the Modernization of Emacs
in [Lisp]
|
From: Tim X on 13 Apr 2006 04:52 "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> writes: > Sacha wrote: >> He's got a point though, > > I don't think he really does. > > Before I start: yes, emacs is crufty in a lot of ways (horrible lisp > dialect etc), yes it's left-field in lots of ways (odd key bindings for > people coming from a Windowsoid background), yes it's big and > complicated. Yes, yes yes. > >> as a newcomer to lisp, and windows user, >> i found it pretty hard to have to learn emacs while learning lisp... >> None of these two are trivial. > > Who said learning to program in a new language should be trivial? And > do you *really* think that Emacs is the thing that's making it too hard > to learn? Programming is a fairly intellectually hard activity, and if > you're going to succeed at it then you probably won't be put off by > something like Emacs - some time you're going to have to deal with > J2EE, or Unix or something, and if you think that Emacs is hard & > cruftily designed, then you have another think coming. > > I play the guitar: not, generally, very well, but well enough. Playing > a musical instrument is kind of like programming: it's hard, and the > tools you use are generally not perfectly designed. And two things are > immediately apparent. Firstly people who try the guitar and complain > because the strings are too tight, the hand position makes their wrists > sore, it's just basically impossible to tune the thing right (really, > it is) and any of the myriad of other things which are objectively > wrong with guitars don't get very far. Secondly, of people who persist > and through talent and hard work become great guitarists *very few* > redesign the instrument. Not because it's a perfect design - it's > clearly not - but because it's a good enough design and there are more > important things to do, like playing music. > > Emacs is like a guitar: imperfect, hard to learn, but you can do great > things with it. And, I'm glad to say, the vast majority of people who > understand emacs well enough to change it realise that there isn't much > point - not that such changes would not be a good thing, but because in > the finite amount of time they have, changing emacs would be a less > good thing than just getting on and using the flawed tool. (I'm also > glad that some people do work on Emacs, just as I'm glad that there are > people working on new guitar designs.) > >> I can't imagine any better way than emacs to frighten the newbie lisper. > > Anyone who wants to seriously look after Unix/Linux machines needs to > be at least competent with vi, and if you think Emacs is frightening > then, well. And lots of people do this, by the way. You should be > glad that you don't have to learn ed any more. > Pretty well said. The thing which keeps striking me about the moaning regarding emacs is why the hell, if all these people find it so bad, none of them have come up with a replacement. Its not like it cost them anything and therefore they have some right to complain or that there isn't an alternative editor. Its very easy to sit back and criticise things, but if you really have something valid to prove, go out and do it and stop bloody moaning. and of course, if you don't like it and don't want to create an alternative, well then just don't use it. There is no law that says because you want to do lisp you have to use emacs. If you like another tool use it. Emacs may not be perfect and I've never heard anyone say it was. the learning curve can be difficult and yes, you may have to re-think some of the paradigms you have taken for granted. However, surely its obvious that with power comes complexity and a requirement to learn how to harness that power. I don't understand where the mindset comes from that says a powerful tool like emacs should be as easy to use as wordpad. The same goes for Xah and his unix hating attitude. He puts in hours of time writing about how awful it is and how it should be wiped from the planet - yet it seems to be what he uses all the time. If he thinks other operating systems are so superior, why doesn't he just ignore what he doesn't like and just get on with what he does think is good - thats certainly how I deal with MS windows. Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Tim X on 13 Apr 2006 05:24 "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> XEmacs is not Emacs. > > Um, yes, it is. It may not be whatever your little cult prefers to > anoint, but that's a different issue, and I don't really care for cults > anyway (Oh God, I just realised this is going to comp.emacs: I shall > expect people with pitchforks and torches at the door any minute, > chanting whatever slogan whoever it is you worship has blessed this > week). > While I *think* I understand what your saying - ie "emacs" in the generic sense refers to both Emacs and XEmacs (and microEmacs and various other "emacs" clones), but since they have different code bases, technically they are not the same thing. They do have a lot of similarity, but also have significant enough differences that you find packages which will run under both are full of code which tests what flavor you are running under in order to select the appropriate function etc and there are plenty of packages which will run under one flavor but not the other. I only mention this, apart from being pedantic, because many new users find things confusing enough and the misconception that emacs and xemacs are the same thing often creates confusion and problems that further frustrate those who are already fairly overwhelmed. Lets not add to their confusion if not necessary. Xemacs is *not* the X version of emacs - it is a code fork that has evolved along its own lines, its ..emacs files are not compatible, it uses different subsystems and functions, has different strengths and weaknesses, supports different key binding syntax, has different standard 'built-in' features etc. What it does have in common is the initial "emacs philosophy", uses elisp as an extension tool and shares many of the same concepts - but it is different. To some extent, you could draw an analagy to cars - two different models have a lot of similar characteristics and operate on similar principles - sometimes, you may be able to interchange some parts, but they are not the same thing. You may have the same attitude to them all - you could be someone who believes all cars are evil and bicycles are superior because they are simple and easy to learn, but this doesn't mean all cars are actually the same. tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: Tim X on 13 Apr 2006 05:28 Benjamin Teuber <beteub(a)web.de> writes: > One more thing (although I don't quite agree with the others...): > > Would it be so hard to make the emacs windows (besides shell-mode > which is great as it is) look like any other modern application? I > know it's just "aesthetic sugar", but to me (x)emacs looks just > terribly ugly... > > Benjamin What do you think of emacs 22 built with GTK rather than the older X libraries? Is that more what you would consider "modern" or does it have to be modern in the sense of MS Windows look and feel? Personally, I like the simplicity of a basic emacs with toolbars turned off. Tim -- tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
From: David Kastrup on 13 Apr 2006 05:36 "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> XEmacs is not Emacs. > > Um, yes, it is. It may not be whatever your little cult prefers to > anoint, but that's a different issue. It is not. Emacs is what my "little cult" (Emacs developers and the FSF as principal copyright holder of Emacs and probably largest single copyright holder of XEmacs) is _maintaining_; anointment is irrelevant. And you were complaining about Emacs' usability. The Emacs developers are not responsible for XEmacs usability, in particular when XEmacs developers choose to do things differently. If XEmacs developers choose that it is ok to have an innocent XEmacs get hanged occasionally while font locking, it is not the rope maker who is responsible for the bad judgment. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
From: David Kastrup on 13 Apr 2006 05:39
Tim X <timx(a)nospam.dev.null> writes: > What do you think of emacs 22 built with GTK rather than the older X > libraries? Is that more what you would consider "modern" or does it > have to be modern in the sense of MS Windows look and feel? > > Personally, I like the simplicity of a basic emacs with toolbars > turned off. Everybody I know turns the toolbars off, including myself. I still find it very reasonable to have them on by default. Not for the sake of "simplicity" (that's not really what Emacs is renowned for) but screen estate. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum |