Hi,
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> > > In other words, lisp and prolog (and clojure and guile and scheme)
> > > give
> > > the "feeling" that "elegant code" can be the best software representation
> > > "in coding". Why? Because "the correctness is almost blatant", as stated.
> > > In
> > >
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> semantics collapses to syntax. As in mathematics.
Thomas Schmitt writes:
> This view is outdated since nearly 90 years. The attempt to create a
> language where semantical correctness results from syntactical
> correctness was killed by Goedel's incompleteness theorem.
I try to quote the text I am referring to when I post here.
The blob • below is meaningless without the quotation where I placed
it. Here's the quotation (not your post) and what I wrote in reply:
> Don't [•] secretaries, i've seen a lot that would make better programmers
>
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:22 AM Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> > semantics collapses to syntax. As in mathematics.
>
> This view is outdated since nearly 90 years. The attempt to create a
> language where semantical correctness results from syntactical correctness
>
On 2019-04-01, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>> semantics collapses to syntax. As in mathematics.
>
> This view is outdated since nearly 90 years. The attempt to create a
> language where semantical correctness results from syntactical correctness
> was killed by
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 04:47:18PM +0200, deloptes wrote:
[...]
> No problem at all [...]
Thanks for not taking it personally.
> Lets hope someone else goes the way to the end ... like Copernicus, Bruno
> and others did over 200years.
>
> Amen! :D
:-)
Cheers
-- tomás
signature.asc
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Do your reading before spewing nonsense:
>
> https://leanpub.com/lisphackers/read
>
> (and this is /only/ Common Lisp. There's Racket, Guile and the new
> kid on the block, Clojure, each one with its own, quite interesting
> projects -- check out Guix for Guile's
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> This view is outdated since nearly 90 years. The attempt to create a
> language where semantical correctness results from syntactical correctness
> was killed by Goedel's incompleteness theorem.
>
> The insight was not new then. Paul the Apostle wrote about Epimenides:
>
On Mon 01 Apr 2019 at 06:46:09 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 01 April 2019 06:08:17 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:03:13PM +0200, deloptes wrote:
> > > Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> > > > d> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until
> > > > now
> "NG" == Nicholas Geovanis writes:
NG> In other words, lisp and prolog (and clojure and guile and
NG> scheme) give the "feeling" that "elegant code" can be the best
NG> software representation "in coding". Why? Because "the correctness
NG> is almost blatant", as stated. In other words,
Hi,
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> semantics collapses to syntax. As in mathematics.
This view is outdated since nearly 90 years. The attempt to create a
language where semantical correctness results from syntactical correctness
was killed by Goedel's incompleteness theorem.
The insight was not new
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 5:53 AM Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> .Yet Lisp gave me something useful on my work, and that is not
> just being used to functional programming, but also being ready to
> accept that "Ok, guys, here is a place where you have to start
> thinking _very_ differently from
> "DW" == David Wright writes:
DW> I assume that you meant to write some derogatory verb at • or
DW> else it got lost, as did your entire comment in the other two
DW> versions I've received from you.
I think that the original tale referred to their secretaries, and no,
it was never meant
>writes:
>> I think also, but no one uses it except for emacs or some niche
>> programming.
> Do your reading before spewing nonsense:
> https://leanpub.com/lisphackers/read
> (and this is /only/ Common Lisp. There's Racket, Guile and the new
Wilber likes Guile :) :) :)
> kid on
On Monday 01 April 2019 06:08:17 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:03:13PM +0200, deloptes wrote:
> > Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> > > d> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until
> > > now d> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this. I
> > >
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:03:13PM +0200, deloptes wrote:
> Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
>
> > d> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now
> > d> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this. I have
> > d> worked with PL and prolog for a while ... unfortunately I
Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> d> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now
> d> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this. I have
> d> worked with PL and prolog for a while ... unfortunately I think in
> d> coming years or decades it all will be declared dead
> "d" == deloptes writes:
d> laughable as well - overblown text editor for what ... to write
d> text files?! Give me a break, pls!
To make them write the text files for you, when your work is that.
--
/\ ___Ubuntu: ancient
> "d" == deloptes writes:
d> Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
EC> It's not. They are written in vimscript, analogous to elisp.
>>
>> Sorry not. While Elisp is a Lisp dialect, therefore is a language
>> that has been formally proved to be equivalent to turing-machine,
>> that is not certain for
On Sat 30 Mar 2019 at 09:27:46 (+0100), deloptes wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> > Emacs has a huge repertoire of functionality accessible through its
> > commands, without any requirement to know or use *lisp. You sometimes
> > see some lisp-ish stuff on the screen when, say, using its help
> >
On 2019-03-29 08:22, Erik Christiansen wrote:
On 29.03.19 17:26, Erik Christiansen wrote:
" Toggle relative line numbering.
function! NList_toggle()
if == 1
set nornu" For absolute, elide the 'r'.
else
set rnu " For absolute, elide the 'r'.
David Wright wrote:
> Emacs has a huge repertoire of functionality accessible through its
> commands, without any requirement to know or use *lisp. You sometimes
> see some lisp-ish stuff on the screen when, say, using its help
> system, but it can be ignored if you don't understand it. Just keep
On 30.03.19 01:29, deloptes wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs. I am trying to convince
> > people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You
> > can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp".
>
> Sorry John, but all of this is
On Sat 30 Mar 2019 at 01:29:48 (+0100), deloptes wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs. I am trying to convince
> > people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You
> > can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp".
>
> Sorry
I started working for the Navy at an installation in Warminster PA. The
experience with emacs David describes certainly happened on the base where
I worked. The secretaries weren't told what they were doing was
programming so they developed and shared their own macros and as a result
of that,
I wrote:
> I am trying to convince people not to be deterred from trying it
> because of myths such as "You can't use Emacs if you can't program in
> Lisp".
Bob Bernstein writes:
> That last claim is really, really far from the truth. I know one of
> the old LISP programmers from the Kendall
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019, John Hasler wrote:
I am trying to convince people not to be deterred from
trying it because of myths such as "You can't use Emacs
if you can't program in Lisp".
That last claim is really, really far from the truth. I
know one of the old LISP programmers from the Kendall
On Fri 29 Mar 2019 at 19:22:47 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 29 March 2019 19:08:20 deloptes wrote:
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > > deloptes writes:
> > >> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now
> > >> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this.
> >
John Hasler wrote:
> I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs. I am trying to convince
> people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You
> can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp".
Sorry John, but all of this is obsolete, if you are pragmatic enough, you
would
I'm not trying to persuade anyone to use Emacs. I am trying to convince
people not to be deterred from trying it because of myths such as "You
can't use Emacs if you can't program in Lisp".
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On Friday 29 March 2019 19:08:20 deloptes wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> > deloptes writes:
> >> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now
> >> I have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this.
> >
> > The results of ignoring it are evident all over the Web.
>
>
John Hasler wrote:
> deloptes writes:
>> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now I
>> have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this.
>
> The results of ignoring it are evident all over the Web.
this is true, unfortunately. It was 2009 when I finally gave up.
On Fri 29 Mar 2019 at 09:35:21 (+), Dekks Herton wrote:
> David Wright writes:
> > On Thu 28 Mar 2019 at 08:30:47 (+), Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> >> > "JH" == John Hasler writes:
> >>
> >> JH> deloptes writes:
> >> >> learning emacs means learning lisp
> >>
> >> JH> Not true.
> >>
Gian writes:
> And the elegance of the tool is more important that it seems at first
> glance.
deloptes writes:
> I've been listening at this BS at the university as well. Until now I
> have not seen any practical or pragmatic use of this.
The results of ignoring it are evident all over the Web.
Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> EC> It's not. They are written in vimscript, analogous to elisp.
>
> Sorry not. While Elisp is a Lisp dialect, therefore is a language that
> has been formally proved to be equivalent to turing-machine, that is
> not certain for vimscript.
>
> And the elegance of the
> Sorry not. While Elisp is a Lisp dialect, therefore is a language that
> has been formally proved to be equivalent to turing-machine, that is
> not certain for vimscript.
Vimscript may not be as elegant and powerful as Elisp, but there is no
doubt that it is Turing-complete (pretty much any
> "EC" == Erik Christiansen writes:
EC> Yes, yes, reflexive combativeness is jolly good fun, but
EC> understanding is more useful in the long term.
In my experience, if the language is elegant and wise, you can write
your code "easily" and often you get better coding.
EC> word used refers
> "EC" == Erik Christiansen writes:
EC> On 28.03.19 21:32, Matyáš Bobek wrote:
>> I reckon writing vim extensions in C must be quite obscure... How
>> is it done?
EC> It's not. They are written in vimscript, analogous to elisp.
Sorry not. While Elisp is a Lisp dialect, therefore is a
Gian quotes:
> " It seems to me that there have been two really clean, consistent
> models of programming so far: the C model and the Lisp model. These
> two seem points of high ground, with swampy lowlands between them. As
> computers have grown more powerful, the new languages being developed
>
On 29.03.19 10:50, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> > "EC" == Erik Christiansen writes:
>
> EC> Yes, yes, reflexive combativeness is jolly good fun, but
> EC> understanding is more useful in the long term.
>
> In my experience, if the language is elegant and wise, you can write
> your code
> "d" == deloptes writes:
d> Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
>> " It seems to me that there have been two really clean, consistent
>> models of programming so far: the C model and the Lisp model. These
>> two seem points of high ground, with swampy lowlands between
>> them. As computers have grown
> "d" == deloptes writes:
>> The trick with Emacs is doing as much things you can with one
>> istance, avoding continual start and stops.
d> Don't know! Really!
Not all are as smart as you are.
a> One can live and do everything without Emacs.
Indeed. But will lose the fun :)
--
/\
> "EC" == Erik Christiansen writes:
EC> When leading software development teams, I never asked team
EC> members which editor they favoured, either at hiring interview, or
EC> later. We just agreed on coding standards, and they configured
EC> their editors to conform.
--
/\
On 29.03.19 10:44, deloptes wrote:
> One can live and do everything without Emacs.
Can't resist paraphrasing that in light of Emacs' OS-like reputation:
One can live and do everything within Emacs ... or without.
I would be tempted to have a look at ne, except that my fingers would
just
Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> " It seems to me that there have been two really clean, consistent
> models of programming so far: the C model and the Lisp model. These
> two seem points of high ground, with swampy lowlands between them. As
> computers have grown more powerful, the new languages being
Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> If your work comprises repetitive tasks that can be automated, then
> Emacs can help you a lot.
>
> If you have several, unrelated, small tasks, theni firing up vim and
> then closing it may be a good choice.
>
> The trick with Emacs is doing as much things you can
David Wright writes:
> On Thu 28 Mar 2019 at 08:30:47 (+), Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
>> > "JH" == John Hasler writes:
>>
>> JH> deloptes writes:
>> >> learning emacs means learning lisp
>>
>> JH> Not true.
>>
>> In my experience is true. But needs some more words.
>>
>> When you
David Wright writes:
> On Thu 28 Mar 2019 at 08:30:47 (+), Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
>> > "JH" == John Hasler writes:
>>
>> JH> deloptes writes:
>> >> learning emacs means learning lisp
>>
>> JH> Not true.
>>
>> In my experience is true. But needs some more words.
>>
>> When you
On 29.03.19 08:47, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> > "EC" == Erik Christiansen writes:
>
> EC> On 28.03.19 21:32, Matyáš Bobek wrote:
> >> I reckon writing vim extensions in C must be quite obscure... How
> >> is it done?
>
> EC> It's not. They are written in vimscript, analogous to elisp.
>
>
> "d" == deloptes writes:
d> My personal choice is ne on debian. For everything else there are
d> decent editors with GUI. My preference is eclipse and kate ... but
d> it also doesn't matter. I simply can not find any logical or
d> practical argument learning or using emacs ... and I work
> "d" == deloptes writes:
d> Pierre Fourès wrote:
>>> So there are many nifty things in Emacs. But the real killer is
>>> the integration of all those nifty things.
>>>
>>
>> Wow, this gave me the desire to give a real serious try to Emacs !
d> Don't sell your soul to the devil
> "d" == deloptes writes:
d> John Hasler wrote:
>> In fact, much of what we now know as Emacs *is* extensions written
>> in Elisp and many more extensions are available. You no more need
>> to know Elisp to use them or to install additional ones than you
>> need to know C to use Vim.
d> I
On 29.03.19 17:26, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> " Toggle relative line numbering.
> function! NList_toggle()
> if == 1
> set nornu" For absolute, elide the 'r'.
> else
> set rnu " For absolute, elide the 'r'.
> endif
> endfun
Apologies. There's
Erik Christiansen [2019-03-29 16:26:41+11] wrote:
> It's not. They [Vim extensions] are written in vimscript, analogous to
> elisp.
Vim script is analogous to Emacs Lisp in the point of view that both of
them are used to extend and configure the editor. There is also
important difference which
On 27.03.19 11:07, mick crane wrote:
> On 2019-03-26 19:27, Wayne Sallee wrote:
> > I use vim.
> >
> > Log in as user that will use vim, and run the following command:
> >
> > cat > .vimrc << "EOF"
> > set nosi noai
> > set number
> >
> I have line numbers as the default but copy/paste with the
On 28.03.19 21:32, Matyáš Bobek wrote:
> I reckon writing vim extensions in C must be quite obscure... How is it
> done?
It's not. They are written in vimscript, analogous to elisp. There is a
large landscape of add-ons written in the language, and a choice of
managers to automate the minor
On 28.03.19 12:34, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:
> Once you start using Emacs macros and see the benefit, you likely shall find
> yourself creating and using numerous macros within each editing session.
> You demonstrate once to the robot, and the robot faithfully mimics you,
> without error. The
Matyáš Bobek wrote:
> I reckon writing vim extensions in C must be quite obscure... How is it
> done?
I just started with C and never needed to write extension so far, but I did
use C to solve some kernel bugs :D
I reckon writing vim extensions in C must be quite obscure... How is it
done?
On 3/28/19 9:24 PM, deloptes wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>
>> In fact, much of what we now know as Emacs *is* extensions written in
>> Elisp and many more extensions are available. You no more need to know
>> Elisp to
Pierre Fourès wrote:
>> So there are many nifty things in Emacs. But the real killer
>> is the integration of all those nifty things.
>>
>
> Wow, this gave me the desire to give a real serious try to Emacs !
Don't sell your soul to the devil (jokingly) :D
John Hasler wrote:
> In fact, much of what we now know as Emacs *is* extensions written in
> Elisp and many more extensions are available. You no more need to know
> Elisp to use them or to install additional ones than you need to know C
> to use Vim.
I prefer learning C ;-)
Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> d> really, I did not know that you could be me and you knew my
> d> experience. Anyway emacs is not bad for those who know it, but it
> d> is impractical because you have mostly vim installed, so learning
> d> vim is a must indeed.
>
> Your words would be very
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Eating roquefort is impractical because you gotta drink wine anyway :-)
>
hahaha, true!
> Look -- you can do both (I do). If you're looking for excuses to stay
> away from Emacs: no need to, just do. But as little need to spread FUD
> about Emacs. Yes, Emacs is a
Not responding specifically to the following, but keyboard / keystroke macros
are not a strictly EMACS function, and I don't think EMACS was first. I can't
remember all of them, I do know nedit has them, I sort of recall that wordstar
or the shareware editor that used the same keyboard
On 2019.03.28 03:16, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
"r" == rlharris writes:
r> Need to make alterations to dozens of lines? If you can figure out
r> a repetitive sequence of keystrokes to accomplish the change, you
...
Or said with other words:
- replace a repetitive task where you are part of a
On 2019-03-28, John Hasler wrote:
> Gian writes:
>> [*] I lost the source where I read that in an organization even
>> secretaries used Emacs, and that these secretaries learnt how to do
>> "useful things" without a problem. Mostly because they were unaware
>> they were programming.
>
> It was
Le jeu. 28 mars 2019 à 11:32, a écrit :
>
> If you find that interesting...
>
> imagine you're running your emacs (as a server) and want to
> [...]
>
> Bam :-)
>
> So there are many nifty things in Emacs. But the real killer
> is the integration of all those nifty things.
>
Wow, this gave me the
Gian writes:
> [*] I lost the source where I read that in an organization even
> secretaries used Emacs, and that these secretaries learnt how to do
> "useful things" without a problem. Mostly because they were unaware
> they were programming.
It was secretaries in the patent department at Bell
On Thu 28 Mar 2019 at 08:30:47 (+), Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> > "JH" == John Hasler writes:
>
> JH> deloptes writes:
> >> learning emacs means learning lisp
>
> JH> Not true.
>
> In my experience is true. But needs some more words.
>
> When you intensively start using Emacs, and you
As an exercise for myself (having once had to "learn" Lisp in school, and more
than once having tried to learn to use EMACS (before the days of the mouse and
menu, iirc)), I decided to see if I could understand any of the code.
I think I got the gist of most of it, but I don't understand why
> "JH" == John Hasler writes:
JH> In fact, much of what we now know as Emacs *is* extensions written
JH> in Elisp and many more extensions are available.
Emacs is written mostly in Elisp. What is not in lisp, AFAIK, is the
interpreter and the most used and heavy functions.
JH> You no more
> "JH" == John Hasler writes:
JH> deloptes writes:
>> learning emacs means learning lisp
JH> Not true.
In my experience is true. But needs some more words.
When you intensively start using Emacs, and you start asking to the
editor "Oh, True One Editor, what is the meaning of this
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 09:15:19AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> David writes:
> > So we're left wondering why you've stated that learning emacs
> > necessarily involves learning lisp, either beforehand or at the same
> > time.
[...]
> There is also the fact that the configuration file is written
David writes:
> So we're left wondering why you've stated that learning emacs
> necessarily involves learning lisp, either beforehand or at the same
> time.
Probably because Emacs advocates often over-enthuse about extensibility,
giving the erroneous impression that knowing how to write
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 08:00:27AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Gian Uberto Lauri writes:
> > But vim is an attempt to rewrite emacs the wrong way.
>
> I don't think that's fair [...]
Me neither. And this is slowly sliding into That Kind Of
Flame War. I had that already... over twenty years ago.
> "JH" == John Hasler writes:
JH> Gian Uberto Lauri writes:
>> But vim is an attempt to rewrite emacs the wrong way.
JH> I don't think that's fair.
I disagree. After all Editor MACroS was once a set of macros for an
editor called TECO, while vim is an extension of vi - that required
even
On Thu 28 Mar 2019 at 07:51:53 (+0100), deloptes wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>
> > Not true.
[… in response to "exactly - learning emacs means learning lisp - what
for? I switched years ago to ne."]
> really, I did not know that you could be me and you knew my experience.
> Anyway emacs is not
Gian Uberto Lauri writes:
> But vim is an attempt to rewrite emacs the wrong way.
I don't think that's fair. Vim is an attempt to extend Vi. I don't
like it and always run it in "compatible" mode, but that's because Vi
was the first text editor I learned.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
>writes:
> imagine you're running your emacs (as a server) and want to edit
> that one system file (say /etc/apt/sources.list) as sudo (without
> starting an Emacs instance as root).
I do not like sudo. In my NSHO it has a lot of hidden traps and is
shipped in a way that [profanities].
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:47:02AM +, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
[snipped the big CC list, probably unintentional]
> In Italian, sudo means "I sweat" :)
In Spanish too: perhaps that's why I like it.
I long for summers...
Cheers
-- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> "td" == tomas@tuxteam de writes:
td> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:07:58AM +, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
>> > writes:
td> To each its own, hey. As long as you don't sling profanities at me
Unless you are sudo mantainer :) :) :) (and even in that case, it's
the way sudo is configured
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:07:58AM +, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> >writes:
[Tramp sudo method]
> I do not like sudo. In my NSHO it has a lot of hidden traps and is
> shipped in a way that [profanities].
To each its own, hey. As long as you don't sling profanities at me
(I /do/ like
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 08:32:40AM +, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> > "TL" == Teemu Likonen writes:
>
>
> TL> $ emacs /ssh:user@middle-machine\|ssh:user@target-machine:file
>
> This is wickedly interesting!
If you find that interesting...
imagine you're running your emacs (as a
> "d" == deloptes writes:
d> really, I did not know that you could be me and you knew my
d> experience. Anyway emacs is not bad for those who know it, but it
d> is impractical because you have mostly vim installed, so learning
d> vim is a must indeed.
Your words would be very different if
> "TL" == Teemu Likonen writes:
TL> $ emacs /ssh:user@middle-machine\|ssh:user@target-machine:file
This is wickedly interesting!
T H A N KY O U !
--
/\ ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto
> "r" == rlharris writes:
r> As well as being easy to use for general word processing, Emacs
r> excels in the work of writing scripts, in which the
r> "COMPOSE-A-NEW-MACRO-WHENEVER-YOU-NEED-IT;IT-TAKES-ONLY-A-FEW-SECONDS"
r> ability of Emacs is invaluable. After all, the name Emacs is an
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 08:39:42AM +, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
[...]
> LOL. Maybe some gongorzola with mascarpone could be more pratical?
:-)
-- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
>writes:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 07:51:53AM +0100, deloptes wrote: [...]
>> Anyway emacs is not bad for those who know it, but it is
>> impractical because you have mostly vim installed, so learning vim
>> is a must indeed.
> Eating roquefort is impractical because you gotta drink
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 08:21:41PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> I use vim.
> > I use crispr!
>
> I was tempted to try it out, but I heard it only handles
> a 4-char alphabet. How do you handle accents?
They just went Unicode ;-)
Cheers
[1]
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 07:51:53AM +0100, deloptes wrote:
[...]
> Anyway emacs is not bad for those who know it, but it is impractical because
> you have mostly vim installed, so learning vim is a must indeed.
Eating roquefort is impractical because you gotta drink wine anyway :-)
Look -- you
John Hasler wrote:
> Not true.
really, I did not know that you could be me and you knew my experience.
Anyway emacs is not bad for those who know it, but it is impractical because
you have mostly vim installed, so learning vim is a must indeed.
If you use debian I recommend learning ne - a
Gian Uberto Lauri [2019-03-27 11:10:39Z] wrote:
> Nevertheless, if a remote box has ssh, finding (C-x C-f) the
>
> /scp:user@machine:/path/to/the/file
>
> loads the /pat/to/the/file file downloading it from machine. And of
> course you can save it.
Emacs can even do multi hops, editing a remote
> "DP" == Dan Purgert writes:
DP> John Hasler wrote:
>> mick crane wrote:
>>> there it is then, although I've so far managed to avoid Emacs
>>> since heard it is more of an operating system than an editor.
>>
>> Teemu Likonen writes:
>>> There are those who know Emacs, and there are those
deloptes writes:
> learning emacs means learning lisp
Not true.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> That would be a fatal mistake, indeed. But there's another hurdle,
> which is not to be subestimated. Emacs, as an old program, comes
> along with an old culture, with its own lispeltongue (i.e. "point"
> instead of "cursor", "window" for "sub-frame", etc.). It takes a
>
Stefan writes:
> I was tempted to try it out, but I heard it only handles a 4-char
> alphabet. How do you handle accents?
Phosphorylation, acetylation, and glycosylation.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
>> I use vim.
> I use crispr!
I was tempted to try it out, but I heard it only handles
a 4-char alphabet. How do you handle accents?
Stefan
> And, for people coming from Windows, EMACS (at least before a WYSIWYG / mouse
> version (which I think exists now
Not sure what you mean by "now", but assuming you mean a time after
1994, then yes it exists "now".
Stefan
rhkra...@gmail.com [2019-03-27 08:05:30-04] wrote:
> EMACS (at least before a WYSIWYG / mouse version (which I think exists
> now -- was tHat XEMACS for a while and then maybe merged back into
> EMACS)
There is GNU Emacs and there is (or was) a GNU Emacs fork named XEmacs.
Nowadays XEmacs is
> "r" == rhkramer writes:
r> XEMACS for a while and then maybe merged back into EMACS) and
I think it is an independent developing of similar features.
--
/\ ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_ African
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
