Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[ken <gebser@mousecar.com>]

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?  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.