the Modernization of Emacs
in [Lisp]
|
From: David Kastrup on 12 Apr 2006 05:03 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... The current developer variant of Emacs looks rather native on Gtk+, Windows and MacOSX. XEmacs, on the other hand, has its own widget abstraction layers and looks consistently ugly everywhere. But that means that it can easier be ported to different platforms, with more consistent results. In theory. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
From: John Thingstad on 12 Apr 2006 05:11 On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 05:15:26 +0200, Dale Henderson <nilram(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Because using [home] and [end] makes me take my fingers off the home > row. > > Because M-<, M-> (or [home] [end] ) already selects all. (How often do > you need to select the entire buffer anyway.) > Because the world doesn't have to be "Windows-compatible". (Are you > guys that write window managers that steal M-TAB reading this?) Emacs > was here first. If anything, Windows should be emacs compatible. > > Now I just need to go look up the rules to make windows firefox use > emacs keybindings. > The whole point of Common User Access (CUA) is that all programs under it behave in the same way. Personally I find it intensly annoying when <home> takes me to the beginning of buffer and the first thing I do is to rebind it. The copy and past I usually leave alone though.. I like <Ctrl>-c to bind to the mode commands. Besides Cut-Yank (<Ctrl-<space>, <Ctrl>-k, <Ctrl>-w, <Ctrl>-y, <Alt>-y ...) which I prefer is not compatible with the windows copy paste anyhow. If I need to 'copy to'/'paste from' the clipboard I can still select them from the edit menu. Given that the keystrokes are completely programmable reassigning keys is a trivil affair. What I would like, however, is to put each buffer I edit on a tabbed pane which is more according to windows standard and gives me a better overview. (Yes, I know of list-buffers <Ctrl>-x-<Ctrl>-b) and switch-buffer (<Ctrl>-x-b).) I have used EMACS since 1987 so we go way back.. In fact programming EMACS modes was my first introduction to Lisp programming. Now I usually use Common-Lisp.. For the record EMACS is much more newbe friendly now then when I started using it. (EMACS 18 or so..) I particular some of the more confusing commands are turned of and must be deliberatly enabled. My first encounter with narrow-to-region (<Ctrl>-x-n-n was not a plesant one.. Now I use it occasionally and leave it on. Just remember <Ctrl>-x-n-w to see the whole buffer again. I like EMACS and I am used to it. I love the powerfull keyboard macro features. You dont really appreciate the need for commands like next-paragraph, end-of-function, end-of-expression etc.. until you write generic key macroes to transform text. Then EMACS, in particular it's mode to filetype commands, really show their power. I remeber starting with a spesification of Java byte codes and converting it to a working java disassembler by mostly just transforming the document by the use of macroes in 20 minutes (!). I can't think of any other editor that lets me do that. Even though I use Visual Studio, which isn't half bad, I still sometimes find myself taking the task over in EMACS because I need the superior macro facilleties sometimes.. By the way if you hate EMACS (and some apperently do) UltraEdit isn't half bad. (on Windows) -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: Pascal Costanza on 12 Apr 2006 05:13 David Kastrup wrote: > "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> writes: > >>All the emacs mac ports suck more-or-less equally. > > > What did you find wrong with Yaced? I have not used it myself (as I > don't _have_ MacOSX), but from what I heard it should be a pretty > straightforward Mac Port, and MacOSX certainly appears well-supported > in the Emacs-CVS code base. Aquamacs works pretty well for me, and even fulfils many of the OP's requirements. (However, he would probably complain that Mac OS X doesn't look enough like Windows, or something... ;) Pascal -- 3rd European Lisp Workshop July 3-4 - Nantes, France - co-located with ECOOP 2006 http://lisp-ecoop06.bknr.net/
From: Bruce Stephens on 12 Apr 2006 05:40 M Jared Finder <jared(a)hpalace.com> writes: > Miles Bader wrote: >> M Jared Finder <jared(a)hpalace.com> writes: >>> also rebinds C-a to select all, instead of beginning-of-line. >> Erg. That's just evil... > > Why? The home and end keys are on every keyboard I've seen in the > past ten years, and work fine under xterm and ssh just fine. Why do > we need C-a and C-e any more? Because beginning-of-line is rather a common operation, and C-a is more convenient than Home on most keyboards (it's right under my fingers, and in the same place all the time, whereas Home, while on all keyboards I use, is in slightly different positions because on some that block of keys is 2x3, and on some it's 3x2). Wanting to select the whole buffer strikes me as not very important---not worth such a convenient keybinding as C-a, anyway. C-x h is quite sufficient for that. (For what it's worth, Home appears to be bound to move-beginning-of-line in Emacs by default, and End appears to be bound to move-end-of-line. It is in the Emacs I'm using at the moment, anyway, and I'm sure I haven't bound them myself.)
From: Greg Menke on 12 Apr 2006 07:37
Pascal Costanza <pc(a)p-cos.net> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > > "Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> writes: > > > >>All the emacs mac ports suck more-or-less equally. > > What did you find wrong with Yaced? I have not used it myself (as I > > don't _have_ MacOSX), but from what I heard it should be a pretty > > straightforward Mac Port, and MacOSX certainly appears well-supported > > in the Emacs-CVS code base. > > Aquamacs works pretty well for me, and even fulfils many of the OP's > requirements. (However, he would probably complain that Mac OS X doesn't > look enough like Windows, or something... ;) Aquamacs is pretty nice, just tedious to work with unless you're into fooling around with the mouse. Same sort of problem as using NTEmacs and cygwin on a Windows box. Gregm |