Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Richard V. Molen]

bobstopper@australispro.com.au writes:

> The things that would convince me it's worth it are: people want the product;
> I manage to make money out of it thus fulfilling my dream of beginning an 
> income generating programming cooperative (I'm an anarchist and I want rid of
> bosses =P); and it wins people over to the GNU cause (Like I said, I don't
> think providing an equivalent will do it - it needs to be BETTER).

> As for the features of Emacs creeping in, why wait when we can just do it
> from scratch? The best features of Emacs, I would say, would be its use of
> modes and elisp. 

How might Emacs modes and elisp benefit typical office users in such a way that
they would say, "Hey, I this cool, maybe I should try it."?

> Most programs would need a complete rewrite to provide that
> functionality anyway. This would have the advantage of having it from the
> start.

It seems to me that the cart of existing applications (like Emacs) is
being put in front of the ox of user requirements analysis.  First
decide which users will be your primary focus, figure out what would
make their life easier and how you can sell them on it.  Your approach
seems to be from the opposite direction, "How do I take a cool app
like Emacs & make it so everyone will want to use it."

If I was just starting a project I'd review the UML's software
development process 'use-case analysis' literature by Jacobson
(Jacobsen?).

Of course, if the real purpose is to increase Emacs acceptance among
the unconverted, you may want to consider a 'foot in the door'
approach as opposed to a total replacement.

Perhaps a simpler project would be to make Emacs a 'really cool
program launcher' that would launch Browsers, Explorer Windows, music
media players etc. from text file entries.  This functionality already
exists in Emacs.  This might be saleable because a user can setup a
text file to contain important URLS, filenames, shortcuts along with
explanatory/searchable text in a way that hasn't been done by M$.

-- 
Richard V. Molen

Warning!!
Signature under construction, safety glasses required.

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Alan Shutko]

rvmolen@bambecksystems.com (Richard V. Molen) writes:

> This might be saleable because a user can setup a text file to
> contain important URLS, filenames, shortcuts along with
> explanatory/searchable text in a way that hasn't been done by M$.

Hyperbole could do that.  It's been orphaned for a while, afaik, but
it could use a maintainer to bring it into the modern age.

-- 
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
Just like cheese, I'm aged to perfection!

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Vilhelm Bergman]

rvmolen@bambecksystems.com (Richard V. Molen) writes:

> bobstopper@australispro.com.au writes:

> If I was just starting a project I'd review the UML's software
> development process 'use-case analysis' literature by Jacobson
> (Jacobsen?).

Ivar Jacobsen

/v
-- 
"Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected
 without, I thought, proper consideration." - Stan Kelly-Bootle

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Chris L]

Personally, I would just like a word processor that, when I am forced
to use such a thing in Windows (such as when working with co-workers
sharing a Word document who won't use plain text, emacs or Unix),
would still allow me to use basic emacs keybindings,
incremental-search, and other such features.

The most frustrating thing about Word is not the program, which I have
learned over the years to tolerate and to deal with and tamed, but the
amount of time it takes me to switch back to "word and windows" mode
using the keyboard... 

Word needs an emacs emulation mode :)

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Matthias Rempe]

>>>>> "CL" == Chris L <chrisl_ak@hotmail.com> writes:

    > The most frustrating thing about Word is not the program, which
    > I have learned over the years to tolerate and to deal with and
    > tamed, but the amount of time it takes me to switch back to
    > "word and windows" mode using the keyboard...

    > Word needs an emacs emulation mode :)

Try VBacs:

,----
| 'VBacs - VBA to create Emacs short-cut keys in MS Word.
| 'Author: Christopher Rath <christopher@rath.ca>
| 'Date: 13 January, 2001
| 'Version: 1.00
| 'Archived at: http://www.rath.ca/Misc/VBacs/
| 'Copyright (c) 1998-2001 Christopher Rath
| 'Distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1
| '  (see the LGPL_License VBA module for the license text)
| 'Warranty: None, see the license.
`----

I've also defined Ctrl-Z to minimize the Word window.

-- 
Matthias

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Joshua Goldberg]

Kevin Dziulko <dziulko@klaatu.canisius.edu> writes:

> Target both software developers and casual office users? Good luck with
> that.

Mac OSX seems like a good example of this.  A hood under which you can
get to tweak powerfully (in ways developers are accustomed to and that
work well) on a system that is well-enough designed that even the
developers I know find they don't bother tweaking it nearly as much as
they did with unix.

> One big super app that does everything? I think MS Word attempts
> that (has word processing, drawing, desktop publishing, embedded
> spreadsheets, modes(document templates), extendable with programming
> ...).  The result: enormous, slow, unstable, and all the other
> reasons why people hate microsoft apps. If you want an app that
> performs well, modularity is the key. Many small programs with a
> narrower scope would be easier to create, upkeep, and execute with
> high performace.  

Good points.  I do think a good word-processor can exist, though, that
both programmers and grandpa would be happy with.

 -Josh

(I tweak emacs a lot and love to, but I can certainly imagine having
software that doesn't make me feel like I need to.  I should also
admit that I've never owned or made very heavy use of a Mac--usually
I'm on unix at work.  If I bought a computer though it'd probably be
Mac.)

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Peter S Galbraith]

Kevin Dziulko <dziulko@klaatu.canisius.edu> writes:

> One big super app that does everything?

People used to say that about Emacs.  :-)
Some still do.

Although the "eight megabytes of ram and constantly swapping" joke
doesn't ring as true when the basic PC has 256 MB now.  Hardware has
caught up to Emacs for a while now!

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[bobstopper]

> I think your idea is very good!!, I support it.
> 
> 
>  Tell me what's not accomplished in emacs, which is in MS office currently.
>  May be many.
>  We need more GUI style of things and enhanced modes.
> 
> Artist
 
 
I'm thinking that the idea that Emacs is predominantly text-based system
(with an optional gui front-end) prevents it from being a viable option
for appealing to the common user. It also makes it harder to support
word processor-y type things like fonts, graphics etc. What I'm thinking
is something like Emacs only providing the functionality and a similar
GUI type interface to apps like gnumeric, evolution, gimp, galeon etc
etc all within the one app (with the appropriate mode loaded).

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[bobstopper]

> Hi Richard, answers below,
> 
> 
> > Emacs can probably do something similar to what I'm thinking already if 
> > support was written for it, but I'm thinking Emacs would probably remain,
> > well, ugly in the eyes of typical office workers and it would thus
> > be unappealing.
> 
> Wait, who are the target users, software developers or typical office
> workers?  :-|

I'm hoping both. The idea is that a simple wysiwyg app can be created with
all the visual masturbation features you see in todays office products while
maintaining a easy-access programmable interface such as Emacs. So, basic
users are happy because they can do all the same kinda stuff they could before
(but hopefully they're MORE happy because they only need the ONE app to do
it rather than several - it simplifies things for them a bit), while advanced
users are happy because, like with Emacs, the possibilities are boundless.
I'm hoping it can then appeal to both software developers AND office workers,
basic AND advanced, power users AND point-and-click users. So, we get a nice
app that all these basic office users love and we don't have to castrate what
we ourselves can do with it.

 
> > Instead I'm envisioning something that looks a lot like current gnome
> > office products... only it's capable of doing all of them simply by loading
> > the appropriate modes (perhaps after first writing them ;).
> 
> If the target users are typical office workers then why not help
> improve the OpenOffice offering.  It would probably be much less work.
> :-\

It would be plenty less work. But if all we're doing is providing something
that basically is the same as M$ office but looks a little different then
not many people (other than hardened free software advocates and a few people
who see the product and like not having to pay for it) will bother using it.
It's "different" (unfamiliar territory) and provides no real advantage within
its features. What I'm proposing is something that actually improves on the
idea of current office apps while also making it practical for the rest of
us who like to create vast modifications using built-in extension languages.

 
> > Gnome office is a great idea and I think it's a great alternative to M$
> > office but I think the idea of having separate programs attempting to 
> > integrate through some additional system like bonobo or OLE will still
> > remain somewhat unintegrated and perhaps not as consistent in its interface
> > as what I'm suggesting would be. I imagine typical office users would be
> > much more satisfied if they only needed the one app that could do everything
> > and I imagine advanced office users and programmers would be much more
> > satisfied if they can extend that app to do almost anything they please.
> 
> So the target users would be _advanced_ office users and programmers?
> Certainly programmers using Emacs would benefit.  What incentive would
> advanced office users have to make the switch and undergo a learning
> curve? :-?

I'm hoping to make it as simple or more simple as current office apps in its
interface while adding to simplification by having all office functionality
within the one app. That way basic users don't have to hunt and run a new
app each time they want to do a different officey thingie and additionally
the interface remains almost identical between modes with perhaps a few
modifications (as with Emacs) - so the user feels familiarity between modes.
Of course, this idea of "consistent interface" is enforced to an extent in 
products like M$ office, but office users still often use software from other 
vendors which isn't so well integrated. Within this product there would be
no reason for such vendors to create completely different products when
they can just write a mode which works seamlessly with the basic office app.
It encourages a whole new level of interface consistency.

So that's my main hope for it appealing to typical office users. For advanced
users, I'm hoping the idea of a programmable interface using guile or whatever
might appeal to them as it provides so much more power (like a previous poster
mentioned - try doing a regexp search using M$ word).


> > So if something *better* (rather than just equivalent) than M$ office is
> > written as part of the GNU/Linux project then we have much more clout for
> > winning the average user over. I imagine for this sort of goal the app
> > would almost certainly have to have a fully featured M$ Windows port so
> > it can first appeal to all these M$ windows users, and once they're won
> > over it's a small step to realising that if everything they need for
> > office work is in that app, and that app is available on GNU why not just
> > use GNU?
> 
> Yow! Sounds ambitious.  But wait, who is the target user?  Uncle
> Bill's M$ success was by appealing to the lowest common comuter-user
> demoninator and releasing not-so-thoroughly tested software early in
> order to beat others to market.  What features will this project
> provide that will attract these folks in herds and send them
> stampeding to GNU/Linux boxes? Answering that question, what would be
> the quickest route to providing these features and advertising that
> fact? :-/

It's very &$#!ing ambitious. I hope I've given a good illustration of why it
might appeal to common users already. Tell me if not. The quickest route
to providing the features? *shrug* I haven't bothered thinking about
implementation yet =P .  Advertising? Heh, got me there. How does GNU
normally advertise? I'm hoping word of mouth might succeed among the more
advanced users and then maybe it'll catch on from there. In the meantime,
if it works out well maybe a company could focus on its development and
sell packaged and documented versions to aid further development and
advertising costs. I'm idly considering that last idea (hence I'm seeking
feedback). 
 

> > So, with that description of my infant idea in mind, I have a couple of
> > questions:
> > 
> > Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
> > or is in the process of being written etc?
> > 
> > and of course:
> > 
> > Is my idea stupid, infeasible, lacking in some major consideration, too
> > damned hard etc or is it actually a good idea?
> 
> I like the idea, but it sounds like a lot of work.  Would it be worth
> it?  Eventually, of course, the best features of Emacs will creep into
> other applications and visa versa.

Soooo much work =<

The things that would convince me it's worth it are: people want the product;
I manage to make money out of it thus fulfilling my dream of beginning an 
income generating programming cooperative (I'm an anarchist and I want rid of
bosses =P); and it wins people over to the GNU cause (Like I said, I don't
think providing an equivalent will do it - it needs to be BETTER).

As for the features of Emacs creeping in, why wait when we can just do it
from scratch? The best features of Emacs, I would say, would be its use of
modes and elisp. Most programs would need a complete rewrite to provide that
functionality anyway. This would have the advantage of having it from the
start.

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Kevin Dziulko]

This is off topic and should continue discussion else where, but I'm not
sure where that should be.

Target both software developers and casual office users? Good luck with
that. What is it that they do that is in common?  One big super app that
does everything? I think MS Word attempts that (has word processing,
drawing, desktop publishing, embedded spreadsheets,
modes(document templates), extendable with programming ...).  The result:
enormous, slow, unstable, and all the other reasons why people hate
microsoft apps. If you want an app that performs well, modularity is the
key. Many small programs with a narrower scope would be easier to create,
upkeep, and execute with high performace. An app can have all kinds of
great features, but if it runs slow and crashes, I'm not buying. Perhaps
it's me, but I find "does everything" and "simpler to use" to be a
paradox. And as far as bringing people to Linux, great apps will help, but
standardization will help more. Windows is easy because one knows before
ever even using a new app that they can save by clicking file, and then
save. Every single unix app has different key sequences for everything.

I'm sorry if my message is negative, but opinions were asked for.


On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 bobstopper@australispro.com.au wrote:

> > Hi Richard, answers below,
> >
> >
> > > Emacs can probably do something similar to what I'm thinking already if
> > > support was written for it, but I'm thinking Emacs would probably remain,
> > > well, ugly in the eyes of typical office workers and it would thus
> > > be unappealing.
> >
> > Wait, who are the target users, software developers or typical office
> > workers?  :-|
>
> I'm hoping both. The idea is that a simple wysiwyg app can be created with
> all the visual masturbation features you see in todays office products while
> maintaining a easy-access programmable interface such as Emacs. So, basic
> users are happy because they can do all the same kinda stuff they could before
> (but hopefully they're MORE happy because they only need the ONE app to do
> it rather than several - it simplifies things for them a bit), while advanced
> users are happy because, like with Emacs, the possibilities are boundless.
> I'm hoping it can then appeal to both software developers AND office workers,
> basic AND advanced, power users AND point-and-click users. So, we get a nice
> app that all these basic office users love and we don't have to castrate what
> we ourselves can do with it.
>
>
> > > Instead I'm envisioning something that looks a lot like current gnome
> > > office products... only it's capable of doing all of them simply by loading
> > > the appropriate modes (perhaps after first writing them ;).
> >
> > If the target users are typical office workers then why not help
> > improve the OpenOffice offering.  It would probably be much less work.
> > :-\
>
> It would be plenty less work. But if all we're doing is providing something
> that basically is the same as M$ office but looks a little different then
> not many people (other than hardened free software advocates and a few people
> who see the product and like not having to pay for it) will bother using it.
> It's "different" (unfamiliar territory) and provides no real advantage within
> its features. What I'm proposing is something that actually improves on the
> idea of current office apps while also making it practical for the rest of
> us who like to create vast modifications using built-in extension languages.
>
>
> > > Gnome office is a great idea and I think it's a great alternative to M$
> > > office but I think the idea of having separate programs attempting to
> > > integrate through some additional system like bonobo or OLE will still
> > > remain somewhat unintegrated and perhaps not as consistent in its interface
> > > as what I'm suggesting would be. I imagine typical office users would be
> > > much more satisfied if they only needed the one app that could do everything
> > > and I imagine advanced office users and programmers would be much more
> > > satisfied if they can extend that app to do almost anything they please.
> >
> > So the target users would be _advanced_ office users and programmers?
> > Certainly programmers using Emacs would benefit.  What incentive would
> > advanced office users have to make the switch and undergo a learning
> > curve? :-?
>
> I'm hoping to make it as simple or more simple as current office apps in its
> interface while adding to simplification by having all office functionality
> within the one app. That way basic users don't have to hunt and run a new
> app each time they want to do a different officey thingie and additionally
> the interface remains almost identical between modes with perhaps a few
> modifications (as with Emacs) - so the user feels familiarity between modes.
> Of course, this idea of "consistent interface" is enforced to an extent in
> products like M$ office, but office users still often use software from other
> vendors which isn't so well integrated. Within this product there would be
> no reason for such vendors to create completely different products when
> they can just write a mode which works seamlessly with the basic office app.
> It encourages a whole new level of interface consistency.
>
> So that's my main hope for it appealing to typical office users. For advanced
> users, I'm hoping the idea of a programmable interface using guile or whatever
> might appeal to them as it provides so much more power (like a previous poster
> mentioned - try doing a regexp search using M$ word).
>
>
> > > So if something *better* (rather than just equivalent) than M$ office is
> > > written as part of the GNU/Linux project then we have much more clout for
> > > winning the average user over. I imagine for this sort of goal the app
> > > would almost certainly have to have a fully featured M$ Windows port so
> > > it can first appeal to all these M$ windows users, and once they're won
> > > over it's a small step to realising that if everything they need for
> > > office work is in that app, and that app is available on GNU why not just
> > > use GNU?
> >
> > Yow! Sounds ambitious.  But wait, who is the target user?  Uncle
> > Bill's M$ success was by appealing to the lowest common comuter-user
> > demoninator and releasing not-so-thoroughly tested software early in
> > order to beat others to market.  What features will this project
> > provide that will attract these folks in herds and send them
> > stampeding to GNU/Linux boxes? Answering that question, what would be
> > the quickest route to providing these features and advertising that
> > fact? :-/
>
> It's very &$#!ing ambitious. I hope I've given a good illustration of why it
> might appeal to common users already. Tell me if not. The quickest route
> to providing the features? *shrug* I haven't bothered thinking about
> implementation yet =P .  Advertising? Heh, got me there. How does GNU
> normally advertise? I'm hoping word of mouth might succeed among the more
> advanced users and then maybe it'll catch on from there. In the meantime,
> if it works out well maybe a company could focus on its development and
> sell packaged and documented versions to aid further development and
> advertising costs. I'm idly considering that last idea (hence I'm seeking
> feedback).
>
>
> > > So, with that description of my infant idea in mind, I have a couple of
> > > questions:
> > >
> > > Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
> > > or is in the process of being written etc?
> > >
> > > and of course:
> > >
> > > Is my idea stupid, infeasible, lacking in some major consideration, too
> > > damned hard etc or is it actually a good idea?
> >
> > I like the idea, but it sounds like a lot of work.  Would it be worth
> > it?  Eventually, of course, the best features of Emacs will creep into
> > other applications and visa versa.
>
> Soooo much work =<
>
> The things that would convince me it's worth it are: people want the product;
> I manage to make money out of it thus fulfilling my dream of beginning an
> income generating programming cooperative (I'm an anarchist and I want rid of
> bosses =P); and it wins people over to the GNU cause (Like I said, I don't
> think providing an equivalent will do it - it needs to be BETTER).
>
> As for the features of Emacs creeping in, why wait when we can just do it
> from scratch? The best features of Emacs, I would say, would be its use of
> modes and elisp. Most programs would need a complete rewrite to provide that
> functionality anyway. This would have the advantage of having it from the
> start.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Help-gnu-emacs mailing list
> Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs
>

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Todd Wylie]

bobstopper@australispro.com.au writes:

I, for one, would love to see an application that merged the WYSIWYG features of a word processor with the underlying power of Emacs. This may start the old "Emacs is a text processor not a word processor" debate... but there are times when I want a straight ahead editor (programming) and other times I want to view text in a word processor (I'm writing a book right now). Trying to get Emacs to show text in manuscript format is a pain in the butt (double-spacing lines without hard returns, specific margins, headers and footers with page numbers, etc.). However, no word processor I have ever found matches the power and scope of Emacs (try running a regex search in MS Word). I really do wish someone would merge the two concepts someday. 
If anyone responds directly to you about such a package existing -- please let me know. 

Thanks-
TODD




> Hi
> 
> This isn't really a request for help with Emacs but a request for knowledge
> on Applications inspired by Emacs, specifically office type Applications.
> 
> I love how Emacs is so extensible and provides so many features due to its
> use of modes and elisp. So what I'm (very idly at this stage) considering
> is the idea of an office kinda suite (yeah, like M$) all within the one
> program through the use of emacs style modes and retaining a lot of
> extensibility through a lisp dialect (probably guile).
> 
> Emacs can probably do something similar to what I'm thinking already if 
> support was written for it, but I'm thinking Emacs would probably remain,
> well, ugly in the eyes of typical office workers and it would thus
> be unappealing.
> 
> Instead I'm envisioning something that looks a lot like current gnome
> office products... only it's capable of doing all of them simply by loading
> the appropriate modes (perhaps after first writing them ;).
> 
> Gnome office is a great idea and I think it's a great alternative to M$
> office but I think the idea of having separate programs attempting to 
> integrate through some additional system like bonobo or OLE will still
> remain somewhat unintegrated and perhaps not as consistent in its interface
> as what I'm suggesting would be. I imagine typical office users would be
> much more satisfied if they only needed the one app that could do everything
> and I imagine advanced office users and programmers would be much more
> satisfied if they can extend that app to do almost anything they please.
> 
> So if something *better* (rather than just equivalent) than M$ office is
> written as part of the GNU/Linux project then we have much more clout for
> winning the average user over. I imagine for this sort of goal the app
> would almost certainly have to have a fully featured M$ Windows port so
> it can first appeal to all these M$ windows users, and once they're won
> over it's a small step to realising that if everything they need for
> office work is in that app, and that app is available on GNU why not just
> use GNU?
> 
> So, with that description of my infant idea in mind, I have a couple of
> questions:
> 
> Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
> or is in the process of being written etc?
> 
> and of course:
> 
> Is my idea stupid, infeasible, lacking in some major consideration, too
> damned hard etc or is it actually a good idea?
> 
> I'm looking forward to any kinds of comments/suggestions. Thanks!

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Paul Thompson]

have you ever heard of TeX/LaTeX????

Todd Wylie wrote:
> bobstopper@australispro.com.au writes:
> 
> I, for one, would love to see an application that merged the WYSIWYG features of a word processor with the underlying power of Emacs. This may start the old "Emacs is a text processor not a word processor" debate... but there are times when I want a straight ahead editor (programming) and other times I want to view text in a word processor (I'm writing a book right now). Trying to get Emacs to show text in manuscript format is a pain in the butt (double-spacing lines without hard returns, specific margins, headers and footers with page numbers, etc.). However, no word processor I have ever found matches the power and scope of Emacs (try running a regex search in MS Word). I really do wish someone would merge the two concepts someday. 
> If anyone responds directly to you about such a package existing -- please let me know. 
> 
> Thanks-
> TODD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Hi
>>
>>This isn't really a request for help with Emacs but a request for knowledge
>>on Applications inspired by Emacs, specifically office type Applications.
>>
>>I love how Emacs is so extensible and provides so many features due to its
>>use of modes and elisp. So what I'm (very idly at this stage) considering
>>is the idea of an office kinda suite (yeah, like M$) all within the one
>>program through the use of emacs style modes and retaining a lot of
>>extensibility through a lisp dialect (probably guile).
>>
>>Emacs can probably do something similar to what I'm thinking already if 
>>support was written for it, but I'm thinking Emacs would probably remain,
>>well, ugly in the eyes of typical office workers and it would thus
>>be unappealing.
>>
>>Instead I'm envisioning something that looks a lot like current gnome
>>office products... only it's capable of doing all of them simply by loading
>>the appropriate modes (perhaps after first writing them ;).
>>
>>Gnome office is a great idea and I think it's a great alternative to M$
>>office but I think the idea of having separate programs attempting to 
>>integrate through some additional system like bonobo or OLE will still
>>remain somewhat unintegrated and perhaps not as consistent in its interface
>>as what I'm suggesting would be. I imagine typical office users would be
>>much more satisfied if they only needed the one app that could do everything
>>and I imagine advanced office users and programmers would be much more
>>satisfied if they can extend that app to do almost anything they please.
>>
>>So if something *better* (rather than just equivalent) than M$ office is
>>written as part of the GNU/Linux project then we have much more clout for
>>winning the average user over. I imagine for this sort of goal the app
>>would almost certainly have to have a fully featured M$ Windows port so
>>it can first appeal to all these M$ windows users, and once they're won
>>over it's a small step to realising that if everything they need for
>>office work is in that app, and that app is available on GNU why not just
>>use GNU?
>>
>>So, with that description of my infant idea in mind, I have a couple of
>>questions:
>>
>>Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
>>or is in the process of being written etc?
>>
>>and of course:
>>
>>Is my idea stupid, infeasible, lacking in some major consideration, too
>>damned hard etc or is it actually a good idea?
>>
>>I'm looking forward to any kinds of comments/suggestions. Thanks!
> 

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Todd Wylie]

Paul Thompson <paul@wubios.wustl.edu> writes:



> have you ever heard of TeX/LaTeX????

Of course ... I think you missed the point completely. Using Tex involves writing mark-up within your text. It is not real time like a word processor (which is what the original post was about). As a scientist, I use Tex frequently for scientific related articles. This isn't an anti-Emacs thread ... we simply would like to an application that gives another choice when using Emacs. I use whatever tool makes me the most productive for the job at hand. There are times when I would like the simplicity of a word processor with the power and keystroke ability of Emacs. 

Todd 



> 
> Todd Wylie wrote:
> > bobstopper@australispro.com.au writes:
> > I, for one, would love to see an application that merged the WYSIWYG
> > features of a word processor with the underlying power of
> > Emacs. This may start the old "Emacs is a text processor not a word
> > processor" debate... but there are times when I want a straight
> > ahead editor (programming) and other times I want to view text in a
> > word processor (I'm writing a book right now). Trying to get Emacs
> > to show text in manuscript format is a pain in the butt
> > (double-spacing lines without hard returns, specific margins,
> > headers and footers with page numbers, etc.). However, no word
> > processor I have ever found matches the power and scope of Emacs
> > (try running a regex search in MS Word). I really do wish someone
> > would merge the two concepts someday. If anyone responds directly to
> > you about such a package existing -- please let me know. Thanks-
> > TODD
> >
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>This isn't really a request for help with Emacs but a request for knowledge
> >>on Applications inspired by Emacs, specifically office type Applications.
> >>
> >>I love how Emacs is so extensible and provides so many features due to its
> >>use of modes and elisp. So what I'm (very idly at this stage) considering
> >>is the idea of an office kinda suite (yeah, like M$) all within the one
> >>program through the use of emacs style modes and retaining a lot of
> >>extensibility through a lisp dialect (probably guile).
> >>
> >> Emacs can probably do something similar to what I'm thinking
> >> already if support was written for it, but I'm thinking Emacs would
> >> probably remain,
> >>well, ugly in the eyes of typical office workers and it would thus
> >>be unappealing.
> >>
> >>Instead I'm envisioning something that looks a lot like current gnome
> >>office products... only it's capable of doing all of them simply by loading
> >>the appropriate modes (perhaps after first writing them ;).
> >>
> >>Gnome office is a great idea and I think it's a great alternative to M$
> >> office but I think the idea of having separate programs attempting
> >> to integrate through some additional system like bonobo or OLE will
> >> still
> >>remain somewhat unintegrated and perhaps not as consistent in its interface
> >>as what I'm suggesting would be. I imagine typical office users would be
> >>much more satisfied if they only needed the one app that could do everything
> >>and I imagine advanced office users and programmers would be much more
> >>satisfied if they can extend that app to do almost anything they please.
> >>
> >>So if something *better* (rather than just equivalent) than M$ office is
> >>written as part of the GNU/Linux project then we have much more clout for
> >>winning the average user over. I imagine for this sort of goal the app
> >>would almost certainly have to have a fully featured M$ Windows port so
> >>it can first appeal to all these M$ windows users, and once they're won
> >>over it's a small step to realising that if everything they need for
> >>office work is in that app, and that app is available on GNU why not just
> >>use GNU?
> >>
> >>So, with that description of my infant idea in mind, I have a couple of
> >>questions:
> >>
> >>Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
> >>or is in the process of being written etc?
> >>
> >>and of course:
> >>
> >>Is my idea stupid, infeasible, lacking in some major consideration, too
> >>damned hard etc or is it actually a good idea?
> >>
> >>I'm looking forward to any kinds of comments/suggestions. Thanks!
> >

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Paul Thompson]

it ain't possible, unless you reinvent word.  It is either WYSIWIG or a 
post-processor, or something worse.

Todd Wylie wrote:
> Paul Thompson <paul@wubios.wustl.edu> writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>have you ever heard of TeX/LaTeX????
> 
> 
> Of course ... I think you missed the point completely. Using Tex involves writing mark-up within your text. It is not real time like a word processor (which is what the original post was about). As a scientist, I use Tex frequently for scientific related articles. This isn't an anti-Emacs thread ... we simply would like to an application that gives another choice when using Emacs. I use whatever tool makes me the most productive for the job at hand. There are times when I would like the simplicity of a word processor with the power and keystroke ability of Emacs. 
> 
> Todd 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Todd Wylie wrote:
>>
>>>bobstopper@australispro.com.au writes:
>>>I, for one, would love to see an application that merged the WYSIWYG
>>>features of a word processor with the underlying power of
>>>Emacs. This may start the old "Emacs is a text processor not a word
>>>processor" debate... but there are times when I want a straight
>>>ahead editor (programming) and other times I want to view text in a
>>>word processor (I'm writing a book right now). Trying to get Emacs
>>>to show text in manuscript format is a pain in the butt
>>>(double-spacing lines without hard returns, specific margins,
>>>headers and footers with page numbers, etc.). However, no word
>>>processor I have ever found matches the power and scope of Emacs
>>>(try running a regex search in MS Word). I really do wish someone
>>>would merge the two concepts someday. If anyone responds directly to
>>>you about such a package existing -- please let me know. Thanks-
>>>TODD
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi
>>>>
>>>>This isn't really a request for help with Emacs but a request for knowledge
>>>>on Applications inspired by Emacs, specifically office type Applications.
>>>>
>>>>I love how Emacs is so extensible and provides so many features due to its
>>>>use of modes and elisp. So what I'm (very idly at this stage) considering
>>>>is the idea of an office kinda suite (yeah, like M$) all within the one
>>>>program through the use of emacs style modes and retaining a lot of
>>>>extensibility through a lisp dialect (probably guile).
>>>>
>>>>Emacs can probably do something similar to what I'm thinking
>>>>already if support was written for it, but I'm thinking Emacs would
>>>>probably remain,
>>>>well, ugly in the eyes of typical office workers and it would thus
>>>>be unappealing.
>>>>
>>>>Instead I'm envisioning something that looks a lot like current gnome
>>>>office products... only it's capable of doing all of them simply by loading
>>>>the appropriate modes (perhaps after first writing them ;).
>>>>
>>>>Gnome office is a great idea and I think it's a great alternative to M$
>>>>office but I think the idea of having separate programs attempting
>>>>to integrate through some additional system like bonobo or OLE will
>>>>still
>>>>remain somewhat unintegrated and perhaps not as consistent in its interface
>>>>as what I'm suggesting would be. I imagine typical office users would be
>>>>much more satisfied if they only needed the one app that could do everything
>>>>and I imagine advanced office users and programmers would be much more
>>>>satisfied if they can extend that app to do almost anything they please.
>>>>
>>>>So if something *better* (rather than just equivalent) than M$ office is
>>>>written as part of the GNU/Linux project then we have much more clout for
>>>>winning the average user over. I imagine for this sort of goal the app
>>>>would almost certainly have to have a fully featured M$ Windows port so
>>>>it can first appeal to all these M$ windows users, and once they're won
>>>>over it's a small step to realising that if everything they need for
>>>>office work is in that app, and that app is available on GNU why not just
>>>>use GNU?
>>>>
>>>>So, with that description of my infant idea in mind, I have a couple of
>>>>questions:
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
>>>>or is in the process of being written etc?
>>>>
>>>>and of course:
>>>>
>>>>Is my idea stupid, infeasible, lacking in some major consideration, too
>>>>damned hard etc or is it actually a good idea?
>>>>
>>>>I'm looking forward to any kinds of comments/suggestions. Thanks!
>>>

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Artist]

bobstopper@australispro.com.au wrote in message news:<mailman.1036030537.11556.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>...
> Hi
> 
> This isn't really a request for help with Emacs but a request for knowledge
> on Applications inspired by Emacs, specifically office type Applications.
> 
> I love how Emacs is so extensible and provides so many features due to its
> use of modes and elisp. So what I'm (very idly at this stage) considering
> is the idea of an office kinda suite (yeah, like M$) all within the one
> program through the use of emacs style modes and retaining a lot of
> extensibility through a lisp dialect (probably guile).

I think your idea is very good!!, I support it.


 Tell me what's not accomplished in emacs, which is in MS office currently.
 May be many.
 We need more GUI style of things and enhanced modes.

Artist

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Alex Schroeder]

I do not understand -- Emacs IS an Office App!  It has text
processing, layouting using LaTeX, previewing, web browsing,
newsreading, mail reading, diary, calendar, addresses, spam filtering,
spreadsheets -- what exactly are you looking for?

Alex.

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[bc]

Alex Schroeder wrote:
> 
> I do not understand -- Emacs IS an Office App!  It has text
> processing, layouting using LaTeX, previewing, web browsing,
> newsreading, mail reading, diary, calendar, addresses, spam filtering,
> spreadsheets -- what exactly are you looking for?
> 
> Alex

I should probably go research this offline, but tell me more
about that emacs spreadsheet.   I'm not a heavy duty Excel user,
but there are times when I'm working on something that needs some
number crunching, and I end up doing spreadsheets.  Thanks.

-- bc

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Alex Schroeder]

bc <bc@example.net> writes:

> I should probably go research this offline, but tell me more
> about that emacs spreadsheet.

Do it online, on the wiki:

http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SpreadSheet should get you
started.

Alex.

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[bc]

Alex Schroeder wrote:
> 
<snip>
> 
> http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SpreadSheet should get you
> started.
> 
> Alex.

Thanks, I should've remembered the wiki myself!  Never
occurred to me that there would be a spreadsheet in emacs.

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Richard V. Molen]

bobstopper@australispro.com.au writes:

> This isn't really a request for help with Emacs but a request for knowledge
> on Applications inspired by Emacs, specifically office type Applications.
> 
> I love how Emacs is so extensible and provides so many features due to its
> use of modes and elisp. So what I'm (very idly at this stage) considering
> is the idea of an office kinda suite (yeah, like M$) all within the one
> program through the use of emacs style modes and retaining a lot of
> extensibility through a lisp dialect (probably guile).

Sounds great, when can I get one.
 :-)

> Emacs can probably do something similar to what I'm thinking already if 
> support was written for it, but I'm thinking Emacs would probably remain,
> well, ugly in the eyes of typical office workers and it would thus
> be unappealing.

Wait, who are the target users, software developers or typical office
workers?  :-|

> Instead I'm envisioning something that looks a lot like current gnome
> office products... only it's capable of doing all of them simply by loading
> the appropriate modes (perhaps after first writing them ;).

If the target users are typical office workers then why not help
improve the OpenOffice offering.  It would probably be much less work.
:-\

> Gnome office is a great idea and I think it's a great alternative to M$
> office but I think the idea of having separate programs attempting to 
> integrate through some additional system like bonobo or OLE will still
> remain somewhat unintegrated and perhaps not as consistent in its interface
> as what I'm suggesting would be. I imagine typical office users would be
> much more satisfied if they only needed the one app that could do everything
> and I imagine advanced office users and programmers would be much more
> satisfied if they can extend that app to do almost anything they please.

So the target users would be _advanced_ office users and programmers?
Certainly programmers using Emacs would benefit.  What incentive would
advanced office users have to make the switch and undergo a learning
curve? :-?

> So if something *better* (rather than just equivalent) than M$ office is
> written as part of the GNU/Linux project then we have much more clout for
> winning the average user over. I imagine for this sort of goal the app
> would almost certainly have to have a fully featured M$ Windows port so
> it can first appeal to all these M$ windows users, and once they're won
> over it's a small step to realising that if everything they need for
> office work is in that app, and that app is available on GNU why not just
> use GNU?

Yow! Sounds ambitious.  But wait, who is the target user?  Uncle
Bill's M$ success was by appealing to the lowest common comuter-user
demoninator and releasing not-so-thoroughly tested software early in
order to beat others to market.  What features will this project
provide that will attract these folks in herds and send them
stampeding to GNU/Linux boxes? Answering that question, what would be
the quickest route to providing these features and advertising that
fact? :-/

> 
> So, with that description of my infant idea in mind, I have a couple of
> questions:
> 
> Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
> or is in the process of being written etc?
> 
> and of course:
> 
> Is my idea stupid, infeasible, lacking in some major consideration, too
> damned hard etc or is it actually a good idea?

I like the idea, but it sounds like a lot of work.  Would it be worth
it?  Eventually, of course, the best features of Emacs will creep into
other applications and visa versa.

> I'm looking forward to any kinds of comments/suggestions. Thanks!

-- 
Richard V. Molen

Warning!!
Signature under construction, safety glasses required.

Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Carlos Betancourt]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:14:28 +0800, bobstoppe wrote:
[...]
> Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
> or is in the process of being written etc?
> 

Try Texmacs. It's exactly what you are looking for - or at least very
close in design.

Carlos

(Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[bobstopper]

Hi

This isn't really a request for help with Emacs but a request for knowledge
on Applications inspired by Emacs, specifically office type Applications.

I love how Emacs is so extensible and provides so many features due to its
use of modes and elisp. So what I'm (very idly at this stage) considering
is the idea of an office kinda suite (yeah, like M$) all within the one
program through the use of emacs style modes and retaining a lot of
extensibility through a lisp dialect (probably guile).

Emacs can probably do something similar to what I'm thinking already if 
support was written for it, but I'm thinking Emacs would probably remain,
well, ugly in the eyes of typical office workers and it would thus
be unappealing.

Instead I'm envisioning something that looks a lot like current gnome
office products... only it's capable of doing all of them simply by loading
the appropriate modes (perhaps after first writing them ;).

Gnome office is a great idea and I think it's a great alternative to M$
office but I think the idea of having separate programs attempting to 
integrate through some additional system like bonobo or OLE will still
remain somewhat unintegrated and perhaps not as consistent in its interface
as what I'm suggesting would be. I imagine typical office users would be
much more satisfied if they only needed the one app that could do everything
and I imagine advanced office users and programmers would be much more
satisfied if they can extend that app to do almost anything they please.

So if something *better* (rather than just equivalent) than M$ office is
written as part of the GNU/Linux project then we have much more clout for
winning the average user over. I imagine for this sort of goal the app
would almost certainly have to have a fully featured M$ Windows port so
it can first appeal to all these M$ windows users, and once they're won
over it's a small step to realising that if everything they need for
office work is in that app, and that app is available on GNU why not just
use GNU?

So, with that description of my infant idea in mind, I have a couple of
questions:

Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
or is in the process of being written etc?

and of course:

Is my idea stupid, infeasible, lacking in some major consideration, too
damned hard etc or is it actually a good idea?

I'm looking forward to any kinds of comments/suggestions. Thanks!