the Modernization of Emacs
in [Lisp]
|
From: pookiebearbottom on 11 Apr 2006 08:58 Just alias your emacs to notepad and you are 99% of the way there. I think they have it for unix now.
From: Sacha on 11 Apr 2006 09:02 "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> wrote in message news:1144758312.942300.104810(a)e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > Sacha wrote: >> He's got a point though, > > I don't think he really does. haha well i think he does ! (this time anyways) >> 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 I used to say so, until now every languages i learned were pretty easy to grasp, granted these were all the same thing. I used to say once you know one, you know them all ...well i was wrong. Lisp really is different. > 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. Well i succeeded at programming, which gives me time to learn lisp. I'm really not intereted in working with unixes, my customer base just can't work with it anyways. > 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. I have to totaly agree with you. Most human activities are so much alike, and yes, sometimes it's best to get things done rather than endlessly working on the tools. > 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.) 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. Lisp is supposedly one of the best languages around, it's sad we have to overcome the emacs barrier in order to use it effectively. >> 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. I don't quite understand what's with unix, sure it's a good server platform, but there's a world outside it. Some of my customers barely can use a mouse, I'm not anywhere close to make them switch to linux ! I've been using delphi a lot, that was a pretty good editor, very easy to use too. Also i used visual studio quite a bit, maybe you all despise it, but still, I used it for a while and found there were some good tools in this environement, but they're not hindering a simple editing session. Just because a tool is powerfull doesn't mean it has to be hard to use. Anyways i'm not out to kill emacs or anything. I'll probably end up using it myself. Sacha
From: Harald Hanche-Olsen on 11 Apr 2006 11:43 + pookiebearbottom(a)yahoo.com: | Just alias your emacs to notepad and you are 99% of the way there. | I think they have it for unix now. Reminds me of a classic: Google for "HAL model 9000" (with quotes) to see what I mean. -- * Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/> - It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true. -- Bertrand Russell
From: Alan Mackenzie on 11 Apr 2006 11:50 Sacha <no(a)address.spam> wrote on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:02:20 GMT: > "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> wrote in message > news:1144758312.942300.104810(a)e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> Sacha wrote: >>> He's got a point though, >> I don't think he really does. > haha well i think he does ! (this time anyways) >>> 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. >> 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.) > 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. Most other editors I find clumsy indeed. > Lisp is supposedly one of the best languages around, it's sad we have > to overcome the emacs barrier in order to use it effectively. Quite possibly, Lisp is the very best general purpose language. Aren't there any other editors around with effective support for Lisp? > I don't quite understand what's with unix, sure it's a good server > platform, but there's a world outside it. Some of my customers barely > can use a mouse, I'm not anywhere close to make them switch to linux ! I can barely use a mouse. That's one reason I'm so fond of Emacs and the Unix command line. GUI interfaces are pretty restrictive and inefficient by comparison. > I've been using delphi a lot, that was a pretty good editor, very easy > to use too. Also i used visual studio quite a bit, maybe you all > despise it, but still, I used it for a while and found there were some > good tools in this environement, but they're not hindering a simple > editing session. Again, it's good we've got the choice. I found VS close to unusable, because dialog boxes kept exploding in my face over the tiny portion of the screen reserved for my text, and it took forever to find anything in the rambling menu structure, and even then I had to guess what menu items like "<system>" and "<format>" and "<compile>" actually did. MSVS imposes a development process on you - Emacs doesn't. > Just because a tool is powerful doesn't mean it has to be hard to use. True. But Emacs is exceptionally easy to use. It's just hard to learn. > Anyways i'm not out to kill emacs or anything. I'll probably end up > using it myself. :-) > Sacha -- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: aacm(a)muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
From: David Kastrup on 11 Apr 2006 15:17
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 "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. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum |