Re: How to get rid of *GNU Emacs* buffer on start-up?

[Richard Riley <rileyrgdev@gmail.com>]

stan <smoore@exis.net> writes:

> Xah wrote:
>> Kevin Rodgers wrote:
>>
>>> > «
>>> >     * There is no easy, intuitive way to create multiple scratch
>>> > buffers. (it is done by using the switch-to-buffer command (C-x b) and
>>> > give name that is not one of existing buffers.)
>>>
>>> We'll have to disagree: I think that is both easy and intuitive.
>>
>> What seems to you intuitive is not intuitive to the general text
>> editing audience. The text editing audience is broad, including all IT
>> professionals, those in academics.
>
> You don't have authority to speak for the general text editing audience.
> You certainly never got my permission. 

Well, thats not really fair. Emacs is certainly not intuitive to the
general text editing audience since its pretty much a minority editor. I
dont know anyone who didnt have trouble adapting to Emacs personally
(including myself) - but its only after a while you realise the genius
behind a lot of the UI. Things you do not see or appreciate when you
first tackle it. 

Can the general text editing population adapt and use it? Of course. But
initial feedback is usually "what the hell!" :-)

I mean, have you seen peoples faces when they read the manual and realise
they have to control/meta key sequences to move the cursor left and
right, up and down?

Please dont take these comments as support for what Xah is saying but
there does tend to be a certain reluctance to make "common things" the
standard in emacs which might, just might, promote adoption.

Things are getting better - e.g I think using the x clipboard finally
became the default in 22. Stuff like that.

>
> My point is that you use a form of bandwagon propaganda - everyone else
> is having problems - to justify many of your claims. It is not
> persuasive. You might try sticking to specific facts of why something is
> a problem. If you don't convince people that there is actually a
> problem, few will be moved to action. 
>
> The truth is that most people don't use editors, they prefer word
> processors. Most "editor" users expect to face a trade off between power
> and learning curve. The ones who don't will always be disappointed. That
> fact doesn't justify unnecessary complexity, but it does mean the bar is
> high for justifying changes to well known editors. 
>
>> clude if you ask them to define variable or algorithm or byte. Perhaps
>> you are thinking these people are stupid. Perhaps when compared to you
>> as a tech geeker, they are quite ignorant about computers. But the
>> world is big, there are all walks of life. Many of them are in fact
>> scientists, engineers, mathematicians, lawers. You wouldn't know shit
>> if i ask you some elementary math concepts (trust me). Similarly, you
>> don't know the most elementary thing about laws, engineering, ... all
>> all sort of fields. One element of User Interface design is that the
>> user don't have to learn anything in order to use it, as much as
>> possible.
>
> That's one possible goal of user interface design. The other side of the
> coin is to balance power with ease of use. 
>
>> Emacs has too many unusual ways... (btw, i'm damn repeating myself
>> again and again and again here... in this thread i've already wrote
>> paragraph(s) that details this).
>
> As you noted, the world includes people of all types. To some Emacs will
> seem unusual, to others it's clear. Same can be said for vi and
> descendants. I'm sure some consider notepad strange. 
>
> <snip>

--