Re: "modern" colors Re: Changes for emacs 28

[Ergus <spacibba@aol.com>]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 01:02:54PM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
>   On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 10:52:37AM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

>Let me try to reiterate again, could you point out a handful of
>differences in colors and/or fonts (to keep it simple) between Emacs
>and some other editor (one is fine, several would be interesting too
>but I understand that can be taxing) that you find more modern than in
>Emacs?
>
You ask what is considered "modern". I just gave you some points. Then
you ask why and question the points.

Sorry I can't tell why people prefer blue or dark background today or
small icons or hamburger menus. I just know they like them and all the
editors more or less successful these days are all black/dark.

Maybe they prefer those because is what they see more frequently and
they get familiar with that or because white light burn their eyes.


>I do not understand what you are saying here.  You said that "adding
>an * to the filename" would solve an issue -- that is already done
>_today_ (and for decades in Emacs).
>
I sent some links in a previous mail with several modeline styles and
reimplementations. And said that all the distros (doom, spacemacs, etc)
start fully reimplementing the modeline (less text more icon and
colors). I use emacs from the terminal only, so the modeline will never
have icon or fancy helps for me. But I am not talking in my name. The *
in the name is just a detail most users are used to these days.

If most editors had a modeline with a -UU-:**--F1 at the beginning and
people prefer that and understand that; then will be perfect. But that's
not the case.

>
>And in Emacs we do it in a similar fashion.  I've seen that some put
>"modified" in the title bar, some show it differently -- indeed, I
>think every single editor I can think of does it differently.
>
If you can't see that out method is much more cryptic and oriented to
text; then ok. But don't ask me then what is modern or familiar for
users because this one is one of the most obvious. I never said it is
more or less functional... juts too old fashioned and unfamiliar.
>
>   Lock back in this same thread there was a long discussion about
>   that. The supporters of light colors brought some articles about
>   astigmatism and so on, while the others bring different ones.
>
>Yes, and there too it was asked about the background to this research
>-- and it too was underwhelming.
>
Whatever

>   This is actually what is being discussed. Any way just look at the
>   popular downloaded emacs themes the so called "distros", and the
>   actual "top" editors. Sourceforge is also kind of "old" as users
>   prefer github (which is actually working in a dark mode
>   too). Understand that I never said we should set dark themes by
>   default; I just replied what young developers consider "old".
>
>I know plenty of developers in their twenties that think that dark
>backgrounds are "old terminal backgrounds".  That is why I am asking
>for actual research, and not just your or my experience.  Downloads
>are not statistics.
>
If you have method to make a market study around will be perfect. I just
see that the application most users like are dark. Sublime, Atom,
VSCode and ClIon all of them bring the dark option and in my work
(around 300 programmers) most of the screens are dark. The proprietary
application that make market studies (like facebook) invested time and
resources creating a new interface with what now is considered "modern"
(clean icons, flat colors, not shadows, and dark theme)

Why people prefer dark today?. I don't know/care. 
>
>With source forges I meant in general, not Sourceforge specifically.
>
>And by your own accord, since some are only now working on dark-mode
>themes, it cannot have been such an important thing for them.  Doesn't
>this somewhat contradict the claim that this is the preference by the
>majority of people?
>
Preferences change with time. WinXP was pretty in it's time then the
menus became transparent and clear and now they are going back to flat
colors and corners. In 10 years maybe orange will be the new black. Or
google plays the color card as apple did with the white earphones.


>
>   It is missing only in gvim and emacs in my experience.
>
>I don't use that many programs, but don't forget xterm.
>
I am the only person I know personally still uses xterm. Most users I
know prefer gnome-terminal or terminator urxvt or xfce-terminal.

It is sat, but true. I actually use xterm only because of emacs
compatibility recommendation in this list some time ago. But xterm has
the similar problems.

In spite of it is probably the most powerful terminal around. The
defaults are terrible, copy text there is complex without a plugin and a
config, the default font is very tiny based in some system defaults, the
default colors are problematic and the right click doesn't work as in
the others. The config in Xdefaults has a weird syntax and some new
features are not available. Also the developer is very kind, but there
is not community or git repo for the developement. So xterm can't be
taken as an example these days.

>
>   So maybe 30 years ago it wasn't standard but today it is.
>
>Dare say that none of those programs existed 30 years ago, but you are
>confusing the behaviour of individual programs with the general
>behaviour of the system which I was refering to, and a historical
>context where the defaults where chosen.
>
I never complain for the reasons in a default; because usually they were
discussed and there are very good arguments for them. But the historical
arguments can't be the reason to keep everything unchanged and reject
new styles, ideas methods and general evolution. The arguments must be
based on user needs, preferences or technical.