From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ken Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete] Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:37:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4E8AFDF4.2040607@mousecar.com> References: <87litcvtu2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20111003093334.0bf5d988@kuru.homelinux.net> <4E89B613.9060305@mousecar.com> Reply-To: gebser@mousecar.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317731852 11554 80.91.229.12 (4 Oct 2011 12:37:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:37:32 +0000 (UTC) To: Jeremiah Dodds , GNU Emacs List Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 04 14:37:28 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 1RB4FT-000540-F5 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:37:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49677 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RB4FS-0007ao-DC for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:37:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37221) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RB4FN-0007YV-GA for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:37:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RB4FI-0005Tx-EJ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:37:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.194]:54803) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RB4FI-0005Tk-6f for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:37:16 -0400 Original-Received: from dellap.mousecar.net (dsl093-011-016.cle1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.11.16]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MH1mk-1RNfPw1tUQ-00E9DC; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:37:13 -0400 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20110928) In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:wZnsGguPtVYtGiYGDCx1NIY1u/SYVeqK9yROg1MVnrM WjWql29WHmVYuS+nn9uWDeaDftocLLRA2bFFtibsZZlu9GSsRl DcicFCa/tuUAa4HRJXwA7wGJg3US+9kHty9ZAgvCq7f2ubd8oK vr9nbkfC7Qub3f1RvKvFdxE+aAWPtd1NmRscdXTNvEgon7s4WH 9lBkC3Hbcqm13dim/nnsZ8+kZvKXSzNgjW+Bs9eokq+/OtUQvJ R2liShyyhLxwHHr8gjJw8iOfkkk5MNcUMY6x90lGLxLbEBzj95 YjZqT18TPthlL42YCGWb6vke6PAcSWRpyBrIV5371765C7dhTp ACSgFj6QaYgqjOsgF6A63GtEq/R0CByMnCsxfItsL X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 74.208.4.194 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:82441 Archived-At: (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 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. >