the Modernization of Emacs
in [Lisp]
|
From: John Thingstad on 13 Apr 2006 07:32 On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:55:31 +0200, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote: > The X Window system is a network transparent hardware interface, not a > GUI. It does not interpret keystrokes, but makes them available. It > is not a "GUI with most decisions open", no more than flour is a "cake > with most decisions open". It is a network transparent hardware > interface. > Note that mwm, KDE, Gnome are all window managers written on to of X-Windows a network transparent GUI toolkit.. You can call it a hardware interface if you like though that makes me think of device drivers. Anyhow a server part which the application connects to, and a client part which renders the graphics and connects to the server allows you to run windows programs from several machines on one client with ease. No XLib, it is not like the Win32 API, it is more primitive. Like a window is a rectangle on the screen to which you can add for instance backingstore. If you want borders you have to draw them youself in XLib. To assign such behaviour you put a window manager on top. (THAT handles key bindings.) Also you you add Library. The first one I programmed used mwm, Xt and Motif widget set. The last used KDE, Qt. That clearer? -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: David Kastrup on 13 Apr 2006 07:43 "John Thingstad" <john.thingstad(a)chello.no> writes: > On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:55:31 +0200, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote: > >> The X Window system is a network transparent hardware interface, not a >> GUI. It does not interpret keystrokes, but makes them available. It >> is not a "GUI with most decisions open", no more than flour is a "cake >> with most decisions open". It is a network transparent hardware >> interface. >> > > Note that mwm, KDE, Gnome are all window managers written on to of > X-Windows a network transparent GUI toolkit.. > You can call it a hardware interface if you like though that makes me > think of device drivers. Why "though"? This is very much what the X Window system provides: a hardware abstraction layer, just that it is also network transparent. Which implies that the client libraries usually access a separate server which needs not be located on the same host. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
From: Ari Johnson on 13 Apr 2006 07:45 Robert Strandh <strandh(a)labri.fr> writes: > Right. As you know, Climacs is a CLIM application and not an X11 > application. Though you can argue that McCLIM is mostly an X11 > application, so Climacs right now indirectly requires X11 as you have > realized. However, I maintain that using CLIM as the interface > substrate for Climacs was and is the right decision because it creates > infrastructure that is useful elsewhere. We welcome more backends for > McCLIM that will make Climacs and other CLIM applications useful on > platforms that do not have X11, but as with most free software > projects, we need help to do this. I would personally find it useful if Climacs had a non-graphical interface, as does Emacs. However, I think that this feature would so substantially get in the way of your actual project that I completely understand why it is not a consideration. I guess I'm just jealous of all the Linux people who have a free CLIM. :)
From: Rob Thorpe on 13 Apr 2006 10:45 David Kastrup wrote: > 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. Not for > the sake of "simplicity" (that's not really what Emacs is renowned > for) but screen estate. > > I still find it very reasonable to have them on by default, for > meeting beginners' needs. I use the toolbar sometimes when browsing Info files. If you want to read Info pages the same way as web pages, i.e. with a mouse, then it's very useful. Reading info this was is useful if you have to copy its contents into another application, which sometimes happens.
From: Andreas Eder on 13 Apr 2006 10:55
Hi John, >>>>> "John" == John Thingstad <john.thingstad(a)chello.no> writes: John> The microsoft key inteface is part of the Common User Access Document John> (CUA). John> It was developed by IBM, not Microsoft. And they did spend the best part of John> two years carefully thinking it out. That noone ever did this for John> X-Windows, John> now that is obvious. X-Windows is not a GUI. It is just the mechanism, not the policy. And as far as network transparent window-systems go X-Windows is fairly decent. (Not that there is currently much competition.) In the MS-Windows world they have to use a browser and web-apps to simulate that. John> With upteent window managers and people typically using software John> written for John> several you never know what you are going to get. John> Every program on it's own in a sense defeats the point of a integrated John> inteface. Choice is a good thing (tm). John> People will have a easier time learning to use it if things work as John> the expect. I don#t think that 'ease of learning' should be more important than 'ease of use'. John> Arrow keys, home, end etc.. It is visually intuetive to see what these keys John> do. If they have to look up basic commands like moving a cursor that John> alone would turn many away from the program. If people are that easily turned away from using emacs, then that is probably a goot thing :-) 'Andreas -- Wherever I lay my .emacs, there's my $HOME. |