modernization of emacs - lisp

On 26 out, 11:56, Xah Lee <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:
> I got the following email regarding my article
>
> The Modernization of Emacshttp://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html

# (This achieve 3 things: (1) Cut/Copy/Paste has shortcuts with x/c/v
keys; (2) Text selections are highlighted; (3) Typing while a region
is selected will delete/over-ride it.)

that is, make it another clone of notepad. The reason why Emacs has
all those quirks is historical: notepad didn't exist back then, nor
Windows, nor DOS... thus, vi and emacs had to invent their own set of
keybindings...

# Get rid of the "*scratch*" buffer.

yeah, and while we're at it, get rid of elisp and replace it with
java, thus making it a worthy contender to Eclipse...

frankly, rewriting emacs from scratch or making it work just like
Microsoft teaches us is an oxymoron...

On 27 Okt., 01:39, namekuseijin <namekusei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> that is, make it another clone of notepad. The reason why Emacs has
> all those quirks is historical:

And modernization is the process of getting rid of historical
mistakes.
The keybinding of emacs is completely stupid rubbish. I wouldn't use
CUA for it but a much better and more consistent binding is definitely
a plus.

Even after 10 years of emacs i knew only around 20 shortcuts. While
they
were impressive enough for other guys, it wasn't enough for me. Today
there
are much better editors available then emacs or vi.

On Oct 26, 11:39 am, namekuseijin <namekusei...@gmail.com> wrote:
«...frankly, rewriting emacs from scratch or making it work just like
Microsoft teaches us is an oxymoron...»

I think your concern is addressed in

The Modernization of Emacs
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html

did you not read it?

I exerpt below from 2 of its Frequently Asked Questions section:

Q: Emacs's ways are technically superior. It should not change.

A: Emac's user interface, when compared to modern software
application's user interface, is complex and unusual, however, there's
no basis whatsoever of it being actually a superior design with
regards to any sensible metrics. (in fact, much of emacs's user
interface are due to historical reasons. That is, how computers are in
1980s.)

For example, let's consider emacs's system of keyboard shortcuts. For
a keyboard shortcut system, we might judge its quality based on
several aspects. Here are some examples of consideration:

* Is it easy to learn? (is it familiar to most people? Is it easy
to remember?)
* Is it ergonomic? (Are most frequently used commands's keyboard
shortcuts easy to type? Are more frequently used commands have easier
to type shortcuts than less frequently used commands?)
* Are most frequently used commands all have a keyboard shortcut?
* Is the shortcut system somehow consistent and extensible?

Emacs's keyboard shortcuts system, is good only with respect to the
last item. Emacs keyboard shortcuts are perhaps one of the most
difficult to learn among software, and is also one of the most
difficult to remember. The worst aspect of emacs's keyboard shortcuts,
is that it is ergonomically painful. (Many emacs-using programer
celebrities have injured their hands with emacs. (e.g. Richard
Stallman↗, Jamie Zawinski↗), and emacs's Ctrl and Meta combinations
are most cited as the major turn-off to potential users among
programers)

Computer keyboard is a hardware interface, and the mapping of commands
to the key press combinations can be considered from a Operation
Research (ergonomic) point of view. The keyboard hardware itself can
be designed with consideration of ergonomics (that's why we have split
and curved keyboards), but consideration of what functions to map to
what key presses is also non-trivial if the software has large number
of functions, or if the software is mission critical, or the software
is used for repetitive, long durations of human-machine interaction
(such as data-entry, programing, writing). Think of it this way:
consider a airplane cockpit, filled with knobs, dials, buttons, and
switches. Now, if your job is to map the airplane control functions to
these switches, what are the issues to consider?

If we take careful consideration on creating a keyboard shortcut
system for emacs, it is not difficult to create a system that is
superior in some pure technical sense than the emacs's shortcut
system.

For a full discourse, see: Why Emacs's Keyboard Shortcuts Are Painful.

Aside from keyboard shortcuts system, other user interface aspects of
emacs are also questionable. For example, one major aspect of emacs
operation is that it uses a single window for multiple purposes and
files. Emacs is this way not because of a design decision, but rather
due to historical reasons. Computer resources in the 1980s are very
limited. When emacs is around, graphical system of showing “windows”
is not practically available, and the emacs's method of using the
screen (the monochrome text-only monitor) for presenting multiple
tasks (“buffers”) is actually a very advanced user interface design
not available in software of that era. When graphical systems becomes
practical in the 1990s, drawing a window still takes a lot memory, and
opening multiple windows is slow and impractical.

Modern software interface (say, post 2000) usually uses one window per
file (or task), and or show tabs if multiple tasks are represented in
a single window. However, emacs's buffer system doesn't provide the
tabs visual clue. Compared to the modern standard of tabbed window,
emacs's buffer interface is inferior because it is less intuitive.
Arguably, emacs's operation methods may be more efficient for expert
users. 20 years ago, efficiency for expert users may out weight the
ease of use for majority of average users. But in today computing era,
computers are standard tools in every household, efficiency and ease
of use for general users is as important for professional users. Even
for professional users, it is openly questionable that emacs's ways of
operation induced by its default user interface allows more efficient
operation than a user interface based on modern software conventions.
(this can be certified by having 2 programmers roughly equally
experienced or skilled in using emacs. One person uses traditional
Emacs, the other uses a emacs with modernized interface (such as Mac's
Aquamacs), then compare their efficiency in finishing a set of
programing tasks.)

Note: we are not disputing the general power, flexibility, and
qualities of emacs. Emacs, with a powerful embedded language lisp, and
consequently embodies many software applications other than text
editing (email, ftp, dired, calc, ...etc), has induced certain system
of user interface that is all consistent and unique in comparison to
modern software applications. We do not advocate that this is bad.
Specifically, we only propose a very few trivial items for interface
or documentation changes as listed in this article. Most are simply
turning on some features by feault and or changing some terminologies
in the documentation. They have no bearings on how emacs operate in
general.


Q: Why should emacs want to be popular and why should emacs change to
conform the majority?

A: This attitude has plagued unix and computer geekers for decades. In
the early 1990s (DOS and unix), tech geekers would sneer at graphical
menus and mouse, with hordes of reasons how pure text interface, the
command line, and or keyboard operations are sufficient and superior
than graphical user interface or using a mouse. This seems ridiculous
today, but such voices are commonly seen all over newsgroups. (Since
about 2000, linuxes are in a frenzied race to copy whole-sale of
Microsoft Windows's user interface ( KDE↗, GNOME↗) trying to make
itself easy-to-use.)

The reason for these type of attitude, is almost never a sensible
alternative view about the topic in discussion, but a show of machismo
and superiority complex. (perhaps more than 95% of online computing
forum users are males, and majority of them are aged under 25.) The
person who utters such opinion, made sure in the way he writes that he
is a expert in the “more difficult to use” method or tools and would
prefer things not to be “dumbed down”.

It is silly to retort “Why should emacs want to be popular?”. It is
like asking “why do you want to live longer?” when someone is picky
about healthy food, or “why should you want to look beautiful?” when
someone dresses up.

Xah
xah@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

Some entity, AKA llothar <llothar@web.de>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)


> Even after 10 years of emacs i knew only around 20 shortcuts. While
> they
> were impressive enough for other guys, it wasn't enough for me. Today
> there
> are much better editors available then emacs or vi.

Just hire a secretary to do the scribling , that is much easier.

Cor

--
Alle schraifvauden zijn opzettelijk, teneinde ieder lafaard de kans te
geven over spelling te zeuren in plaats van in te gaan op de inhoud.
(defvar My-Computer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.php

On 27 oct, 11:18, Xah Lee <x...@xahlee.org> wrote:

What about Xemacs ? I'm glad after having spent 20 years to configure
emacs, -while using Vi. Anyway, why not Xemacs ? You have 3000 buttons
to find out in menus, what ever they mean, W3 which is dead, ange-ftp,
etc.

L

Cor Gest <cor@clsnet.nl> writes:

> Some entity, AKA llothar <llothar@web.de>,
> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>
>
>> Even after 10 years of emacs i knew only around 20 shortcuts. While
>> they
>> were impressive enough for other guys, it wasn't enough for me. Today
>> there
>> are much better editors available then emacs or vi.

no, there will never be any editor better than the GNU Emacs

>
> Just hire a secretary to do the scribling , that is much easier.

The GNU Emacs is for serious editing, not scribbling, unlike Notepad

Klaus Schilling

http://labnol.blogspot.com/2005/11/p...-tracking.html

nice javascript though.

Cor Gest <cor@clsnet.nl> writes:

> Some entity, AKA llothar <llothar@web.de>,
> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>
>
>> Even after 10 years of emacs i knew only around 20 shortcuts. While
>> they
>> were impressive enough for other guys, it wasn't enough for me. Today
>> there
>> are much better editors available then emacs or vi.
>
> Just hire a secretary to do the scribling , that is much easier.

If it takes llothar 10 years to learn 20 shortcuts, I'd
suggest that Notepad may be more appropriate than Emacs - for llothar.

On 27 out, 03:26, llothar <llot...@web.de> wrote:
> And modernization is the process of getting rid of historical
> mistakes.

It's one of the most ancient pieces of software still in active use
today. In this timeline, CUA trends have come and gone, but emacs and
vi have been thoroughly consistent with their own way of doing
things. And very productive at it, a very good reason for their
continued usage.

> Even after 10 years of emacs i knew only around 20 shortcuts.

poor you.