Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.emacs
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion emacs undo & emacs cult problem
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Krzysztof Bieniasz  
View profile  
 More options Apr 14 2011, 5:10 pm
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
From: Krzysztof Bieniasz <krzysztof.t.bieni...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:10:14 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Apr 14 2011 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: emacs undo & emacs cult problem
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> first note that the joke that “emacs as a OS” is not factual. It's just
> a joke. A OS by definition manages hardware, which emacs doesn't. If you
> do realize it's a joke, then don't use that phrase in serious debates.
> Ok, perhaps you are using the “OS” work there to indicate emacs's
> capabilities, alright.

Well, if it was factual it would no longer be a joke, would it now?... I
was merely trying to introduce some good old Emacs sense of humour. And I
really doubt whether this debate is all that serious as you claim.

> Krzysztof, in this article:

> 〈The Modernization of Emacs (Simple Changes Emacs Should Adopt)〉
> http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html

> i've addressed similar concerns. Quote:

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

> A: Emacs'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 command'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 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. Emacs's Ctrl and Meta combinations are most cited
> as the major turn-off to potential users among programers. (See:
> Celebrity Programers with RSI (Repetitive Strain Injury))
> ... <the rest of the very long article>

Whether it's difficult to remember is more the matter of opinion. In fact
most of Emacs shortcuts contain some degree of mnemonics in them, you
only have to know from what words do they derive. The only problem might
be that they are numerous, but that's merely a consequence the lots of
functions that Emacs provides. I don't see any problem here. About the
strain issue my answer would be that every program incorporating a lot of
shortcuts involving modifier keys have to be painful. This is more the
question of keyboard design. The best way to avoid that is to... drop the
shortcuts. What you want is to chose your operations from a drop-down
menu instead of using shortcuts. And if you prefer it, that's your
choice, I've no problem with that. Emacs also lets you nowadays.

If we wanted to change Emacs' shortcuts that would merely re-position the
same functions onto different keys. What keys would those be we would
have to first agree on. Suppose you designed the new layout. Why do you
think other users would like it that way? Of course you could argue that
some of these are established as a standard. But then again not
everything that's standard is always good, it's merely a standard,
nothing more. If you used C-x and C-c for their standard functions where
would you put the extension keys? You would have to put them on some
unused keys -- probably those that are hardest to use. That would not
really be any progress since those keys are very important in Emacs.

So the short answer to the question why won't Emacs change is: because
there's no obviously better way of doing things. It's better to stick to
the tradition than to change something only to make Emacs compliant with
some standards which might simply be irrelevant.

KTB


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google