[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Translation: since perfection is unattainable, we shouldn't even try,
| and just foist upon our poor users whatever awkward and hard-to-learn
| interface pops into our heads first?
uh, I think the point here is that some think it might be an idea to
force *their*
[Kjetil S. Matheussen [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Did you expect something specific before starting to read that book?
| Thats a failure. SICP is a book you should read just for pure
| pleasure.
I was told by a lot of people I consider to be intelligent that this
book would change how I think about
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Some people might say the same thing about emacs. A lot of unix tools
| even. Stubbornly insisting on being odd appears to be a particularly
| prevalent character flaw among the geeknoscenti.
I think you are missing the point. you may find Emacs (and UNIX) to
be
[Kjetil S. Matheussen [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Things have probably changed a little, but the stuff in SISC isn't
| specific for scheme, although a schemish language is used in the book.
well, those are really two separate discussions: Scheme and whether
SICP is an important book or not.
-Bjørn
[Robert Uhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Once again I am forced to wonder if you have _ever_ actually used
| emacs. find-file has tab completion: hit tab without anything typed, and
| it displays _everything_ in the directory; type a few characters to
| narrow it down; hit tab to complete the filename
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Really? None of this happens if you just do the straightforward file-
| open command, which should obviously at least provide a navigable
| directory tree, but definitely does not.
well, if you insist on using Emacs in the most clumsy way possible,
then of course,
[Robert Uhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Agreed. Stallman got sidetracked by Scheme, which IMHO was a
| dead-end.
too many people buying SICP and believing what they heard about it
being an important book. I too spent some time exploring Scheme, or
should I say, wasted some time, years ago, and
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| On Jun 23, 2:04 am, Robert Uhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Of course, emacs doesn't take years of mastery. It takes 30, 40
| minutes.
|
| I gave it twice that, and it failed to grow on me in that amount of
| time.
then it just wasn't meant to be. stick to
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| and you said that depended on the definition of expert. Apparently
| you believe there is a type of expert for whom beginner-friendly
| software is intrinsically less usable than beginner-hostile
| software.
no, I was alluding to you thinking that posession of
[Falcolas [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| I guess ultimately I'm trying to argue the point that just because a
| tool was written with a GUI or on Windows does not automatically make
| it any less a productive tool than a text based terminal tool. Even in
| windows, you can use the keyboard to do all of
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| I have observed similar opinions in other non-computer-freaks. people
| who see the computer only as a tool and are only interested in getting
| the job done. they have a surprising preference for Linux.
|
| But not emacs, I'll bet. I think emacs appeals to
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| That sort of negative-sum thinking is alien to me. Software being easy
| for beginners to get started using does not in and of itself detract
| from its value to expert users.
the fact that you imply that this is my argument tells me that either
you have not paid
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| You end up having to memorize the help, because *you can't
| have arbitrary parts of the help and your document open side by side
| and be working on the document*. All because you can't simply tab or
| click to the document.
yes you can. you even have a lot of
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| I think it is quite relevant. Clunky computer interfaces may not be so
| dramatically dangerous, but they certainly can hamper productivity.
| Between Windows bugs and gratuitous misfeatures (e.g. DRM) and Unix
| clunkiness, billions of dollars of potential
[Robert Uhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Why should the ignorant decide? Do you leave the decision of what great
| art is to 3 year olds and their doting parents? Do you leave the
| decision of what great food is to the ignorant, unwashed,
| McDonald's-devouring masses? Why then do you leave the
[Falcolas [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| I took a moment to look at the gui editor which has been made
| available to me, and short of the remove leading spaces commands, I
| do not need to remove my hands from the keyboard if I do not want
| to.
well, that depends on the editing features you use. I
[Martin Gregorie [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Yep, and the same people think a command line is to be avoided at all
| costs. I mean, its so /last century/ and you can't do anything useful
| with it anyway.
I have a friend who is a carpenter. he switched to Linux a few years
ago because he was tired of
[Kaldrenon [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| I don't think anyone can make the argument that any (past or current)
| graphics-based editor is as efficient when being used to its fullest
| as a text-based editor. It's basic math - it takes measurably more
| time to move a hand to the mouse, move/click the
[David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| The idea is to start Emacs once and use it for everything.
...which is fine as long as you are only fiddling around on one
machine or you have emacs windows running on all your machines.
for my main use, I do start Emacs just once though. for instance at
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Given that in its out-of-the-box configuration it's well-nigh unusable
| without a printed-out cheat sheet of some kind, of the sort that
| were supposed to have died out in the 80s, getting it customized poses
| something of a catch-22 for anyone trying to get
[Martin Gregorie [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| As for documentation, lets look at vi. Not a great editor, but every
| *nix variation has it installed and any fool can learn to use it in
| about 2 hours flat and it does at least have good pattern matching.
there's also the info system in Emacs, which
[BartlebyScrivener [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| http://www.debian-administration.org/polls/89
this is hardly surprising. I use both editors. for most sysadmin
tasks I use vi(m). for programming i use Emacs.
in part out of old habit (most UNIX systems had vi installed) and
partly because vi(m) is
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Being beginner-friendly doesn't have to be at the expense of power or
| expert-user usability.
depends on your definition of expert. :-)
| On the other hand, being actively beginner-hostile leads to nobody
| adopting the tool. Then again, if you don't mind being
[Twisted [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Emacs does have documentation. The problem is you have to already know
| a load of emacs navigation oddities^Wkeyboard commands to get to and
| use it.
that, or just start Emacs and follow the instructions that appear on
the screen.
indeed, I *am* aware that
[Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
|
| SIMPLE CHANGES
if I were to suggest improvements to Emacs, the things you mention are
probably among the last things I'd even consider. the problem with
Emacs is not really the nomenclature or the keybindings. the
[Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
to be quite honest, your proposal seems to largely be based on
ignorance.
| A: The terminology “buffer” or “keybinding”, are technical terms
| having to do with software programing. The term “keybinding” refers to
| the association of a keystroke with a command in a
[Giorgos Keramidas [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|
| Educating the user to avoid confusion in this and other cases of made
| up, 'user-friendly' descriptions is not a good enough answer.
there are two types of user friendly. there's user friendly and
then there is beginner friendly which is often
[Kaldrenon [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| Just so everyone's clear:
|
| Nothing he has said makes much sense, if any.
(it'd be good if you explicitly specify who he is since pronouns by
nature are extremely context sensitive, and in this context an
unattentive reader might think you are referring to me.
28 matches
Mail list logo
