On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, William Goedicke wrote: > >>>>> "David" == David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > David> At least as far as I'm concerned, the VAST majority of the > David> functionality in most "programmers'" editors is irrelevant. > > Presumably then you're not interested in a complex editor.
The trick is to be complex, yet accessible. Emacs has complexity nailed, but isn't accessible to most people. By cliched way of comparison, FreeBSD tends to be complex but inaccessible, while OSX -- which is more or less in sync with current FreeBSD at the foundation -- is much more accessible to most people, and yet the same complexity is there if you want it. I wish I could think of better metaphors for this, because intuitively it seems clear to me that there are plenty of examples of things that are very complex and yet still not necessarily challenging. Bach maybe? -- Chris Devers _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
