On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:15 AM Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:

>    following recent discussions I've started toying with what I've pushed
> on
>    scratch/modern-mode.
>
> What some find modern, some will find old.  What some find old, some
> will find modern.  What was once modern will become old again, and
> what was old again will become modern.
>
> A different name would be more appropriate


Yup, this is really obvious to me, too (*)  I seem to remember that
other packages don't have a lot of problems naming some
features "fancy".  Does "fancy" have a negative connotation?
Maybe it does, as does e.g. "baroque".  Both terms indicate
an "elaboration" or an "amplification" beyond some essential
state, which would be Emacs -Q, I guess.

fancy-mode? rich-mode? amplified-mode? ornate-mode? Why not
just andrea-mode?

João

* though "modernism" is itself considered a style, reasonably
well defined within the 20th century, but that doesn't matter,
unless we are purposely trying to emulate that style in Emacs,
which I don't think we are. On a tangent, Emacs defaults
themselves could even be seen as modernist already, form
mostly follows function, rejects most ornament, etc etc