Re: (Slightly Off-Topic) Emacs-like Office App

[Todd Wylie <twylie@watson.wustl.edu>]

Paul Thompson <paul@wubios.wustl.edu> writes:



> have you ever heard of TeX/LaTeX????

Of course ... I think you missed the point completely. Using Tex involves writing mark-up within your text. It is not real time like a word processor (which is what the original post was about). As a scientist, I use Tex frequently for scientific related articles. This isn't an anti-Emacs thread ... we simply would like to an application that gives another choice when using Emacs. I use whatever tool makes me the most productive for the job at hand. There are times when I would like the simplicity of a word processor with the power and keystroke ability of Emacs. 

Todd 



> 
> Todd Wylie wrote:
> > bobstopper@australispro.com.au writes:
> > I, for one, would love to see an application that merged the WYSIWYG
> > features of a word processor with the underlying power of
> > Emacs. This may start the old "Emacs is a text processor not a word
> > processor" debate... but there are times when I want a straight
> > ahead editor (programming) and other times I want to view text in a
> > word processor (I'm writing a book right now). Trying to get Emacs
> > to show text in manuscript format is a pain in the butt
> > (double-spacing lines without hard returns, specific margins,
> > headers and footers with page numbers, etc.). However, no word
> > processor I have ever found matches the power and scope of Emacs
> > (try running a regex search in MS Word). I really do wish someone
> > would merge the two concepts someday. If anyone responds directly to
> > you about such a package existing -- please let me know. Thanks-
> > TODD
> >
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>This isn't really a request for help with Emacs but a request for knowledge
> >>on Applications inspired by Emacs, specifically office type Applications.
> >>
> >>I love how Emacs is so extensible and provides so many features due to its
> >>use of modes and elisp. So what I'm (very idly at this stage) considering
> >>is the idea of an office kinda suite (yeah, like M$) all within the one
> >>program through the use of emacs style modes and retaining a lot of
> >>extensibility through a lisp dialect (probably guile).
> >>
> >> Emacs can probably do something similar to what I'm thinking
> >> already if support was written for it, but I'm thinking Emacs would
> >> probably remain,
> >>well, ugly in the eyes of typical office workers and it would thus
> >>be unappealing.
> >>
> >>Instead I'm envisioning something that looks a lot like current gnome
> >>office products... only it's capable of doing all of them simply by loading
> >>the appropriate modes (perhaps after first writing them ;).
> >>
> >>Gnome office is a great idea and I think it's a great alternative to M$
> >> office but I think the idea of having separate programs attempting
> >> to integrate through some additional system like bonobo or OLE will
> >> still
> >>remain somewhat unintegrated and perhaps not as consistent in its interface
> >>as what I'm suggesting would be. I imagine typical office users would be
> >>much more satisfied if they only needed the one app that could do everything
> >>and I imagine advanced office users and programmers would be much more
> >>satisfied if they can extend that app to do almost anything they please.
> >>
> >>So if something *better* (rather than just equivalent) than M$ office is
> >>written as part of the GNU/Linux project then we have much more clout for
> >>winning the average user over. I imagine for this sort of goal the app
> >>would almost certainly have to have a fully featured M$ Windows port so
> >>it can first appeal to all these M$ windows users, and once they're won
> >>over it's a small step to realising that if everything they need for
> >>office work is in that app, and that app is available on GNU why not just
> >>use GNU?
> >>
> >>So, with that description of my infant idea in mind, I have a couple of
> >>questions:
> >>
> >>Does anyone know if something like what I'm describing already exists
> >>or is in the process of being written etc?
> >>
> >>and of course:
> >>
> >>Is my idea stupid, infeasible, lacking in some major consideration, too
> >>damned hard etc or is it actually a good idea?
> >>
> >>I'm looking forward to any kinds of comments/suggestions. Thanks!
> >