bringing up *reasons* for keeping it around or changing it
> that weren't just
> emotional claptrap.
> 
> If the change is *entirely* superficial, then what's going on is a
> bunch of bikeshedding, and this
> whole discussion should be tossed into the firey inferno.
> 
>> Let's just talk about what makes sense.
> 
> Seriously.
> 

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[ken]

Jeremiah,

To be considered a *hidden* assumption (which is what you really meant 
to say) to a proposition, it must logically necessary for that 
proposition.  What you're calling "assumptions" below are not.


On 10/03/2011 12:22 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
> Let me preface by saying that I don't really care very much about the
> behavior of [DEL]
> here, but I do care about people trying to call out arguments as
> invalid with hogwash.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:18 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>>> [Making this change] brings default Emacs behaviour close
>>> to other modern text editors. ....
>> This is an invalid argument, more an appeal to fashion than an appeal to
>> reason.  When switching from one application to another, we shouldn't expect
>> the new one to behave just like the former one.  They are different pieces
>> of software, after all.  When you start using different software, you should
>> expect that it will operate differently.  You should expect that you'll have
>> to learn new things.
>>
> 
> Assumptions:
> 
> Other "modern text editors" behavior was not decided upon via reason.
> All pieces of software are an island.
> 
> I don't disagree that people should expect to learn new things, but I'm also not
> ignorant of patterns of behavior in categories of software, and how that can
> influence a user's ability to learn things quickly as well as how that
> can affect adoption.
> 
> Perhaps if you had some evidence that the behavior of [DEL] in other
> modern editors
> was pretty much a big unfortunate trend, this argument would hold. If
> I had to guess though,
> I would guess that at least one of the editors out there with the
> behavior have some
> closer to empirical data as to why they chose that behavior.
> 
>> Secondly, there are places in the world where people haven't ever used
>> Windows; instead, their first and only experience with computers is with
>> Linux.  What sense can it make to them that emacs' behavior is changed
>> simply to mimic some other editor they've never seen or used?
>>
> 
> Assumptions:
> 
> The Emacs community gives a crap about emacs making sense ;)
> In these places in the world, the only editor available is emacs.
> 
> From the discussion, it seems more likely that they'd say something like
> "Oh, well it looks like emacs does the same thing as these other editors now".
> Then again, I wouldn't know. Maybe some of them are on the list, and would
> like to say whether or not they'd be totally befuddled if the behavior of [DEL]
> changed?
> 
> 
>> I think that over the long term it will trend upwards that more people's
>> first and only computer experience will be with FOSS.  So thinking ahead to
>> those times, why should we alter the default behavior of Emacs to conform to
>> a legacy editor?
>>
> 
> This is just kinda sidestepping the argument.
> 
> A whoooole lot of Emacs behavior is the way it is because it was written before
> there were a whole lot of text editors around. Emacs has a lot of
> "legacy" behavior and
> terminology.
> 
> If, in the future, the majority of text editors decided that a
> different behavior for [DEL] was
> better, presumably through some sort of study, then at that time we
> might want to consider
> modifying the behavior of [DEL] again. Oh no!
> 
> "Correct behavior" and "usability" and all that are not things that
> are set in stone, they're
> more like really slow rivers mixed with a clusterfuck of culture. Now,
> whether or not the
> emacs community cares too much about that is another matter .... but
> then again, users
> who like and use emacs enough *to* care about keeping the current
> behavior are probably
> knowledgeable enough to know how to configure emacs to keep it...
> 
>> Fourth, if we apply your argument to every difference between Emacs and
>> (e.g.) Word, then we end up with Emacs behaving just like Word, and there
>> being no difference between Emacs and Word.  Then we might as well just use
>> Word. :/
>>
> 
> This is ridiculous. If all differences could be considered equal,
> maybe it wouldn't be.
> 
>> Fifth, if we change emacs to comport with Word, and if in future Word
>> changes the way it handles highlighted text to way emacs does now, should
>> emacs then change back again, just to (again) follow the way Word works?
>>
> 
> Well, is the emacs community making the change to follow *one* editor,
> or to follow a trend in
> behavior across multiple editors? If the latter has occured, it might
> be worth the
> consideration of the community.
> 
>> Finally, as said at the top, the argument to follow "other modern editors"
>> is nothing more than an appeal to fashion.  And fashion is very subjective
>> and capricious.  We should no more change emacs simply to comport with some
>> other, even (currently) more popular software than you and I and all the
>> other guys on this list should start dressing ourselves like the cool dudes
>> on whatever soap opera is the most popular these days.
>>
> 
> This is sort of pointless. AFAICT, keeping the behavior isn't any less
> an "appeal to fashion",
> it's just an appeal to the current emacs fashion, other than in the
> parts of the thread that were
> actually bringing up *reasons* for keeping it around or changing it
> that weren't just
> emotional claptrap.
> 
> If the change is *entirely* superficial, then what's going on is a
> bunch of bikeshedding, and this
> whole discussion should be tossed into the firey inferno.
> 
>> Let's just talk about what makes sense.
> 
> Seriously.
> 

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[rusi]

On Oct 3, 9:22 pm, Jeremiah Dodds <jeremiah.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is sort of pointless. AFAICT, keeping the behavior isn't any less
> an "appeal to fashion",
> it's just an appeal to the current emacs fashion, other than in the
> parts of the thread that were
> actually bringing up *reasons* for keeping it around or changing it
> that weren't just
> emotional claptrap.

Ive been feeling a bit warm of late jogging in my powdered wig.  And
my cravat and sword keep getting stuck in elevator doors.  Thanks for
drawing my attention to the fact that I may be dressing funny. [Should
have known from the looks I keep getting...]

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[S Boucher]

----- Original Message -----

> This is an invalid argument, --snip--

This reminds me of the time rms asked whether menus should be enabled by default.

One objection from a hacker - I won't say who he is - complained that it would require him to change his .emacs to disable the menubar.  Understanding the stupidy of this argument is left as an exercise.

Thankfully, rms did the right thing and the menus are on by defaults... and I disable them in my .emacs :-)

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Jeremiah Dodds]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
> Jeremiah,
>
> To be considered a *hidden* assumption (which is what you really meant to
> say) to a proposition, it must logically necessary for that proposition.
>  What you're calling "assumptions" below are not.
>
>

Luckily we are not using a language where words only have one meaning,
nor are we in a discussion where all the definitions of words are
meant to have the definition used in logic.

Since you seem to be either trying to dismiss arguments by  finding
flaws unrelated to the main points of the arguments, or actually
missing the main points of the arguments by being distracted or
something, here are my main issues with the post you made earlier in a
condensed form:

  1.  You are making it sound like the sole reason for people wanting
the change is so that emacs will act like other editors. Even if this
is the case, analysis of the change should not stop there, what should
be looked at (if possible) is whether or not there's a good reason why
many other editors have the proposed behavior. If there is, then the
argument about changing "just" to emulate other editors doesn't hold
well.

  2.  The argument about wanting to avoid changes because they are
"appeals to fashion" can be applied to wanting to make the change with
just as much weight. Keeping the behavior just because "that's the way
it is" is just as much of an "appeal to fashion", it's just appealing
to the fashion current in Emacs.

The same flaw that is present in the whole of your argument is present
in that second point -- the arguments *for* keeping the behavior are
*not* as simple as "well that's just the way it is". The arguments
*against* keeping the behavior are also not just "but Mom, everyone is
wearing them!".

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[ken]

On 10/04/2011 02:40 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>> Jeremiah,
>>
>> To be considered a *hidden* assumption (which is what you really meant to
>> say) to a proposition, it must logically necessary for that proposition.
>>  What you're calling "assumptions" below are not.
>>
>>
> 
> Luckily we are not using a language where words only have one meaning,
> nor are we in a discussion where all the definitions of words are
> meant to have the definition used in logic.

Dismissing logic, are we?  I suspect this is the reason for the S/N here 
approaching zero.


> 
> Since you seem to be either trying to dismiss arguments by  finding
> flaws unrelated to the main points of the arguments, or actually
> missing the main points of the arguments by being distracted or
> something, here are my main issues with the post you made earlier in a
> condensed form:

Very ironic that you should say that.  Please read on.


> 
>   1.  You are making it sound like the sole reason for people wanting
> the change is so that emacs will act like other editors. 

I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was 
saying.  And it was *all* that I was saying.  I said this because, in 
fact, two people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason 
than the proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. 
Please re-read my original post and you'll see I already said this.


> Even if this
> is the case, analysis of the change should not stop there, what should
> be looked at (if possible) is whether or not there's a good reason why
> many other editors have the proposed behavior. If there is, then the
> argument about changing "just" to emulate other editors doesn't hold
> well.

Again, if you reread my original post, you'll find you're now arguing 
against something which you're imagining that I said.


> 
>   2.  The argument about wanting to avoid changes because they are
> "appeals to fashion" can be applied to wanting to make the change with
> just as much weight. Keeping the behavior just because "that's the way
> it is" is just as much of an "appeal to fashion", it's just appealing
> to the fashion current in Emacs.

Not at all.  You're obviously not aware of the quite important principle 
of UI development which counsels against throwing surprises at users.


> 
> The same flaw that is present in the whole of your argument is present
> in that second point -- the arguments *for* keeping the behavior are
> *not* as simple as "well that's just the way it is". The arguments
> *against* keeping the behavior are also not just "but Mom, everyone is
> wearing them!".

Again, re-read my original post.  Don't try to put words or arguments in 
it that aren't there.  I didn't write what you quote above, nor did I 
even imply that.  So the "flaw" you're talking about is only in 
statements coming out of your imagination.

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Jeremiah Dodds]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 02:40 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dismissing logic, are we?  I suspect this is the reason for the S/N here
> approaching zero.
>

No, I was not dismissing logic. I was clarifying that the intended
meaning of the work "assumption" in my post was not the same meaning
as the word has when discussing formal logic.

> I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was saying.
>  And it was *all* that I was saying.  I said this because, in fact, two
> people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the
> proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please re-read
> my original post and you'll see I already said this.

What other people seem to understand is that when those other people
proposed that the changes be made because other editors have that
behavior, there was most likely an unstated assumption that the other
editors did so for a reason and that the suggestion was not merely one
of wanting to be part of the cool kids club.

Even if those particular people *were* just wanting to feel like they
were using an editor that "belonged", it would still be worth
considering the change *because* of the likelihood of there being a
reason other than being fashionable.



>>  2.  The argument about wanting to avoid changes because they are
>> "appeals to fashion" can be applied to wanting to make the change with
>> just as much weight. Keeping the behavior just because "that's the way
>> it is" is just as much of an "appeal to fashion", it's just appealing
>> to the fashion current in Emacs.
>
> Not at all.  You're obviously not aware of the quite important principle of
> UI development which counsels against throwing surprises at users.
>

That's a hefty assumption. If that was the only "quite important" UI
principle, this discussion would never happen. Furthermore, I wouldn't
suggest just surprising current users with the behavior. There's a
reason we have changelogs and help documents and announcement lists
and so on -- if it's decided that it's worth making a change despite
the possibility of it being surprising to current users, steps can be
taken to minimize the number of users that *are* surprised. Also, that
principle also applies to trying not to surprise *new* users, which
the behavior does  for some.

>> The same flaw that is present in the whole of your argument is present
>> in that second point -- the arguments *for* keeping the behavior are
>> *not* as simple as "well that's just the way it is". The arguments
>> *against* keeping the behavior are also not just "but Mom, everyone is
>> wearing them!".
>
> Again, re-read my original post.  Don't try to put words or arguments in it
> that aren't there.  I didn't write what you quote above, nor did I even
> imply that.  So the "flaw" you're talking about is only in statements coming
> out of your imagination.

But you did state that the arguments for changing the behavior were
stated as being only because other editors had the behavior. You're
correct that they were *stated* that way, however that doesn't mean
that that's as far as the motivation for the change being something
worth considering goes, and it's not the spot to argue against making
the change from.

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[ken]

Jeremiah, there's no need to CC emacs-delete-poll.

On 10/04/2011 04:19 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>> On 10/04/2011 02:40 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dismissing logic, are we?  I suspect this is the reason for the S/N here
>> approaching zero.
>>
> 
> No, I was not dismissing logic. I was clarifying that the intended
> meaning of the work "assumption" in my post was not the same meaning
> as the word has when discussing formal logic.

Yet you believe those assumptions (which you've conveniently redacted 
out) were based on logic.

"Formal logic", as you call it, is just regular logic made more rigorous.


> 
>> I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was saying.
>>  And it was *all* that I was saying.  I said this because, in fact, two
>> people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the
>> proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please re-read
>> my original post and you'll see I already said this.
> 
> What other people seem to understand is that when those other people
> proposed that the changes be made because other editors have that
> behavior, there was most likely an unstated assumption that the other
> editors did so for a reason and that the suggestion was not merely one
> of wanting to be part of the cool kids club.

"there was most likely an unstated assumption..."?!  So you're saying 
that even though people didn't give another reason, you can imagine that 
they had one.


> 
> Even if those particular people *were* just wanting to feel like they
> were using an editor that "belonged", it would still be worth
> considering the change *because* of the likelihood of there being a
> reason other than being fashionable.

Again, you're imagining people had another reason, even though they 
didn't give another reason.



>>>  ....
> 
>> Not at all.  You're obviously not aware of the quite important principle of
>> UI development which counsels against throwing surprises at users.
>>
> 
> .... that
> principle also applies to trying not to surprise *new* users, which
> the behavior does  for some.

No it doesn't apply.  When you start to use new software, you should 
expect to have to learn it.  It's not a surprise if you don't yet know 
how to use it.  Or do you think it's a surprise that you might have to 
learn something?


> 
>>> The same flaw that is present in the whole of your argument is present
>>> in that second point -- the arguments *for* keeping the behavior are
>>> *not* as simple as "well that's just the way it is". The arguments
>>> *against* keeping the behavior are also not just "but Mom, everyone is
>>> wearing them!".
>> Again, re-read my original post.  Don't try to put words or arguments in it
>> that aren't there.  I didn't write what you quote above, nor did I even
>> imply that.  So the "flaw" you're talking about is only in statements coming
>> out of your imagination.
> 
> But you did state that the arguments for changing the behavior were
> stated as being only because other editors had the behavior. You're
> correct that they were *stated* that way, however that doesn't mean
> that that's as far as the motivation for the change being something
> worth considering goes, and it's not the spot to argue against making
> the change from.

I've already said what I said, explained what I said, corrected you when 
you imagined I said things I didn't actually say, and several times 
referred you back to what I did say.  You and I aren't married.  I've 
got a life outside this thread.  And I'm sure there are other people 
around you can argue with.  Wish them good luck and blessings from me.

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Jai Dayal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4073 bytes --]

I love flame wars between pedantic programmers.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:42 PM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:

> Jeremiah, there's no need to CC emacs-delete-poll.
>
>
> On 10/04/2011 04:19 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/04/2011 02:40 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dismissing logic, are we?  I suspect this is the reason for the S/N here
>>> approaching zero.
>>>
>>>
>> No, I was not dismissing logic. I was clarifying that the intended
>> meaning of the work "assumption" in my post was not the same meaning
>> as the word has when discussing formal logic.
>>
>
> Yet you believe those assumptions (which you've conveniently redacted out)
> were based on logic.
>
> "Formal logic", as you call it, is just regular logic made more rigorous.
>
>
>
>
>>  I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was
>>> saying.
>>>  And it was *all* that I was saying.  I said this because, in fact, two
>>> people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the
>>> proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please
>>> re-read
>>> my original post and you'll see I already said this.
>>>
>>
>> What other people seem to understand is that when those other people
>> proposed that the changes be made because other editors have that
>> behavior, there was most likely an unstated assumption that the other
>> editors did so for a reason and that the suggestion was not merely one
>> of wanting to be part of the cool kids club.
>>
>
> "there was most likely an unstated assumption..."?!  So you're saying that
> even though people didn't give another reason, you can imagine that they had
> one.
>
>
>
>
>> Even if those particular people *were* just wanting to feel like they
>> were using an editor that "belonged", it would still be worth
>> considering the change *because* of the likelihood of there being a
>> reason other than being fashionable.
>>
>
> Again, you're imagining people had another reason, even though they didn't
> give another reason.
>
>
>
>   ....
>>>>
>>>
>>  Not at all.  You're obviously not aware of the quite important principle
>>> of
>>> UI development which counsels against throwing surprises at users.
>>>
>>>
>> .... that
>>
>> principle also applies to trying not to surprise *new* users, which
>> the behavior does  for some.
>>
>
> No it doesn't apply.  When you start to use new software, you should expect
> to have to learn it.  It's not a surprise if you don't yet know how to use
> it.  Or do you think it's a surprise that you might have to learn something?
>
>
>
>
>>  The same flaw that is present in the whole of your argument is present
>>>> in that second point -- the arguments *for* keeping the behavior are
>>>> *not* as simple as "well that's just the way it is". The arguments
>>>> *against* keeping the behavior are also not just "but Mom, everyone is
>>>> wearing them!".
>>>>
>>> Again, re-read my original post.  Don't try to put words or arguments in
>>> it
>>> that aren't there.  I didn't write what you quote above, nor did I even
>>> imply that.  So the "flaw" you're talking about is only in statements
>>> coming
>>> out of your imagination.
>>>
>>
>> But you did state that the arguments for changing the behavior were
>> stated as being only because other editors had the behavior. You're
>> correct that they were *stated* that way, however that doesn't mean
>> that that's as far as the motivation for the change being something
>> worth considering goes, and it's not the spot to argue against making
>> the change from.
>>
>
> I've already said what I said, explained what I said, corrected you when
> you imagined I said things I didn't actually say, and several times referred
> you back to what I did say.  You and I aren't married.  I've got a life
> outside this thread.  And I'm sure there are other people around you can
> argue with.  Wish them good luck and blessings from me.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6403 bytes --]

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[S Boucher]

----- Original Message -----

>( Again) Though some believe it makes more sense to bottom-post and/or respond 
> interlinearly, most people using email top-post.  So we should all start doing 
> what most people do.  :P

Is it just me that has the impression that you are being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative?

Let me ask you: Leaving aside the technical merrits for a moment, if rms goes ahead with the change for the sake of being coherent with other applications and make it easier for the newbies, are you going to survive or are you going to give up Emacs?  How painful will the survival be?

> C-p - Print the file
> 
> C-n - New file
> 
> C-a - select All
> 
> C-q - Quit
> 
> These changes will make it easier for those new to emacs.  In that they are 
> culturally biased towards those who speak English, there are good reasons for 
> them.

Sigh! You like to be argumentative...

And we all know that Emacs is not the least bit biased towards English. 

C-p - previous-line
C-n - next-line
C-y - yank
C-k - kill-line

Furthermore, if - and that's a big IF - the various letter choices (C-a, C-w, C-x, etc) had  anything to do with ergonomics, those without a qwerty keyboards might be getting a raw deal.

I'm a long time emacs user and love it, but it's not like every decision ever made in emacs is always right.  I recall having to use C-x@ to set mark (that's having to type C-x S-2) to set mark in some instances when I couldn't get C-<space> to work.  Non-working C-<space> was probably one of the most frequent issue brought up in gnu.emacs.help back then.

We should really put this to rest, but that's just my opinion...

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Jeremiah Dodds]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:42 PM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>
> Yet you believe those assumptions (which you've conveniently redacted out)
> were based on logic.

They were based on inference, yes. I didn't quote them, as they
weren't relevant to what I was replying to. I can't go edit the post I
made, nor would I, anyone is free to look at the threads history to
see them if they'd like.


>>> I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was
>>> saying.
>>>  And it was *all* that I was saying.  I said this because, in fact, two
>>> people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the
>>> proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please
>>> re-read
>>> my original post and you'll see I already said this.
>>
>> What other people seem to understand is that when those other people
>> proposed that the changes be made because other editors have that
>> behavior, there was most likely an unstated assumption that the other
>> editors did so for a reason and that the suggestion was not merely one
>> of wanting to be part of the cool kids club.
>
> "there was most likely an unstated assumption..."?!  So you're saying that
> even though people didn't give another reason, you can imagine that they had
> one.

Yes, this is very common, especially in non-rigorous discussions like
the one they're having.
I don't feel that it's an improbable discussion, and I would hope that
if it was blatantly incorrect that there would be a slew of people
saying that that's not what they intended. Humans can be bad at
expressing all the necessary assumptive building blocks to a
conclusion, but hopefully do care about clarity.


>> Even if those particular people *were* just wanting to feel like they
>> were using an editor that "belonged", it would still be worth
>> considering the change *because* of the likelihood of there being a
>> reason other than being fashionable.
>
> Again, you're imagining people had another reason, even though they didn't
> give another reason.

I am in fact assuming people have additional reasons, although
unstated. I do this for a few reasons:

  1. It's very common.
  2. As you pointed out, making changes *just* to be like other
software is a bit silly.
  3. People often notice when many things do things similarly and feel
like there may be some merit to their methods.

>> .... that
>> principle also applies to trying not to surprise *new* users, which
>> the behavior does  for some.
>
> No it doesn't apply.  When you start to use new software, you should expect
> to have to learn it.  It's not a surprise if you don't yet know how to use
> it.  Or do you think it's a surprise that you might have to learn something?

I do not, and I agree that it doesn't apply when you start to use
*entirely new* software. I should clarify here -- if you're using your
first image editor, you should expect to have to learn many new
things. If you're using your tenth image editor, you will probably
have quite a bit of transferable knowledge from the first through
ninth that you learned. You should, of course, be fine with learning
new things, but it's not a one-sided argument. Software writers should
also be willing to make changes that are in line with behavior from
other software *in their category*, if there is merit to the behavior.

> You and I aren't married.

Could we be though? I think we'd make a great couple!

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete],

[Rustom Mody]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 789 bytes --]

The most customizable editor and arguments and fights about an easily
settable default?
Ironic...

I would like to point out that if the suggestions by
the Ilya Zakharevich here (5 from end)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs/browse_thread/thread/43549e055d64908b/f4fe528ddc02da03

Likewise Alan Macenzie's idea about emacsicality
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.help/browse_thread/thread/7c08121e215fd383/dcba4f862fc8a7f5?q=emacsicality&lnk=nl&

are taken seriously such arguments are unnecessary.

IOW it is not too much to ask to have the cake and eat it too:

Have: Old users can stay with some version (say emacs 22) and stick
there for as long as they like

Eat: emacs devs can try out genuinely new things unconcerned about
whether some old codgers will get grumpy.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1197 bytes --]

Re: "like other editors"

[Ian Zimmerman]

Rustom> Have: Old users can stay with some version (say emacs 22) and
Rustom> stick there for as long as they like

No.  If that were really the only way of "having", the kind of change
being proposed would be unacceptable.

It is OK if there is a compatibility mode which does not conflict with
new features (as there seems to be in this case, though nobody has yet
confirmed it for sure here).

-- 
Ian Zimmerman
gpg public key: 1024D/C6FF61AD
fingerprint: 66DC D68F 5C1B 4D71 2EE5  BD03 8A00 786C C6FF 61AD
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete],

[Le Wang]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> The most customizable editor and arguments and fights about an easily
> settable default?
> Ironic...

You are proposing a new flame-war where grumpy old men complain that
they have to now add a "emacscality" setting to their init file, and
therefore Free software will lose and "M$", "MS", "Word",  "Apple"
will win!

The striking thing to me about this whole "debate" - and I stress the
quotes - is that there is a distinct class of Emacs users, who having
climbed the steep learning curve to "master" Emacs are very interested
in keeping the barrier to entry high.  Presumably, they do this to
keep themselves feeling special that they've acquired the Emacs skill.

They don't even bother to craft arguments for their position on UI
design basis; of which there are few, including Alan Mackenzie's in
the link you posted.  All they do is try to appeal to our love of Free
software by trotting out strawmen like "Word", "MS" (or more absurdly
"M$"), and "Apple".

This is a user interface issue.  Why can't we just present arguments
as such?  I've layed out a specific use-case where this change will
surely help new users.  Yes, NEW USERS.  They should be the focus.
Not people who already know how to customize their Emacs.

-- 
Le

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete],

[Rustom Mody]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2219 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Le Wang <l26wang@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The most customizable editor and arguments and fights about an easily
> > settable default?
> > Ironic...
>
> You are proposing a new flame-war where grumpy old men complain that
> they have to now add a "emacscality" setting to their init file, and
> therefore Free software will lose and "M$", "MS", "Word",  "Apple"
> will win!
>

No No not my intention!  Ive too much invested into emacs to see it go down
the tube.

>
> The striking thing to me about this whole "debate" - and I stress the
> quotes - is that there is a distinct class of Emacs users, who having
> climbed the steep learning curve to "master" Emacs are very interested
> in keeping the barrier to entry high.  Presumably, they do this to
> keep themselves feeling special that they've acquired the Emacs skill.
>
> Please Le Lets not return flames with flames.


> They don't even bother to craft arguments for their position on UI
> design basis; of which there are few, including Alan Mackenzie's in
> the link you posted.  All they do is try to appeal to our love of Free
> software by trotting out strawmen like "Word", "MS" (or more absurdly
> "M$"), and "Apple".
>
> This is a user interface issue.


Yes, rms question was a UI question.  Many of the responses suggested that
although the details of this question dont bother them much there are larger
questions at stake of which this is a secondary/tertiary 'corollary'.  Would
it not be better to deal with those?


> Why can't we just present arguments
> as such?  I've layed out a specific use-case where this change will
> surely help new users.  Yes, NEW USERS.  They should be the focus.
> Not people who already know how to customize their Emacs.
>
>
Yes and no
Yes: We should focus on new users
No: for the 'only'

Lets remember that emacs started out as being unbelievably inclusive
[I remember 20 years ago when an emacs guru showed me that he could make
emacs into wordstar]

So lets start by trying to include free and commercial OSes, old and noob
users and back of from this position only when it is seen to be too utopian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3333 bytes --]

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Richard Stallman]

    One objection from a hacker - I won't say who he is - complained
    that it would require him to change his .emacs to disable the
    menubar.  Understanding the stupidy of this argument is left as an
    exercise.

If only one person objects to this change, then it would be comparable
to the change of enabling menus.  If many object, that will be the
crucial difference.

The poll will tell us which one it is.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Rustom Mody]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 690 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>    One objection from a hacker - I won't say who he is - complained
>    that it would require him to change his .emacs to disable the
>    menubar.  Understanding the stupidy of this argument is left as an
>    exercise.
>
> If only one person objects to this change, then it would be comparable
> to the change of enabling menus.  If many object, that will be the
> crucial difference.
>
> The poll will tell us which one it is.
>
>
There is one clarification that will make the poll more helpful I feel:
If the change(s) are accepted and a user wants old behavior what is the
customizations he would need to make?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1010 bytes --]

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[MBR]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1348 bytes --]

Superficially, it sounds like he's just lazy.  But I often find myself 
in situations where I'm debugging a problem for a client and I'm on 
someone else's machine.  I can't take the time to edit in all my 
customizations into the client's account, and even if I could, he might 
not want me to.  So I have no choice but to just live with the default 
emacs configuration.  If the issue is whether or not menus are enabled, 
I can live with or without them.  But if the keystroke assignments have 
changed, my fingers are constantly tripping over each other, which is 
distracting enough that it makes it hard to concentrate on debugging the 
problem I'm there to fix in the first place.  So maybe the objection 
isn't quite as stupid as you're implying.

    Mark Rosenthal
    mbr@arlsoft.com <mailto:mbr@arlsoft.com>

On 10/4/2011 1:27 PM, S Boucher wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> This is an invalid argument, --snip--
> This reminds me of the time rms asked whether menus should be enabled by default.
>
> One objection from a hacker - I won't say who he is - complained that it would require him to change his .emacs to disable the menubar.  Understanding the stupidy of this argument is left as an exercise.
>
> Thankfully, rms did the right thing and the menus are on by defaults... and I disable them in my .emacs :-)
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2156 bytes --]

Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[S Boucher]

>
>  But if the keystroke assignments have changed, my fingers are constantly tripping over each other, which is distracting enough that it makes it hard to concentrate on debugging the problem I'm there to fix in the first place.


My configs are so big that no matter what, it's going to be a bit clumsy when I'm using emacs without all my own cruft.  Heck, there's the reverse scenario: someone I go help has his own cruft that makes emacs non-standard.


The key point is whether making it easier for non-hacker should take precedence over making it easier for hackers.  I think we should make it easier for non-hackers.  In the case of the menus, it therefore made more sense to leave them enabled. 


When it comes down to a line or 2 in .emacs, I think the burden should rest on hackers.

In the case of the present proposed change, I wouldn't even offer the choice to have the old behavior to keep the code easier to maintain. Anyone will get over this after at most a day or 2 of !@#$!@$.  And then, you won't have a problem when you go help a friend.

Reminds me of years ago when someone changed all the keybindings of Emacs to match what he was used too on some other Emacs.  Just get used to what the is defined.  It's not the end of the world (at least in the case of the present proposal).  The odd times when a binding changes in Emacs, I just get used to it.

I don't mean to insult anyone, but there's a ridiculous amount of obtuseness displayed in this thread over changes which any reasonably intelligent person will get used to quickly, without adverse effect.  The amount of time spent arguing in this thread is more than it would take anyone to get used to the change.

It's not like we're talking about moving C-x to C-^.