From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jai Dayal Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete] Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:24:02 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87litcvtu2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20111003093334.0bf5d988@kuru.homelinux.net> <4E89B613.9060305@mousecar.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f26f6a9b0cbf04ae64e4da X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317648305 31239 80.91.229.12 (3 Oct 2011 13:25:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:25:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-delete-poll@gnu.org To: gebser@mousecar.com Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 03 15:24:57 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RAiVj-00017y-3Y for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:24:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42880 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RAiVi-0008EL-Lp for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:24:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46931) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RAiVa-0008E2-Op for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:24:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RAiVW-00085q-NX for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:24:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:34340) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RAiVL-000845-SZ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:24:24 -0400 Original-Received: by wyf22 with SMTP id 22so3581327wyf.0 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 06:24:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=5exKlusFB82QnPuM+PsYR+x6lrtcbQkNB6sBabffLQc=; b=O8jeFv/ejzFFIvI6Ck2hHdiLfztp8Z+gIbCyP+jeFH1kvwVHleouywjW95dLQw6dA/ qPDHMtXRtfnVe5+85aEgyoDMFh2Nzcsy/i9I3qW2B3avXffHMfVf8H1/jS4jl9MlRAKQ nemETAlzVJflvsvZwhvGnDOxVdLjD2sNIblbU= Original-Received: by 10.216.229.141 with SMTP id h13mr3237063weq.100.1317648262171; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 06:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.216.187.2 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 06:24:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E89B613.9060305@mousecar.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 74.125.82.169 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:82410 Archived-At: --001485f26f6a9b0cbf04ae64e4da Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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. > > > --001485f26f6a9b0cbf04ae64e4da Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm confused as to why they conducted a poll in the first place.=A0 Bas= ed on the audience (pedantic pseudo-scientists who are simply programmers a= nd not scientists), it's obvious that the people who are against it wil= l be hostile for the most trivial of reasons (hence, they are simple progra= mmers not scientists).

No original functionality will be removed from emacs.=A0 This is just a= simple, logical, edition.=A0 To insert a given character, say 'a',= who actually highlights a block of text and types 'a'?=A0 One simp= ly moves the cursor to the location and presses 'a'.=A0 This emacs = 'feature' is illogical and useless, hence I strongly support the ne= w editions.

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

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:18 AM, ken = <gebser@mouseca= r.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 re= ason. =A0When switching from one application to another, we shouldn't e= xpect the new one to behave just like the former one. =A0They are different= pieces of software, after all. =A0When you start using different software,= you should expect that it will operate differently. =A0You should expect t= hat 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 Li= nux. =A0What 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. =A0So thinking ahea= d to those times, why should we alter the default behavior of Emacs to conf= orm 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 bein= g no difference between Emacs and Word. =A0Then we might as well just use W= ord. :/

Fifth, if we change emacs to comport with Word, and if in future Word chang= es 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 edit= ors" is nothing more than an appeal to fashion. =A0And fashion is very= subjective and capricious. =A0We should no more change emacs simply to com= port 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 t= he cool dudes on whatever soap opera is the most popular these days.

Let's just talk about what makes sense.



--001485f26f6a9b0cbf04ae64e4da--