Re: Issues with emacs

[notbob <notbob@nothome.com>]

On 2012-06-26, Richard Riley <rileyrg@gmail.com> wrote:

> To say its already too complex is silly. 

Granted, but like my view, yours is only opinion, not fact.  

I think emacs suffers from the old dilemma of trying to be too many
things, almost none of them the best.  slrn is a better newsreader,
irssi is a better IRC client, bash is a better shell.  I use emacs cuz
I like the convenience of a file mgr and editor seamlessly integrated
into one app.  Nobody does this better than emacs, IMO.  

I'm also glad you are happy with the documentation.  As someone who is
actually pretty good at reading manuals and even has some experience
as a technical writer, I think it leaves a lot to be desired and is
often needlessly vague and confusing and assumes too much of the
reader.

> You only need to be aware of the features YOU need.  

I don't need a lot of things.  I don't need about 90% of what emacs
can do.  In fact, quite often I use something else cuz emacs is not
always the best choice.  Piling on more features instead of improving
the ones it already has is not always in the best interest of the
software package, as a whole.  There's a less flattering term for that
sort of approach.  It's called bloat.

I realize emacs would be much more useful if I was a programmer,
particularly a lisp programmer, but I'm not.  Perhaps, one day, I will
be, though not likely.  ;)

nb

-- 
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>