the Modernization of Emacs
in [Lisp]
|
From: Robert Uhl on 15 Apr 2006 00:39 Robert Strandh <strandh(a)labri.fr> writes: > >> IIRC, doesn't the Climacs project wish to avoid the path of emacs and >> instead focus simply on being a text editor? This wouldn't really >> jive with Mr. Lord's desire for a general-purpose application >> framework... > > In my opinion, Emacs provides a framework for applications simply > because no other such framework existed at the time. Now we have > CLIM/McCLIM, which does a great job supplying such a framework. I disagree. The vast majority of the tasks performed with a computer involve reading and writing text (yes, some people create graphics, but they are a relatively small fraction of the computer-using population). Given that we're all reading & writing text constantly, it makes sense for all text viewing & editing to take place within a consistent and uniform environment--and thus that it take place within one environment. Emacs provides this environment: C-v always scrolls down; C-g always gets me out of whatever predicament I've gotten myself into. In some ways it really is like an OS which hosts many applications--the only thing is that they can each access one another's internals very easily. I suppose that this is a good amount of the attraction of a Lisp OS, come to think of it. Anyway, CLIM supplies an arcane, painful to learn framework whereas that of emacs is straightforward and easy to get started with. I hardly think that one can substitute for the other. -- Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl> The word denoting a young lady who must be returned to her father's house at the end of the evening eventually changes from 'date' to 'babysitter.' --Anthony de Boer
From: Rob Thorpe on 15 Apr 2006 07:29 Tim X wrote: > Greg Menke <gregm-xyzpdq3(a)toadmail.com> writes: > > > "Rob Thorpe" <robert.thorpe(a)antenova.com> writes: > > > >> Greg Menke wrote: > >> > Why should we "consider" this when setting up your idiosyncratic > >> > preferences is a trivial matter of modifying your own .emacs file? > >> > >> The problem is the default themselves being inappropriate. An > >> experienced user can easily change the default once they are > >> experienced. The problem is the unusable defaults presented to the new > >> user, who by virtue of being a beginner is unable to change them. > > > > Then Xah should feel free to set up his own bizarre Emacs configuration, > > publish it on the web and be the savior of emacs newbies everywhere. I > > fail to see why his issues require work on anyone else's part. > > > > Exactly. In fact, there are already packages out there which will > change the default configuration to something someone else believes is > better for beginners - I think there is a package called something > like easymacs or something similar which tries to do exactly that. There is, but the problem is that it is very unlikely that beginners will look for or find such a thing. When I started using Emacs it didn't even occur to me that there was a version hanging around with an easier setup (and at the time there wasn't). Beginners are much more likely (probably by a factor of >100) to have heard of Emacs than of Easymacs. So most of them will never find the version setup for them. (Even if they are aware of it they may well reject it. How many times have you seen a programmer attempt to learn a version of a program specifically setup for beginners. Normally programmers avoid things like that, seeing them as insulting their intelligence, even if they aren't.) > What gets on my nerves about Xah's posting is that all he does is > complain about how bad things are, but doesn't actually make any real > contribution. As you say, he should make the changes and then just > publish them. Yes, that would certainly be useful.
From: Greg Menke on 15 Apr 2006 08:20 "Rob Thorpe" <robert.thorpe(a)antenova.com> writes: > Tim X wrote: > > Greg Menke <gregm-xyzpdq3(a)toadmail.com> writes: > > > > > "Rob Thorpe" <robert.thorpe(a)antenova.com> writes: > > > > > >> Greg Menke wrote: > > >> > Why should we "consider" this when setting up your idiosyncratic > > >> > preferences is a trivial matter of modifying your own .emacs file? > > >> > > >> The problem is the default themselves being inappropriate. An > > >> experienced user can easily change the default once they are > > >> experienced. The problem is the unusable defaults presented to the new > > >> user, who by virtue of being a beginner is unable to change them. > > > > > > Then Xah should feel free to set up his own bizarre Emacs configuration, > > > publish it on the web and be the savior of emacs newbies everywhere. I > > > fail to see why his issues require work on anyone else's part. > > > > > > > Exactly. In fact, there are already packages out there which will > > change the default configuration to something someone else believes is > > better for beginners - I think there is a package called something > > like easymacs or something similar which tries to do exactly that. > > There is, but the problem is that it is very unlikely that beginners > will look for or find such a thing. When I started using Emacs it > didn't even occur to me that there was a version hanging around with an > easier setup (and at the time there wasn't). Then Xah should make his super-duper-newbie-helper emacs mode and lobby to get it put into the emacs distro, with obvious newbie-apparent links in the Scratch buffer for example. If its as useful as he says it is then it would be widely popular. > Beginners are much more likely (probably by a factor of >100) to have > heard of Emacs than of Easymacs. So most of them will never find the > version setup for them. Lots of newbies look at the help document a few times, a link to "Xahmacs" mode would be appropriate there. Its entirely up to Xah, not the emacs community. > (Even if they are aware of it they may well reject it. How many times > have you seen a programmer attempt to learn a version of a program > specifically setup for beginners. Normally programmers avoid things > like that, seeing them as insulting their intelligence, even if they > aren't.) > Newbie modes aren't an insult to intelligence, they're just inefficient. Newbie mode is supposed to be that way so the basics can be learned. Once thats achieved, then the users moves more efficient modes if they're interested in learning & efficiency- otherwise they stay in newbie mode. Gregm
From: Richard G. Riley on 15 Apr 2006 18:22 On 2006-04-13, Tim X <timx(a)nospam.dev.null> wrote: > "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. Much as I love emacs and dont agree with "windowizing" it for newbies, this is a pretty poor defence. If there is a common sense way of doing something and a long winded convoluted way and the second option is chosen then it really is a poor show to say "if you dont like it then fix it yourself.". One of my favorite examples of emacs "elitist" naming to confuse the foreigner or the newbie is "apropos" ... I mean, did noone think to name this something different? > > 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. If this was the attitude of most SW designers then no advances would have been done and the world would be full of incompatible and highly individualistic interpretations of what ought to be a common look and feel. > > 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. Thats fair enough. emacs is addictive though :-; > > 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. I would agree with you here. But unnecessary complexity is silly. Read the manual : it still talks about C-v and stuff for moving around in a buffer - outdated and outmoded IMO and very likely to frighten off newbies who might otherwise, in the long run, have benefited from emacs and maybe have even contributed back into the community. > > 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. Using something regularly does not necessarily preclude a desire to see it improve and increase its potential market share. > > Tim > -- Aspirat primo Fortuna labori.
From: Richard G. Riley on 15 Apr 2006 18:25
On 2006-04-11, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie <acm(a)muc.de> writes: > >> Sacha <no(a)address.spam> wrote on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:02:20 GMT: >> >>> "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> wrote >> >>>> Emacs is like a guitar: imperfect, hard to learn, but you can do great >>>> things with it. >> >>> Agreed, that's why i choose to easy route...learn the keystrokes >>> while not being stuck with emacs itself... When i'll feel more >>> comfortable, maybe i'll switch... I just feel it is pretty bad that >>> we have to work with this ages old tool. >> >> I think it's good that we've got the choice. Emacs is decades old >> rather than months old, and it has been honed to gleaming efficiency >> in that time. > > Uh, gleaming efficiency? Sorry to disagree, but Emacs is a traveling > junk yard and freak show. A junk yard which has got everything, and > building materials for building everything else. It's not as much I agree. Nothing is honed because that is not the way : the addition of things may not break old things or steal their established hot keys etc. > "honed" rather than having lots of people making it their home and > improving their personal corner of the junk yard. People are always > running around with soldering irons and swapping their favorite pieces > of scrap and construction recipes. It is a gathering ground for Mad > Scientists(TM) in the text processing area. > >> Most other editors I find clumsy indeed. > > They are not necessarily clumsy. Just not accommodating. Emacs is > probably the clumsiest and most dissociated piece of software ever. > But it works with you, lives with you. It's a walrus tangoing with > you, following your lead like a feather. If you have learnt how to > properly lead and don't make it flap on your feet. > hehe : well said. But if you can lead, she is a hell of a mover.. |