From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ams@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "modern" colors Re: Changes for emacs 28 Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:02:54 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20200909165723.kdnwicwvplmezusr@Ergus> <20200910102000.2t6tsju745xutg7u@Ergus> <20200910110832.ko66gqnqo4l664d6@Ergus> <20200911134225.zhnlq7cdhmu2iraj@Ergus> <20200911221435.go7b5kz2zcvxp2ft@Ergus> <20200912153723.ymnq3i5pugqf7lsy@Ergus> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24919"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: ghe@sdf.org, casouri@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, tecosaur@gmail.com To: Ergus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 12 19:03:32 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kH8w0-0006Lf-BS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 19:03:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36918 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kH8vz-00038X-El for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:03:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38882) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kH8vP-0002Ia-AL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:02:55 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39548) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kH8vO-0004Cf-PD; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:02:54 -0400 Original-Received: from ams by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kH8vO-0001l0-EH; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:02:54 -0400 In-reply-to: <20200912153723.ymnq3i5pugqf7lsy@Ergus> (message from Ergus on Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:37:23 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:255390 Archived-At: On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 10:52:37AM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > I will try my best but my terminology could be totally wrong (worst than > my English). (Note that I only use emacs from the terminal anyway) > >I'd like to get back to the initial premsis that "some color changes" >could make Emacs more modern. While this list is interesting, and >lists things that Emacs already provides, it is slightly on the left >side of the topic. I wanted to understand what is the meaning of >"modern", and "some color" changes seemed to be easy enough to >describe. > The meaning of modern is by default not old; it means not to look like a win95 app in 2020. The grays and white backgrounds has been substituted by blue black and other colors. Emacs from default screenshots looks like many of the popular editors with light background. I do not know what Windows 95 (calling Windows a win is a loss), but I'm quite sure that it doesn't look like that. Have you used Emacs in its default setting in the past years? There is not science here. Just a matter of preferences and subjectivity. But looking around popular applications, you will find that there is a pattern among the years. You seem to have an experience with several other editors, which is why I'm asking you specifically about the specific differences. I cannot possibly go through all editors to figure which one you think is modern in our view, and telling me to "just look around" without even having the slightest clue where isn't very helpful. I'm simply trying to figure out what some of those subjective differences are, but you're telling me to figure it out by myself. Stefan too seemed interested in understanding what "modern" (be it in your view, or otherwise) meant. Let me try to reiterate again, could you point out a handful of differences in colors and/or fonts (to keep it simple) between Emacs and some other editor (one is fine, several would be interesting too but I understand that can be taxing) that you find more modern than in Emacs? > Just adding an * to the filename in modeline (and or tab when using > them) or changing the color is easier to understand. Than > -UUU:----F1 > >How is that different from today? ** signifies that the buffer is >modified... > I maaany ways. Not for pleasure that's the first thing all the distros change that, powerline became popular and so on. I do not understand what you are saying here. You said that "adding an * to the filename" would solve an issue -- that is already done _today_ (and for decades in Emacs). >New users don't have to understand it from the start though, it is >something one can come to understand with using Emacs. If you hover >with the mouse over each item, it will describe what each thing means, >and you can change each thing accordingly. New users are used to know if the document has changes at least. And in the applications they use: filename* by default. And in Emacs we do it in a similar fashion. I've seen that some put "modified" in the title bar, some show it differently -- indeed, I think every single editor I can think of does it differently. Lock back in this same thread there was a long discussion about that. The supporters of light colors brought some articles about astigmatism and so on, while the others bring different ones. Yes, and there too it was asked about the background to this research -- and it too was underwhelming. >Only that a general acceptance that people have a preference for >something; and Emacs already has means for switching to dark/light >backgrounds -- maybe this could be made easier to switch, for example >a dark/light-toggle-mode that switches between the default dark and >light coloring scheme. This is actually what is being discussed. Any way just look at the popular downloaded emacs themes the so called "distros", and the actual "top" editors. Sourceforge is also kind of "old" as users prefer github (which is actually working in a dark mode too). Understand that I never said we should set dark themes by default; I just replied what young developers consider "old". I know plenty of developers in their twenties that think that dark backgrounds are "old terminal backgrounds". That is why I am asking for actual research, and not just your or my experience. Downloads are not statistics. With source forges I meant in general, not Sourceforge specifically. And by your own accord, since some are only now working on dark-mode themes, it cannot have been such an important thing for them. Doesn't this somewhat contradict the claim that this is the preference by the majority of people? It is missing only in gvim and emacs in my experience. I don't use that many programs, but don't forget xterm. So maybe 30 years ago it wasn't standard but today it is. Dare say that none of those programs existed 30 years ago, but you are confusing the behaviour of individual programs with the general behaviour of the system which I was refering to, and a historical context where the defaults where chosen.