From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Terje Bless Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:13:08 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <2950-Tue23Apr2002222955+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019607237 15834 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2002 00:13:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:13:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: toomim@cs.berkeley.edu, Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE, xemacs-design@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 170AQ1-00047H-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 02:13:57 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 170ARP-00024W-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 02:15:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170APd-0005Pv-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:13:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.wavelan.no ([217.144.228.111] helo=isa) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170ANN-0005Ik-00 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:11:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [217.144.228.69] by isa (ArGoSoft Mail Server Pro for WinNT/2000/XP, Version 1.8 (1.8.1.1)); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 02:13:25 +0200 Original-To: Eli Zaretskii X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <2950-Tue23Apr2002222955+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Mailsmith Prerelease (Blindsider) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:3149 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3149 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >Sorry, I don't understand how did you deduce that from my language. I >never meant anything like that. What part of my wording implied such a >hostile intent? For the record, I'd conclude simply that you disagree with me, no more no less. Allthough I must admit to feeling some (perhaps imagined) hostility. Not necessarily from your replies to me alone, but as an overall impression from the combination of replies. But lets not sidetrack here. I'm quite certain no one intends any hostility and certainly no harm. If tempers flare anywhere it's no more then par for the course when discussing technical subjects you have a lot vested in and strong opinions about. And those that know me from other context know I can get pretty pissy myself without really meaning anything by it; so I'm certainly not going to take offence at being on the other side of it. >All I meant to say was what I said: that it surprises me why would >someone avoid existing documentation even though it might be easily >accessible and helpful. Are you asking in the general or in the specific? In general, many people will have a high threshold for seeking the documentation because XEmacs is a tool, a mere editor, and not an end in itself. The more invisible it is the better. Only after some time's use and having seen the hints of further power avilable will most be willing to invest the time and effort in reading the documentation. In my specific case, I kind of lie to you. I have read the manual (allthough it was many years ago). Not that any of it actually stuck (I'm too casual a user of XEmacs for that), but I did read it. The reason I haven't used the documentation more actively as my use of XEmacs increased is because I manage to get what I need done without it. I know there is more power here, and I know I could increase both my efficiency and my pleasure in working with XEmacs by learning it better, but so far short term convenience has won out. In the context of this specific discussion, I'm refusing to read the manual partly to illustrate a point and partially because it allows me the "innocent" perspective. Every single person on this list knows XEmacs better then me, but that also means they have preconceived notions and look at issues through a veil of expectation. Think about it as hiring a new person for your team. They come in and see with fresh eyes. They aren't blinded by the "but this is how it's always been done" syndrome. A lot of the time they're full of crap and lack the experience to find a realistic solution. But the _ideas_, the new ways of seeing things, is immensely valuable if those who /do/ have the experience manage to pick up the good ideas and views and temper them, turn them into practice. >>Whether the general mainstream audience has put in enough effort to >>really *deserve* to use XEmacs isn't the issue here. > >I don't think in such categories. To me, anyone and everyone deserves >to use XEmacs. No, I don't think anyone does, at least not conciously. But it's very easy to assume the position that if someone can't be bothered to put in a little effort to manage on their own, they don't deserve hand-holding from those that have put in a lot of effort over a lot of time to acquire the expertise they have. This is a bare necessity when you deal with users on mailinglists or USENET or whatever, but it tends to cloud your judgement when thinking about possible improvements to the system. At least, this has been my experience.