Re: basic question: going back to dired

[Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null>]

"Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 14:36, Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>
>> But don't forget its not just a comp sci term. In fact, comp sci
>> borrowed it from "normal" english. In my comp sci days, also in the 80s,
>> it still had the more generalised term that fits with how emacs uses
>> it.
>
> As would have lots of other terms. That's what I'm saying: "buffer"
> seems like the perfect match for Emacs
> data-structures-for-temporary-storage-under-whatever-name because
> we've been using it that way for 25+ years, not because it is the
> only, or more fitting, or more appropriate term.
>
> This conversation (not specifically with you Tim, I'm talking about
> the thread) goes nowhere. I said that I'm not proposing to change
> anything, but at the same time I *don't* believe there's anything
> sacred on the terms used in Emacs today. They are the best just
> because of long use and long familiarity. Which does not necessarily
> apply to newbies.
>

Which is not that far from my position. Most of my comments are related
to Xah and others who believe it should be changed. I'm not arguing it
shouldn't be changed because its sacred or anything. My point is that I
a) don't believe its as bad as some like Xah argue and b) nobody has
come up with any alternatives that don't lose us more than they gain and
c) I'm not convinced that changing all the terminology would actually
change the number of new users who give up and don't bother because I
don't believe the terminology is the main thing that makes new users
give up. 

Tim

-- 
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au