Dave's difficulties with manual activities
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Symbol reader macros
Next: Read CSV in SBCL
From: Turgut Durduran on 10 Sep 2009 10:36 On 2009-09-10, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Turgut Durduran wrote: >> On 2009-09-08, Alan Mackenzie <acm(a)muc.de> wrote: >>>> It is not true. >>> OK. Somehow, I had a feeling it wasn't. >> >> I am not going to hunt for a windows or mac-OS based computer to try it >> out but if I recall correctly from many years ago, it can interact with >> the standard windows clipboard. > > Yet it demonstrably cannot, unless *another* of your statements was a lie. > > Checkmate. please demonstrate. >> The most interesting David Searles that I see is this one: >> http://cid-bf94e7f974ba1845.profile.live.com/ >> >> I'm aries born, 5'11 light complextion straight as an arrow love my girls >> dark and inteligent.i'm a qualified chef and a selftaught barber which i >> currently pratice right now(taking a break from cooking).so holla at me. > > That's not me. They aren't exactly uncommon first and surnames, so there > are probably dozens of people with my name out there. Then you are not the most interesting David Searles. emacsmate. ugdc
From: John Thingstad on 10 Sep 2009 11:34 På Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:03:39 +0200, skrev Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk>: This drivel is irrelevant. Emacs is what is and always will be. If you don't like emacs (and many people don't) try ultraEdit instead. I think you will find it satisfies your requirement's. (A Linux/mac version is just around the corner.) --------------------- John Thingstad
From: Alan Mackenzie on 10 Sep 2009 15:21 In comp.lang.lisp Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In comp.lang.lisp Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>> Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> What you say is, in its own terms, true, but we don't accept these terms. > Tough. Objective ones are the only terms I'm offering. >> We disagree with your basic assumptions. > I made no basic assumptions. I used reason and empirical data to draw my > conclusions. Without some starting assumptions, logic is vacuous and syllogistic, and can't lead to any meaningful conclusions. >> We disagree that "standard" is always better than "intrinsically good". > I disagree with your faith-based proclamation that emacs is > "intrinsically good". Well it's based on experience, not faith, but the fact it's got a substantial enthusiastic following is good evidence for its intrinsic goodness. [ Snip ~1000 lines, because there's nothing new or interesting in it, except .... ] >> [calls me a liar] Well, I'd rather say that you deliberately misrepresent facts in a way likely to materially disadvantage something or somebody. Also you intentionally post provocative and false material to newsgroups to draw attention to yourself, you disregard normal standards of polite and decent behavour, and you post the same thing again, and again and again, well past the point of tedium. Or to be a bit blunter, you're a liar, a troll, a spammer, a boor and a bore. But I wish you all the best at the start of your career anyway. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
From: Dave Searles on 10 Sep 2009 23:48 Turgut Durduran wrote: > On 2009-09-10, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >> Turgut Durduran wrote: >>> I think the latter because he can fire up emacs and use it like anything >>> else given that his example is to write a letter to his granny. >> Clearly false; as soon as an attempt is made to use the clipboard, if >> not sooner, it will all go pear-shaped. > > No. Yes. As soon as the user hits control-C, control-X, shift-ins, or something, it will do something surprising and dismaying. If they have something important in the clipboard and use the mouse to select something (perhaps to replace with the clipboard contents using paste), the clipboard contents will, surprisingly and dismayingly, get clobbered. They will trip over various emacs idiosyncrasies, guaranteed.
From: Dave Searles on 11 Sep 2009 00:00
Andrea Crotti wrote: >> IDE-specific. I'm not sure what that means, but Eclipse has a command to >> comment out the selection. It's available quickly via right-click menu >> even if you forget the key combination. > > You're always afraid to forget key combinations, but do you think we > all remeber them by heart?? No. But the point is if you use a modern tool a single right click probably suffices to both remind you of the key combination AND give you immediate access to the actual command with just one more click, and if not, some clicking (or just alt-arrowing) to browse the top-of-window menus will do so. This is vastly superior to having to browse (or search) the help. Doubly so if the help uses idiosyncratic neologisms instead of industry-standard terminology for half the things (and double it again if it does so and you try to use search). The worst thing I remember was the emacs help coming up split-screen with my document, in a single window, and I had to find the key combination I wanted in a listing. Then could I just click on it to use it as if I'd found it in a menu? Of course not. Could I just alt-tab to my document and use it? Of course not. No, I had to memorize it, then scroll the help to find either the command to close the help pane or the command to switch panes, type that, and then type the other command from memory that I'd gone to the help for in the first place. Needless to say, an exercise in frustration compared to being able to just right click, note the shortcut listed to the right of the desired command, and click the command. Which helps especially when you don't know what name they gave the command and can think of a dozen ways to describe it in English. You can just browse the menus until you see a phrase your mind interprets, using its natural-language prowess, as having a meaning resembling what you are thinking you want to do. But a semantic meaning in your head can't be typed into a search box; you have to either type all of the dozen-plus synonyms you can think of in turn until one of them is a match (and wrack your brain for more synonyms if none of the ones you'd already thought of bears fruit), or else read the entire help file until you read some text that your brain, with its natural-language prowess, interprets as being relevant. There are exactly three situations where I can recall having to guess the right synonym for something. One was playing some old word-game with family a very long time ago. The second was playing old text-adventure games that didn't present a menu of options: > Jump up. I don't know how to jump. > Leap up. I don't know how to leap. .... The third, of course, was searching the emacs help. > For copy and pasting then it's ridiculous, what'd difficult in > - select region (for some modes it's also even easier this step) > - C-w > - move somewhere else (with C-s, using tags or whatever) > - C-y Remembering those when everything else uses C-x and C-v. Particularly, remembering those right after alt-tabbing from something that isn't emacs, and remembering to change back again after alt-tabbing *to* something that isn't emacs. The fact that you can't just keep one hand near one ctrl key and hit both letters with the other hand; w is on the left half of the keyboard and y on the right half, versus x and v both on the left half. > I still don't get why so much anger against emacs, are you maybe > forced to use it? Anger? What anger? The only anger I have is some anger at people feeling they can't address my arguments logically and consequently resorting to personal attacks. I don't like being badmouthed, and I doubly don't like being badmouthed in public. But I do try to remain rational and not stoop to that level myself in my rebuttals. |