i've been in emacs community for over a decade now. (since 1998)
it's painful to see people who do not use emacs, and never will, and
these people will laugh at you if you try to even begin preaching
emacs gospels lightly. (these includes vast majorit of technically
competent people, such as professors, mathematicians. And most painful
is when it is people who are newer generation of linux programers, web
app dev (html5/js), and the vast emergent digital field (computer
engineers and artists who work in 3D tools, audio/video, gaming, smart
phones, tablets. (they are not typically what you'd call “programers”,
but they work with hardcore tech specs all day)))
GNU emacs has made a few strides in UI improvement in the past 3
years. I've fought vigorously about emacs UI improvement in past 6
years.
there is 1 thing, that if emacs adopts, that i guarantee that emacs
user base will increase by 10 fold.
That is: Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+X, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, must be undo, cut, copy,
paste, and that there must be a Redo command.
turning on cua-mode isn't a solution, because cua-mode adds complexity
to UI. It makes the key press time-sensitive and confusing. However,
it can be a first step. Better is just to fundamentally re-wire
emacs's C-x and C-c.
this need to be done asap. As i have said, it will happen, maybe
several more years later in the path of emacs's increasing obscurity.
sooner is better than later.
i want to keep this post short. I won't go into lots of explanations,
hows, whys. I've wrote ~30 articles in the past about details. See
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_modernization.html Spread this in anyway
you can. In blogs, posts, discussions, chatting with friends in
meatspace, or spend bug reports to GNU ...
> i've been in emacs community for over a decade now. (since 1998)
> [...]
I've been using Emacs since 1975.
> [...]
> it's painful to see people who do not use emacs, and never will, and
> these people will laugh at you if you try to even begin preaching
> emacs gospels lightly. (these includes vast majorit of technically
> competent people, such as professors, mathematicians. And most painful
> is when it is people who are newer generation of linux programers, web
> app dev (html5/js), and the vast emergent digital field (computer
> engineers and artists who work in 3D tools, audio/video, gaming, smart
> phones, tablets. (they are not typically what you'd call “programers”,
> but they work with hardcore tech specs all day)))
HP-Labs (Palo Alto CA) had a number of DECsystem-20s in the basement
of HP's Building 5 along Page Mill Road. Everyone at HP-Labs, including
the secretaries, used Emacs via terminals connected to the DEC-20s.
It took an HP secretary only about 20-30 minutes to become reasonably
proficient using Emacs after running Emacs' built-in tutorial.
> [...]
> there is 1 thing, that if emacs adopts, that i guarantee that emacs
> user base will increase by 10 fold.
Where is the research data supporting that hypothesis?
> That is: Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+X, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, must be undo, cut, copy,
> paste, and that there must be a Redo command.
Adopting a Microsoft Windows convention for mostly Linux and UNIX
users? Absurd.
> [...]
> i want to keep this post short. I won't go into lots of explanations,
> hows, whys. I've wrote ~30 articles in the past about details. See
> http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_modernization.html Spread this in anyway
> you can. In blogs, posts, discussions, chatting with friends in
> meatspace, or spend bug reports to GNU ...
Most of us have real work to do for which Emacs has worked fine for 37
years now with NO compelling reason to change.
Until you can produce research results supporting your claim(s), why waste
anyone's time? You can customize YOUR copy of Emacs any way you want. Why
don't you do that and then present your version of Emacs for review. It's
your idea -- YOU do the work if you want to see any change(s).
Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> writes:
> On 2/27/2012 4:47 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
>> That is: Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+X, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, must be undo, cut, copy,
>> paste, and that there must be a Redo command.
> Adopting a Microsoft Windows convention for mostly Linux and UNIX
> users? Absurd.
Yes, that is absurd. I've been a Macintosh programmer for almost ten
years before I started to use emacs, and I had no problem switching from
Command-Z, Command-X, Command-C, and Command-V to C-x u, C-w, M-w and
C-y. This is really not a problem.
> Until you can produce research results supporting your claim(s), why waste
> anyone's time? You can customize YOUR copy of Emacs any way you want. Why
> don't you do that and then present your version of Emacs for review. It's
> your idea -- YOU do the work if you want to see any change(s).
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:47:16 -0800, Xah Lee wrote:
> it's painful to see people who do not use emacs, and never will, and
> these people will laugh at you if you try to even begin preaching emacs
> gospels lightly. (these includes vast majorit of technically competent
> people, such as professors, mathematicians. And most painful is when it
> is people who are newer generation of linux programers, web app dev
> (html5/js), and the vast emergent digital field (computer engineers and
> artists who work in 3D tools, audio/video, gaming, smart phones,
> tablets. (they are not typically what you'd call “programers”, but they
> work with hardcore tech specs all day)))
If it's any consolation to you, I've just started using emacs, after spending endless hours struggling with other tools - ranging from vi to various GUI-based IDE's like kdevelop, code::blocks, the Qt suite, and others. All very nice, but they often wound up fighting me, trying to get me to do things their way rather than how I wanted to do them.
I do find the emacs key bindings confusing and difficult to use, but then, I had the same problem when I first learned the other versions.
Can't be helped.
I don't know whether it's so important to use C-x, C-z, C-v, etc. It would be convenient, but C-x is so vital to emacs's basic interface that I'm not sure it makes sense to mess with it.
Whatever problems these key bindings create, they are more than compensated for by emacs's doing "the right thing" almost all the time.
Not only doesn't it fight me, it actually does most of the things I'd want it to do, without my having to ask.
Oh, yeah... and if I feel something's missing, I can always write it myself using emacs lisp.
I've been programming for 30-odd years now; I wish I had been less biased and tried emacs years ago. It would have saved me a lot of aggravation... but I was certain that the newer tools would be better.
-- A girl's conscience doesn't really keep her from doing anything wrong--
it merely keeps her from enjoying it.
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <p...@informatimago.com> writes:
> Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> writes:
>> On 2/27/2012 4:47 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
>>> That is: Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+X, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, must be undo, cut, copy,
>>> paste, and that there must be a Redo command.
>> Adopting a Microsoft Windows convention for mostly Linux and UNIX
>> users? Absurd.
> Yes, that is absurd. I've been a Macintosh programmer for almost ten
> years before I started to use emacs, and I had no problem switching from
> Command-Z, Command-X, Command-C, and Command-V to C-x u, C-w, M-w and
> C-y. This is really not a problem.
Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> writes:
> On 2/27/2012 4:47 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
>> i've been in emacs community for over a decade now. (since 1998)
>> [...]
>> That is: Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+X, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, must be undo, cut, copy,
>> paste, and that there must be a Redo command.
> Until you can produce research results supporting your claim(s), why waste
> anyone's time? You can customize YOUR copy of Emacs any way you want. Why
> don't you do that and then present your version of Emacs for review. It's
> your idea -- YOU do the work if you want to see any change(s).
Ever hear of ergo-emacs?
That's Xah's presentation.
I think he has more than a few users.
> Ever hear of ergo-emacs?
> That's Xah's presentation.
> I think he has more than a few users.
I looked at the ErgoEmacs pages a bit. I can see a good case for why Notepad users should switch. I didn't see a compelling reason why existing proficient Emacs users would want to switch to this.
There's also Aquamacs on the Mac ... a pretty good attempt (IMO) to integrate Emacs with Mac UI conventions.
>> On 2/27/2012 4:47 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
>>> That is: Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+X, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, must be undo, cut, copy,
>>> paste, and that there must be a Redo command.
>> Adopting a Microsoft Windows convention for mostly Linux and UNIX
>> users? Absurd.
> Yes, that is absurd. I've been a Macintosh programmer for almost ten
> years before I started to use emacs, and I had no problem switching from
> Command-Z, Command-X, Command-C, and Command-V to C-x u, C-w, M-w and
> C-y. This is really not a problem.
I've used mostly Windoze boxes since the 1990s, and Emacs is fine as it is. The more you use it, the easier it gets. More incremental evolution, yes, conforming to Windoze hard-coded key bindings, absolutely not.
On 2月28日, 上午9时47分, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> there is 1 thing, that if emacs adopts, that i guarantee that emacs
> user base will increase by 10 fold.
> That is: Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+X, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, must be undo, cut, copy,
> paste, and that there must be a Redo command.
[...]
> this need to be done asap. As i have said, it will happen, maybe
> several more years later in the path of emacs's increasing obscurity.
> sooner is better than later.
Well, I don't see the Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+X, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V are actual any
obstacles to appealing users to switch to emacs gang.
For me, I just enjoy Ctrl-Shift--, Ctrl-w, Meta-w, Ctrl-y, Meta-y so
much.
I just want any edtor's undo, cut, copy, paste keybindings are like
emacs ones.
To be win32-ized not means to be modernized.
P.S.
I think Emacs buffer/window/frame management (especially positioning
them in window environment) is not very polished (or say not very easy
to navigate or place) instead,
comparing with some other modernized editor.
But maybe it is the price to uniform the user experience in text based
and window based environment.
> Emacs was here first. Perhaps Microsoft and Apple should change. ;>
Precisely! :-)
Here's a scan of the oldest Emacs manual I could find in my files;
it's a copy that RMS handed to me in John McCarthy's office at
Stanford University (210 pages, 9MB):
Prior to that manual (and tape) I was getting Emacs directly from
the DoD in the Pentagon (one of my customers at the time).
For those unaware, the original Emacs was funded by DARPA; the
bottom of the first page of the PDF at the above URL states:
" This report describes work done at the Artificial Intelligence
" Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Support
" for the laboratory's research is provided in part by the Advanced
" Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense under
" Office of Naval Research contract N00014-75-C-0643.
At that time Emacs was running on MIT's ITS systems, DECsystem-20s,
Twenex, Foonly, and Systems Concepts systems.
It later ran on DEC's VMS systems and I was also using it on the
Alpha-based OSF/1 systems, and it's been on every system I have
since then, including all the systems shown here:
In the 1980s I was running Emacs on my first personal UNIX boxes,
the AT&T 3B1 (aka UNIXpc aka PC7300) and, while running the AT&T
Silicon Valley UNIX Users Group for the entirety of its existence,
I was showing-off Emacs on one of my 3B1 systems annualls at the
West Coast Computer Faire. 3B1 info here:
Q: Aquamacs already has the modernization you speak of.
A:
Aquamacs is a emacs variant based on GNU Emacs, for Apple's Macintosh
computers, created in about 2004 by David Reitter. Aquamacs modifies
emacs so that its user interface follows modern (Mac OS X)
conventions. For example, copy/cut/paste shortcuts are 【⌘ Cmd+c/x/v】
Open file is 【⌘ Cmd+o】, saving is 【⌘ Cmd+s】, save-as is 【⌘ Cmd+Shift
+s】. Close window is 【⌘ Cmd+w】. Undo is 【⌘ Cmd+z】, and there is a redo
command by default, with shortcut 【⌘ Cmd+Shift+z】. It opens each file/
buffer in a new window. By following a modern user interface, almost
all points mentioned in this article are fixed in Aquamacs. For more
info, see: Wikipedia Aquamacs and Aquamac's home page at:
Aquamacs.org.
As a emacs variant, it does help in spreading the idea that emacs user
interface should be modernized. However, a third-party variant
software does not change the fact that GNU emacs itself needs to be
modernized.
For example, suppose Microsoft Word remained with its DOS era
interface, for example, file is opened with Esc (to open the menus), t
(for Transfer), l (for Load). Suppose Microsoft hired a third party to
release a variant called MS AquaWord. This would not help Microsoft
Word the software itself or its image perceived by the populace, and
is likely to complicate the issue around Microsoft Word.
Also, Aquamacs changes emacs to conform to Apple's user interface
guidelines as much as possible. For example, besides changing the many
shortcuts, Aquamacs open each file in a new window (i.e. what emacs
calls frame). So, dired is opened in its own window. “shell-command”
is opened in a new window. Emacs info files 【Ctrl+h i】 is opened in a
new window. Using the menu 〖Help▸Aquamacs Help〗 launches Apple's help
application.
Aquamacs makes emacs palpable for Mac users, but in many ways,
Aquamacs imposes a major change of operation for people already
familiar with emacs. Its modernization of emacs, has priority with
Mac's way of operation than emacs way.
Aquamacs is only a Mac application. Its user interface changes, is not
wholly compatible with Microsoft Windows's user interface guidelines
in minor details. (For exmaple, shortcut modifiers are different (Ctrl
vs ⌘ Cmd), some shortcut keys differ, the ways to invoke menus
differ.) Some 90% of computer users world wide are familiar with
Window's user interface and are using PC keyboards. If we consider
improving emacs's user interface, then it is important to consider the
familarity of computer users by majority.
In summary, when we consider modernization, we could create a version
for Mac, a version for Windows, each follows as much as possible of
each operating system's user interface guidelines. Alternatively, we
can consider modernization based on emacs's unique ways of operation
(as opposed changing emacs to comform to a particular company's UI
standard that are currently most popular).
On Feb 28, 9:03 am, Peter Davis <Peter.Da...@mathworks.com> wrote:
> On 2/28/2012 11:35 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
> > Ever hear of ergo-emacs?
> > That's Xah's presentation.
> > I think he has more than a few users.
> I looked at the ErgoEmacs pages a bit. I can see a good case for why
> Notepad users should switch. I didn't see a compelling reason why
> existing proficient Emacs users would want to switch to this.
> There's also Aquamacs on the Mac ... a pretty good attempt (IMO) to
> integrate Emacs with Mac UI conventions.
hi Peter,
the key is to get FSF GNU Emacs to endorse, adopt, this.
else, it's just third party mod, and ZXCV always come with stigma in
the emacs culture.
On Feb 28, 11:04 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> In fact I'd say the converse; if you changed it I wouldn't upgrade to
> the new version.
I understand. Meanwhile, hundred thousands of technical people, will
now try emacs, because they can launch emacs and immediate use it
comfortably for their basic needs.
If GNU Emacs actually adopt it, i bet you'll love it too, because the
issue isn't technical, rather a cultural one.
what we need, is your help to get it thru.
> IMHO, people who prefer a windows style editor use one and people who
> don't like windows style editors don't use them. If all editors become
> windows style editors we have less choice and that's not really a good
> idea.
you can insist that vi is Windows convention if you must, but the ZXCV
keys for undo/cut/copy/paste is standard on Linuxes.
On Feb 28, 6:13 pm, "oni...@gmail.com" <oni...@gmail.com> wrote:
« To be win32-ized not means to be modernized.»
The ZXCV keys are standard on Linuxes. Technically and Historically,
they origin from Apple and or IBM, depending on your take, before
Microsoft was born.
If you haven't tried, check Linux out. One of the most popular distro
is http://www.ubuntu.com/ and it's free. In many ways, it's as easy
to use as Windows.
«I've used mostly Windoze boxes since the 1990s, and Emacs is fine as
it is. The more you use it, the easier it gets. More incremental
evolution, yes, conforming to Windoze hard-coded key bindings,
absolutely not.»
you've bitten the bullet. Nice. Many people wouldn't. Hard to force
down their throat. It's been 30 years. Insane amount of preaching as
exists on the net doesn't help much.
if emacs adopts ZXCV keys, the one major obstacle to emacs would be
gone. The bonus is, emacs operation become more efficient for free if
the emacs's current C-x and C-c gets a more ergonomic key.
Xah Lee wrote:
> On Feb 28, 11:04 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
>> In fact I'd say the converse; if you changed it I wouldn't upgrade to
>> the new version.
> I understand. Meanwhile, hundred thousands of technical people, will
> now try emacs, because they can launch emacs and immediate use it
> comfortably for their basic needs.
> If GNU Emacs actually adopt it, i bet you'll love it too, because the
> issue isn't technical, rather a cultural one.
You would lose that bet. I use windows, when I have to, and I don't
like windows keys when using windows. I rarely touch a mouse and I use
the keyboard for most things, yet I still don't like windows keys.
My personal choice isn't based on culture or popularity in any way. I
use what works for me and avoid things that don't. I've tried what you
prefer and we disagree. I guess if you consider me part of a culture
of pragmatists then the problem is cultural; I'm not interested
culture of trout - those who jump at new and shiny things.
> what we need, is your help to get it thru.
>> IMHO, people who prefer a windows style editor use one and people who
>> don't like windows style editors don't use them. If all editors become
>> windows style editors we have less choice and that's not really a good
>> idea.
> you can insist that vi is Windows convention if you must, but the ZXCV
> keys for undo/cut/copy/paste is standard on Linuxes.
You are simply wrong about this. The conventions you mention are
"features" of certain window managers, they have nothing at all to do
with linux or any GNU utilities.
For the record, I avoid those window managers. I think you'll find
that the window managers you are referring to really haven't drawn
people in droves over the linux side. Seems to be a counter point to
your claim.
Why not create the emacs you prefer, offer it, and let it take over
the world and leave those of us not interested to struggle along with
our legacy emacs?
In gnu.emacs.help Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if emacs adopts ZXCV keys, the one major obstacle to emacs would be
> gone. The bonus is, emacs operation become more efficient for free if
> the emacs's current C-x and C-c gets a more ergonomic key.
Suggest two, or hold your peace. Oh, and then there's the little matter
of converting all existing elisp to use these new bindings.
>> aggravation... but I was certain that the newer tools would be better.
> Remember, they're not newer, they're only younger.
This. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Experienced Emacs users will never see any reason to change the interface they are used to. OTOH, I would bet my money a new editor would have *zero* chances of success without understanding CUA shortcuts, or worse, with remapping those shortcuts to something else, like Emacs does.
First time I tried Emacs, I gave up after half an hour or so because it was frustrating having an editor "misinterpreting" common shortcuts. You know, it's not like you stay in Emacs all the time as soon as you begin using it. And when the other ten applications you are using have the same shortcuts, whilst Emacs doesn't, it's not like you'll think "Oh! It's just different for historical reasons." Worse: some Emacs shortcuts may have "destructive" effects in other applications (hit C-w - Emacs' kill-region - instead of C-x - CUA's cut - by accident in your browser and you'll close a tab where you were filling some form, and possibly lose the session if that tab was the last one). As a side note, no matter how much I considered Opera as a great browser, I've never switched to it because it doesn't share shortcuts with Internet Explorer, Firefox and - later - Chrome and that has always annoyed the heck out of me (yes, Opera allows you to remap its shortcuts, but the procedure is cumbersome).
A few years passed by before I gave Emacs another shot, and that time I stayed because I discovered CUA. If it weren't for CUA, I wouldn't be an enthusiastic Emacs user today, but had CUA been there from the beginning, I'd have had a few more years of Emacs under my belt, that's for sure. And that Emacs is such a great tool - not just an editor - I didn't realize until I achieved proficiency. It's not like I persisted because *I knew* I was up for such a huge return of investment. Oh! And I have never committed to memory what Emacs' default shortcuts are for copy, paste, undo, etc. Indeed, I have remapped other key-bindings to mirror the other applications I'm using. Why should you think about what application you're using before pressing any key? Context switching has a cost, and getting rid of it is a foundation for maximum productivity.
> the key is to get FSF GNU Emacs to endorse, adopt, this.
I have no idea what the FSF would have to do with it, but as far as GNU
Emacs is concerned, switching the default Emacs config to use
C-x/C-c/C-v for cut/copy/paste is not on the agenda. And there are
2 good reasons for that:
- too many of the main contributors would run screaming.
- it's far from obvious how that could be done while still letting users
choose to revert to the traditional bindings.
This said, we would be happy to incorporate incremental patches which
make such a switch possible. Basically, incremental patches which make
cua-mode less hackish.
So, I suggest to anyone who's serious about it to try and tackle the
core technical problem: make it easier to change core key-bindings
(mostly the C-c and C-x prefixes).
We've recently incorporated a few patches to use ctl-x-map rather than
"\C-x" in some key bindings, and that is a step in the right direction.
Note that other than the implementation issue, there is also a design
issue: what would be the ideal "Standard GUI Emacs bindings"?
It's pretty clear what C-x/C-c/C-v should do, but what about C-a and
other less-standard-but-still-pretty-standard bindings? And more
importantly, where should we then put all the commands traditionally
bound under the C-x or C-x prefixes?
> On Feb 28, 9:03 am, Peter Davis<Peter.Da...@mathworks.com> wrote:
>> On 2/28/2012 11:35 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Ever hear of ergo-emacs?
>>> That's Xah's presentation.
>>> I think he has more than a few users.
>> I looked at the ErgoEmacs pages a bit. I can see a good case for why
>> Notepad users should switch. I didn't see a compelling reason why
>> existing proficient Emacs users would want to switch to this.
>> There's also Aquamacs on the Mac ... a pretty good attempt (IMO) to
>> integrate Emacs with Mac UI conventions.
> hi Peter,
> the key is to get FSF GNU Emacs to endorse, adopt, this.
> else, it's just third party mod, and ZXCV always come with stigma in
> the emacs culture.
Would this be as simple as including some additional code with a typical emacs installation, and perhaps having a command line argument to open emacs in "ergo-mode" as opposed to a default? What else would you expect FSF to do?
