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: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:54:09 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87litcvtu2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20111003093334.0bf5d988@kuru.homelinux.net> <4E89B613.9060305@mousecar.com> <4E8AFFBA.1000808@mousecar.com> <4E8B6647.4060008@mousecar.com> <4E8B7DC0.4090708@mousecar.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6469a2ec3340e04ae80229a X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317765290 28034 80.91.229.12 (4 Oct 2011 21:54:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:54:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: gebser@mousecar.com Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 04 23:54:45 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 1RBCwg-0007Vg-3M for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:54:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56871 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBCwf-0006gP-Ob for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:54:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51697) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBCwa-0006ew-IY for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:54:33 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBCwZ-00012n-64 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:54:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:40798) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBCwY-00012Z-PJ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:54:31 -0400 Original-Received: by wwp14 with SMTP id 14so1315372wwp.30 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:54:29 -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=RLyYxxNRHQCgDY6xFnf3KlR3IL0nvJjmrbSkE4FJRds=; b=qOBjPQuvan8IAxtEsmbbPEmBKLzwJLSr9DCT8oA3ZRZ00/I+1y34vTqlhMkU9pkO+V 67oXb537/vs9C20WfOuMlCpjH0hcopTHxbigyR3GcJlN5lBJUFhIsF5RPKaE8oAXJGmd L9XwFJnHmCAxTfO9gc5C6+hAN6YoFDy8WiVcE= Original-Received: by 10.216.229.103 with SMTP id g81mr2041960weq.0.1317765269107; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.216.166.206 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:54:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E8B7DC0.4090708@mousecar.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 74.125.82.49 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:82468 Archived-At: --0016e6469a2ec3340e04ae80229a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I love flame wars between pedantic programmers. On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:42 PM, ken 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 wrote: >> >>> On 10/04/2011 02:40 PM Jeremiah Dodds wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, ken 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. > > > > > > --0016e6469a2ec3340e04ae80229a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I love flame wars between pedantic programmers.=A0

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? =A0I suspect this is the reason for the S/N here<= br> 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 mean= ing
as the word has when discussing formal logic.

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

"Formal logic", as you call it, is just regular logic made more r= igorous.




I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was say= ing.
=A0And it was *all* that I was saying. =A0I 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..."?! =A0So 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 did= n't give another reason.



=A0....

Not at all. =A0You're obviously not aware of the quite important princi= ple 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 =A0for some.

No it doesn't apply. =A0When you start to use new software, you should = expect to have to learn it. =A0It's not a surprise if you don't yet= know how to use it. =A0Or 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 argu= ments
*against* keeping the behavior are also not just "but Mom, everyone is=
wearing them!".
Again, re-read my original post. =A0Don't try to put words or arguments= in it
that aren't there. =A0I didn't write what you quote above, nor did = I even
imply that. =A0So 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 whe= n you imagined I said things I didn't actually say, and several times r= eferred you back to what I did say. =A0You and I aren't married. =A0I&#= 39;ve got a life outside this thread. =A0And I'm sure there are other p= eople around you can argue with. =A0Wish them good luck and blessings from = me.






--0016e6469a2ec3340e04ae80229a--