From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:42:32 +0200 Message-ID: References: <85tzxazb8r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87ps7x4clj.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <85irdpweuq.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87ejocik1a.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <85hct8ovog.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85fy8riafz.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85ps7vgsxi.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172637770 13128 80.91.229.12 (28 Feb 2007 04:42:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:42:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 28 05:42:42 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HMGeI-0004aO-Af for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 05:42:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMGeI-0005Th-Fb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:42:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HMGe7-0005T3-JA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:42:31 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HMGe5-0005Sj-7V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:42:30 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMGe4-0005Sg-WB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:42:29 -0500 Original-Received: from romy.inter.net.il ([213.8.233.24]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HMGe2-0003dp-SF; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:42:27 -0500 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-50-219.inter.net.il [84.228.50.219]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id HGG90942 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:42:27 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <85ps7vgsxi.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:02:49 +0100) X-detected-kernel: FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.4) (2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:66993 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: David Kastrup > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:02:49 +0100 > > > > One evidence I can offer is the number of discussions between > > developers where different people tried many times to convince > > Richard to turn font-lock on by default. > > Where would have been the point in having it turned on by default if > "a large majority of users" would turn it on manually, anyway? To lower the flood of questions posted by newbies asking why they see no syntax highlight, _before_ they turn it on. > I see this rather as evidence that people did _not_ turn it on by > default, and that Emacs' popularity suffered because of that. Popularity did suffer, but because newbies couldn't imagine Emacs didn't have syntax highlight. As soon as they learned Emacs did have it, they turned it on.