Re: "like other editors" [

Re: "like other editors" [

[Richard Riley]

ken <gebser@mousecar.com> writes:

>> [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.

A little tongue in check but ...

Having to change common UI motions from app to app is a pain. While I
agree not all things should be embraced more recent changes like how
select, mark and clipboards work make it FAR easier for the newer
adopter : hard core users are more than able to customise back to the
1994 "standard" they prefer as the previous poster mentioned.

Always try to remember the hassles you had when embracing emacs. Only
then can you judge more dispassionately. If you have no interest in
making emacs more palatable for new users then also fine : but that
point needs to be made obvious. But many people do : hence efforts like
the starter kit and el-get and so forth.

> 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.
>
> Secondly, there are places in the world where people haven't ever used
> Windows;

Yes, but in the real world... Most people have and do. and emacs runs on
Windows. This isnt a Linux v Windows fanoi bun fight ;)


> 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?

emacs is not "Linux". Gnu/Linux has desktop editors which all share
trends virtually identically to how the Windows equivalents do in the
massive majority of cases.

>
> 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?

Modern FOSS editors invariably conform to common desktop UI paradigms
and key strokes. Not that I advocate changing core keys necessarily.

>
> 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. :/

But no one is suggesting  Emacs is made into Word. Total Strawman.

>
> 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?

Strawman now taken to far, far extremes...

Word is not an "editor" in the context of this thread. Its a wysiwig
word processor. And that said, certain wysiwig elements in emacs are VERY
popular. See LaTeX support for a start.

>
> 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

No it isnt. Its to follow and conform to other apps many people use and
have developed over many years too and conform to modern desktop standards.

> 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.
>
> Let's just talk about what makes sense.

You dont think emacs sharing certain features with much more popular
editors might be a good idea and makes sense?

Re: "like other editors" [

[Richard Riley]

Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Ken,
>
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:18:11 -0400
> ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> You wrongly assumed by modern editors I was talking about Windows
> editors[1], you can check out other FOSS editors (in fact they are
> pretty good for relatively simple use) like Geany, Kate, Gedit, Nedit
> (this is actually pretty old), text input windows of most file/web
> browsers, many GUI email clients and so on. And most of the friends I
> was trying to introduce to org-mode were *nix users already (yes there
> are non-techie people using *nix, and yes they made the decision
> without any "friendly help" guiding them in that direction).
>
> No need to start a(n) argument/flame-war here, RMS asked users' opinion
> and I expressed myself. Don't get me wrong, I love Emacs and I couldn't
> manage to work without it. But the first day experience in Emacs is
> definitely one of my worst. My opinion was based on that experience.

I agree with you. How it became a Linux v Windows and Word v Emacs fight
I'm not quite sure.

Re: "like other editors" [

[Richard Riley]

ken <gebser@mousecar.com> writes:

> On 10/03/2011 09:41 AM Suvayu Ali wrote:
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:18:11 -0400
>> ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> You wrongly assumed by modern editors I was talking about Windows
>> editors[1], 
>
> No, I wasn't assuming you were talking about Word.  Since you didn't say which
> editor you were talking about, I just picked Word as a foil.  If you re-read my
> post, you'll see on my first reference to Word I preceded it by "e.g.", implying
> the same thereafter.

Dont you feel using Word (Windows only non programmers editor) was a
little far fetched considering the plethora of cross platform
programmers editors including and not limited to emacs and vi? Never
mind eclipse etc as well as all the FOSS Gnu/Linux stuff like gedit etc?

Re: "like other editors" [

[Ian Zimmerman]

Richard> Having to change common UI motions from app to app is a
Richard> pain. While I agree not all things should be embraced more
Richard> recent changes like how select, mark and clipboards work make
Richard> it FAR easier for the newer adopter : hard core users are more
Richard> than able to customise back to the 1994 "standard" they prefer
Richard> as the previous poster mentioned.

With Emacs, this may be true (I sure hope it is, because I sense the
proposal with go through).  But in general, when a package or program
decides to "embrace" we hard core users face a sad choice: retrain our
fingers to the Windows way (and yes, that _is_ what it is, if you trace
it to the source), or "customise back" and give up any new features,
because they are usually not compatible with the old interface.  It
happens again and again, and I'm sick of it.  Emacs has been sort of
like last bastion, and if it falls I give up computing as a passion and
approach it strictly for the money.  Seriously.

Richard> Always try to remember the hassles you had when embracing
Richard> emacs. Only then can you judge more dispassionately.

I do remember that time (around 1995).  I came from Windows too, and the
initial difficulties were totally worth it.

Richard> You dont think emacs sharing certain features with much more
Richard> popular editors might be a good idea and makes sense?

Emacs is different because it is first and foremost a programmer's
editor.  It is true that it has acquired features for more general text
processing but it always felt those were there so the programmers didn't
have to switch to something different when they composed their emails
:-)  Now this proposal would make Emacs itself into something different :-(

People who normally edit general text and only occassionally drop into
highly structured text or code are better served by a simpler editor,
IMO.

-- 
Ian Zimmerman
gpg public key: 1024D/C6FF61AD
fingerprint: 66DC D68F 5C1B 4D71 2EE5  BD03 8A00 786C C6FF 61AD
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

Re: "like other editors" [

[Rasmus]

Ian Zimmerman <itz@buug.org> writes:

> With Emacs, this may be true (I sure hope it is, because I sense the
> proposal with go through).  But in general, when a package or program
> decides to "embrace" we hard core users face a sad choice: retrain our
> fingers to the Windows way (and yes, that _is_ what it is, if you trace
> it to the source), or "customise back" and give up any new features,
> because they are usually not compatible with the old interface.  It
> happens again and again, and I'm sick of it. 

But in general Emacs exhibit a degree of conservatism.  The hard part is
choosing the optimal degree of conservatism.  With Emacs I don't see
development in branches; but the general concern is valid.

> Emacs has been sort of like last bastion, and if it falls I give up
> computing as a passion and approach it strictly for the money.
> Seriously.

There are also imitators of Emacs.  For example I belive one can choose
Emacs bindings in GTK applications.  Abiword supports Emacs bindings for
sure.  For Firefox the keysnail extension is absolutely wonderful.
Emacs works.

> Richard> Always try to remember the hassles you had when embracing
> Richard> emacs. Only then can you judge more dispassionately.
>
> I do remember that time (around 1995).  I came from Windows too, and the
> initial difficulties were totally worth it.

I am sure everyone on this list agrees.  Complex software such as Emacs
is hard.  Should we `dumb it down' to make it more accessible?  I do not
think so, but choosing sane defaults is surely important.  (I think
deleting a highlighted region by default is sane).

> Emacs is different because it is first and foremost a programmer's
> editor. 
> [...]
> People who normally edit general text and only occassionally drop into
> highly structured text or code are better served by a simpler editor,
> IMO.

I disagree.  Generally Emacs is a lisp machine.  This enables it to be
used for all kinds of general solutions.  For you programming is the
specific solution that you value the most.  For me, I value being able
to edit plain text in a coherent environment, whether this plain text is
to be understood as `email', `org', `tex' or whatever.  Second, I value
the possibility of integrating other process into my lisp machine,
specifically software such as R and Python.  In this sense it also
becomes a programer's tool for me, but the objective is not
programming.  Emacs is a specific solution to programming for some
people, but programming is not Emacs.

–Rasmus

-- 
Sent from my Emacs

Re: "like other editors" [

[ken]

On 10/03/2011 12:02 PM Richard Riley wrote:
> ken <gebser@mousecar.com> writes:
> 
>> On 10/03/2011 09:41 AM Suvayu Ali wrote:
>>> Hi Ken,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:18:11 -0400
>>> ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>> You wrongly assumed by modern editors I was talking about Windows
>>> editors[1], 
>> No, I wasn't assuming you were talking about Word.  Since you didn't say which
>> editor you were talking about, I just picked Word as a foil.  If you re-read my
>> post, you'll see on my first reference to Word I preceded it by "e.g.", implying
>> the same thereafter.
> 
> Dont you feel using Word (Windows only non programmers editor) was a
> little far fetched considering the plethora of cross platform
> programmers editors including and not limited to emacs and vi? Never
> mind eclipse etc as well as all the FOSS Gnu/Linux stuff like gedit etc?

You're missing the point entirely.  Re-read my original post in this thread.

Re: "like other editors" [

[ken]

Though 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

So...

No, not if it's the sole criterion for changing how emacs (or any 
software) works.


On 10/03/2011 12:00 PM Richard Riley wrote:
> ken <gebser@mousecar.com> writes:
> 
>>> ....
> 
>> 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
> 
> No it isnt. Its to follow and conform to other apps many people use and
> have developed over many years too and conform to modern desktop standards.
> 
>> 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.
>>
>> Let's just talk about what makes sense.
> 
> You dont think emacs sharing certain features with much more popular
> editors might be a good idea and makes sense?

Re: "like other editors"

[Ian Zimmerman]

Rustom> Have: Old users can stay with some version (say emacs 22) and
Rustom> stick there for as long as they like

No.  If that were really the only way of "having", the kind of change
being proposed would be unacceptable.

It is OK if there is a compatibility mode which does not conflict with
new features (as there seems to be in this case, though nobody has yet
confirmed it for sure here).

-- 
Ian Zimmerman
gpg public key: 1024D/C6FF61AD
fingerprint: 66DC D68F 5C1B 4D71 2EE5  BD03 8A00 786C C6FF 61AD
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

""like other editors" ["

[Rustom Mody]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 547 bytes --]

Stan wrote:

> By now one would think that even a casual observer would know that the
> developers have no interest in this change.
> The possibilities seem to be for the "modern editor" proponents to take up
> the task or at least find "modern arguments" that
> haven't been beaten to death.


Which in other words implies that Richard has no interest in acting on any
data from his original poll??
There are many accusations thrown at rms across the years.
First time (I am seeing) such a one (especially  ironic coming from the
emacs community

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 750 bytes --]