the Modernization of Emacs
in [Lisp]
|
From: Ari Johnson on 16 Apr 2006 10:09 "Richard G. Riley" <rgrdev(a)gmail.com> writes: > On 2006-04-16, Tim X <timx(a)nospam.dev.null> wrote: > Heres the miriam definition : could you explain how it fits the > purpose clearly? > > Main Entry: 1ap·ro·pos > Pronunciation: "a-pr&-'pO, 'a-pr&-" > Function: adverb > Etymology: French à propos, literally, to the purpose > 1 : at an opportune time : SEASONABLY > 2 : by way of interjection or further comment: with regard to the > present topic It is probably too much to ask that you look beyond the definition as an adverb to the definitions as an adjective or a preposition. That's why I posted a link for you earlier. Reading the entire dictionary entry for this word, just like for any word that you don't know, is generally a good idea before you claim that it is being used improperly. I also posted a link to the Unix manpage for the command called "apropos." Are you complaining about that on the various Unix-related newsgroups, as well? For their sake, I hope not. I was the first person to ask you on this thread to suggest a better word if you think that apropos truly is inappropriate. Tim was the second. So far, you've responded with things like "I have a good command of the English language" and a copy-and-pasted definition of the word without realizing that the little "1" next to the word means that it has other definitions (which are primary definitions, not secondary; they are primary to the use of the word in its other parts of speech). > You're being purposely argumentative. Its addictive because it has a > lot of strengths and takes a lot of time to get used to : it makes it > an aim or a goal to master it. No other deitor with the possible > exception of vi has such a cult following. Isn't it interesting that the vast majority of programmers and other hackers work most efficiently with either Emacs or vi, and can't stand to be without their favored editor? This isn't purposeful argumentativeness - it's a valid point. These are not random cult followings. They are, rather, enthusiastic advocacy of a tool whose users happen to love how efficient it allows them to be. If you are more efficient with Notepad, Visual Studio's editor, Eclipse, or Kdevelop, then use them instead. These are all just tools. Use the best tool for the job. Emacs is the best tool for certain jobs *because* of the things people who are too lazy to learn it complain about, just like a skid-steer loader is the best tool for certain jobs *because* of the seeming counter-intuitiveness of its controls. If you want to use the tool, learn how to use it. If you want to change the tool to make it easier to use, however, you have a distinct advantage with Emacs as compared with vi, the Visual Studio editor, and the skid-steer loader: you *can*. In fact, others have already done it for you. You can be lazy *and* have an easy-for-*you*-to-use tool. Why are you complaining, again? > He actually came up with a few suggestions. You appear unwilling or > unable to recognise them. Another postre pointed out a version of > emacs which has, funnily enough, implemented a fair few of them to > make emacs accessible to those who are not willing to invest the time > and effort to learn the base products strange ways. So - his suggestions have already been implemented by others. What's the complaint? Most of the people here think that his suggestions are just plain wrong. Those who agree with him went and implemented those suggestions instead of complaining and demanding that others do it for them. > It is also eas to fall into the defensive mode : as you appear to have > done. The fact that you are clearly an emacs adovate and familiar with > the way it does things does not necessarily make them right NOW : > times and interfaces do change. I am playing devils adovcate : I like > emacs as it is. I am a fairly new Emacser. I started using it so that I could play with Lisp. Within a month, because I was willing to just learn the tool, I was using it for taking dozens of pages of class notes every day. If you're playing devil's advocate, you're not doing a very good job of it. You have to actually build real arguments, not straw men, to do it effectively. For instance, the apropos thing - if you have no suggestions which are even comparable, then don't include it in your devil's advocacy. It works much better if you only attack the points that can be attacked in good faith. > And also very eays to say "tough, if you dont like it then go and make > it better yourself" ... :-; It's even easier to say "If you don't like it, you aren't entirely alone - someone else has already made it better for you. Here's a link to help you out." But apparently it's easier to offer that than it is for some people to accept it.
From: David Kastrup on 16 Apr 2006 10:25 Ari Johnson <iamtheari(a)gmail.com> writes: > Isn't it interesting that the vast majority of programmers and other > hackers work most efficiently with either Emacs or vi, and can't > stand to be without their favored editor? Most people could not stand stopping to breathe in Mexico City. That does not mean that the air is good there. > This isn't purposeful argumentativeness - it's a valid point. These > are not random cult followings. That Emacs is indispensible for a serious programmer does not sanctify every detail. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
From: Ari Johnson on 16 Apr 2006 10:41 David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> writes: > Ari Johnson <iamtheari(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Isn't it interesting that the vast majority of programmers and other >> hackers work most efficiently with either Emacs or vi, and can't >> stand to be without their favored editor? > > Most people could not stand stopping to breathe in Mexico City. That > does not mean that the air is good there. The difference is that being in Mexico City and breathing the air there are corequisites. Programming and using a subset of (Emacs vi) are not corequisites, and yet somehow they go together so often that more is needed to explain them than the inapt analogy of breathing the air in Mexico City. > >> This isn't purposeful argumentativeness - it's a valid point. These >> are not random cult followings. > > That Emacs is indispensible for a serious programmer does not sanctify > every detail. No, it does not. However, a serious programmer modifies it to fit his needs perfectly. That the defaults go unchanged as often as they do for serious programmers and long-time Emacsers shows that, while not necessarily sanctified, they are at least efficient enough to do the job.
From: David Kastrup on 16 Apr 2006 10:47 Ari Johnson <iamtheari(a)gmail.com> writes: > David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> writes: > >> Ari Johnson <iamtheari(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Isn't it interesting that the vast majority of programmers and other >>> hackers work most efficiently with either Emacs or vi, and can't >>> stand to be without their favored editor? >> >> Most people could not stand stopping to breathe in Mexico City. That >> does not mean that the air is good there. > > The difference is that being in Mexico City and breathing the air > there are corequisites. You can always move out. It might not be practical. > Programming and using a subset of (Emacs vi) are not corequisites, Don't kid yourself. You don't easily get tighter integration of editor and debugger than by using the gud interface. Except if you use an "IDE" with integrated toy editor. > and yet somehow they go together so often that more is needed to > explain them than the inapt analogy of breathing the air in Mexico > City. >>> This isn't purposeful argumentativeness - it's a valid point. >>> These are not random cult followings. >> >> That Emacs is indispensible for a serious programmer does not >> sanctify every detail. > > No, it does not. However, a serious programmer modifies it to fit > his needs perfectly. Like a serious contractor modifies the air condition at his work place to fit his needs perfectly. > That the defaults go unchanged as often as they do for serious > programmers and long-time Emacsers shows that, while not necessarily > sanctified, they are at least efficient enough to do the job. You don't need efficiency to do some job. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 16 Apr 2006 11:02
David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote: >Ari Johnson <iamtheari(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Isn't it interesting that the vast majority of programmers and other >> hackers work most efficiently with either Emacs or vi, and can't >> stand to be without their favored editor? > >Most people could not stand stopping to breathe in Mexico City. That >does not mean that the air is good there. False logic. People cannot stand to stop breathing anywhere; hence of course it actually says nothing in particular about air in Mexico City. However, the argument presented most often here has been that since more people breath the air in Mexico City than any other air that we should therefore all move to Mexico City to get air that is obviously easier for children to breath. But, I'll stick with *good* air, not *popular* air... because I don't think the air in Mexico City is better nor do I think it is actually easier for children to breath; plus I haven't been a child, or even had any at home, for decades. Same with Emacs key bindings. I don't agree that the proposed changes are easier to learn, only more popular; which does not affect my usage because what I want from Emacs is the most efficient working environment. If it did take longer to learn, and then has saved me time and effort for decades of use, I'm happy. In other words, I want good clean air to breath so that I can live longer. >> This isn't purposeful argumentativeness - it's a valid point. These >> are not random cult followings. > >That Emacs is indispensible for a serious programmer does not sanctify >every detail. He didn't make any such claim, so why do you want to shoot that dog. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com |