Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
emacs modernization, 2012
73 views
Skip to first unread message
Xah Lee
Feb 27, 2012, 7:47:16 PM2/27/12
to
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 ...
Xah
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 ...
Xah
Thad Floryan
Feb 28, 2012, 12:00:40 AM2/28/12
to
On 2/27/2012 4:47 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
> i've been in emacs community for over a decade now. (since 1998)
> [...]
> 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
> 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)))
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?
> 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.
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
> 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 ...
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).
Pascal J. Bourguignon
Feb 28, 2012, 12:10:37 AM2/28/12
to
Thad Floryan <th...@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
> 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.
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).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
Chiron
Feb 28, 2012, 1:47:21 AM2/28/12
to
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
> 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)))
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.
Richard Kettlewell
Feb 28, 2012, 5:09:47 AM2/28/12
to
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <p...@informatimago.com> writes:
> Thad Floryan <th...@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.
Current Emacs on OSX supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc anyway.
> Thad Floryan <th...@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.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Dan Espen
Feb 28, 2012, 11:35:45 AM2/28/12
to
Thad Floryan <th...@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)
>> [...]
> 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.
>> 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?
> 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).
That's Xah's presentation.
I think he has more than a few users.
Personally, I don't use Windows enough to care.
comp.lang.lisp removed.
--
Dan Espen
Peter Davis
Feb 28, 2012, 12:03:44 PM2/28/12
to
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
>
> Ever hear of ergo-emacs?
> That's Xah's presentation.
> I think he has more than a few users.
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.
-pd
stan
Feb 28, 2012, 2:04:26 PM2/28/12
to
Thad Floryan wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 4:47 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
>> i've been in emacs community for over a decade now. (since 1998)
>> [...]
Technically you've been trying to change the emacs community versus
> On 2/27/2012 4:47 PM, Xah Lee wrote:
>> i've been in emacs community for over a decade now. (since 1998)
>> [...]
being "in" the community.
>> [...]
>> 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.
non-trivial particularly with the ribbon interface. Different strokes
for different folks.
>> [...]
>> 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?
choose a text editor for popularity versus personal fit?
>> That is: Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+X, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, must be undo, cut, copy,
>> paste, and that there must be a Redo command.
>> [...]
>> 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.
the new version.
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.
Hils
Feb 28, 2012, 5:25:11 PM2/28/12
to
On 2012-02-28 05:10, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Thad Floryan<th...@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.
I've used mostly Windoze boxes since the 1990s, and Emacs is fine as it
> Thad Floryan<th...@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.
is. The more you use it, the easier it gets. More incremental evolution,
yes, conforming to Windoze hard-coded key bindings, absolutely not.
oni...@gmail.com
Feb 28, 2012, 9:13:58 PM2/28/12
to
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.
>
[...]
> 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
> 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.
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.
Xah Lee
Feb 28, 2012, 9:30:38 PM2/28/12
to
On Monday, February 27, 2012 9:00:40 PM UTC-8, Thad Floryan 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.
if emacs adopts them, emacs might become the default editor for some distro, and that's give a large boost to emacs users.
Xah
Xah Lee
Feb 28, 2012, 9:31:44 PM2/28/12
to
On Monday, February 27, 2012 10:47:21 PM UTC-8, Chiron wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
Xah Lee
Feb 28, 2012, 9:37:23 PM2/28/12
to
Pascal J. Bourguignon 〔p…@informatimago.com〕 wrote: « I hear there's a
cua-mode.»
yes, it'd be nice to have it on by default. That'll make a lot people
use emacs.
Xah
cua-mode.»
yes, it'd be nice to have it on by default. That'll make a lot people
use emacs.
Xah
Xah Lee
Feb 28, 2012, 9:40:23 PM2/28/12
to
Richard Kettlewell 〔r…@greenend.org.uk〕 wrote:
«Current Emacs on OSX supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc anyway.»
yes. But it's not standard in GNU Emacs.
it doesn't solve the problem.
This has been addressed in FAQ. Thank you for your input though.
〈The Modernization of Emacs (Simple Changes Emacs Should Adopt)〉
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
----------------------
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).
Xah
«Current Emacs on OSX supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc anyway.»
yes. But it's not standard in GNU Emacs.
it doesn't solve the problem.
This has been addressed in FAQ. Thank you for your input though.
〈The Modernization of Emacs (Simple Changes Emacs Should Adopt)〉
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
----------------------
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).
Xah
Xah Lee
Feb 28, 2012, 9:47:33 PM2/28/12
to
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.
Xah
Xah Lee
Feb 28, 2012, 9:52:36 PM2/28/12
to
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
> In fact I'd say the converse; if you changed it I wouldn't upgrade to
> the new version.
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.
keys for undo/cut/copy/paste is standard on Linuxes.
Xah
Xah Lee
Feb 28, 2012, 10:03:16 PM2/28/12
to
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.
何路英雄？ ☺
Xah
« 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.
何路英雄？ ☺
Xah
Xah Lee
Feb 28, 2012, 9:45:05 PM2/28/12
to
Hils 〔h…@saynotospam.net〕 wrote:
«I've used mostly Windoze boxes since the 1990s, and Emacs is fine as
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
«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.»
evolution, yes, conforming to Windoze hard-coded key bindings,
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
Stefan Monnier
Feb 28, 2012, 10:13:31 PM2/28/12
to
> aggravation... but I was certain that the newer tools would be better.
Remember, they're not newer, they're only younger.
Stefan
stan
Feb 29, 2012, 1:10:38 AM2/29/12
to
Xah Lee wrote:
> if emacs adopts them, emacs might become the default editor for some
> distro, and that's give a large boost to emacs users.
Then everyone would come here, the signal/noise would plummet, it
> if emacs adopts them, emacs might become the default editor for some
> distro, and that's give a large boost to emacs users.
wouldn't be fun here anymore, that would make emacs "not cool" again,
and finally everyone would stop using emacs. Do we really want that?
Alan Mackenzie
Feb 29, 2012, 4:17:32 AM2/29/12
to
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
> 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.
of converting all existing elisp to use these new bindings.
> Xah
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Richard Kettlewell
Feb 29, 2012, 5:37:31 AM2/29/12
to
Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes:
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Current Emacs on OSX supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc anyway.
>
> yes. But it's not standard in GNU Emacs.
I'm not talking about Aquamacs. GNU Emacs, on OSX, supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc.
>> Current Emacs on OSX supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc anyway.
>
> yes. But it's not standard in GNU Emacs.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Message has been deleted
Raffaele Ricciardi
Feb 29, 2012, 9:30:59 AM2/29/12
to
On 02/29/2012 03:13 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> 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
>> aggravation... but I was certain that the newer tools would be better.
>
> Remember, they're not newer, they're only younger.
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.
Just my two cents.
Stefan Monnier
Feb 29, 2012, 9:33:29 AM2/29/12
to
> 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?
Stefan
Peter Davis
Feb 29, 2012, 9:36:19 AM2/29/12
to
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?
-pd
Raffaele Ricciardi
Feb 29, 2012, 10:07:56 AM2/29/12
to
On 02/29/2012 02:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 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.
Hahaha! Indeed. And we understand now why many new users may as well
> 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.
run screaming when confronted with Emacs' default bindings ;-)
> 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?
>
> - it's far from obvious how that could be done while still letting users
> choose to revert to the traditional bindings.
Agreed. Standard GUI Emacs bindings should be current ones. Just like
> choose to revert to the traditional bindings.
other applications already do, Emacs could allow for different schemes.
> 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.
> And more
> importantly, where should we then put all the commands traditionally
> bound under the C-x or C-x prefixes?
Agreed. IMO, the best option would be remapping C-c and C-x to some
> importantly, where should we then put all the commands traditionally
> bound under the C-x or C-x prefixes?
less used yet easily reachable keys, whilst moving such keys' original
commands to longer sequences.
We could also exploit the fact that CUA's C-c and C-x only make sense
when the region is active, therefore users won't be annoyed by such keys
being prefixes when no region is selected. AFAIK, cua-mode does that
already (I use Viper-mode, therefore I'm not sure). To avoid long
sequences for frequently used commands, shortest sequences could be
overloaded by making their bound commands context-sensitive.
Raffaele Ricciardi
Feb 29, 2012, 10:33:58 AM2/29/12
to
On 02/29/2012 03:07 PM, Raffaele Ricciardi wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 02:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Hahaha! Indeed. And we understand now why many new users may as well run
> screaming when confronted with Emacs' default bindings ;-)
I think there is a psychological issue here: Emacs' maintainers are used
> On 02/29/2012 02:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Hahaha! Indeed. And we understand now why many new users may as well run
> screaming when confronted with Emacs' default bindings ;-)
to standard Emacs' bindings, and don't want to give them up, besides not
seeing any reason to do it; whilst newcomers are used to - among others
- CUA's bindings and give them up begrudgingly. The best solution would
be to allow both parties to coexist peacefully.
Does not knowing standard Emacs' bindings make me less of a proficient
user? I don't think so.
Thankfully, Emacs' designers allowed for this kind of customization when
they provided a way to query for commands' bindings right into
documentation.
John Wiegley
Feb 28, 2012, 11:39:46 PM2/28/12
to
There's also Ctrl-/, which I find much more convenient.
John
John
Stefan Monnier
Feb 29, 2012, 4:13:06 PM2/29/12
to
> 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.
No doubt. And a new editor wouldn't call windows "frames" either.
> 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.
Stefan
Raffaele Ricciardi
Feb 29, 2012, 5:05:49 PM2/29/12
to
switch regarding what "frame" and "window" mean while reading Emacs'
documentation, and Emacs' documentation does a good job at describing
their meanings. You can't quickly flip a mental switch while switching
between Emacs and other applications, when you are relying on your
muscle memory.
Xah Lee
Feb 29, 2012, 5:58:14 PM2/29/12
to
hi Raffaele Ricciardi,
just want to thank you for your great and rare post 〔
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs/msg/d2aafdca94ac1fb4 〕.
I have exactly the same experience with opera. (
http://xahlee.org/js/Opera_browser_problems.html )
the experience you mentioned about some emacs key being destructive on
other apps also resonate with me.
my first 6 years of emacs is with emacs default keys, using it
exclusively on text terminal (1998 to 2004 〔 http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_vs_xemacs.html
〕). And i was a mac user (1991 to 2009 〔 http://xahlee.org/mswin/switch_to_windows.html
〕). One problem is that i would often by habit press 【Meta+w】 in the
wrong app, so, it'll close the window on the Mac. Very painful. So, i
developed a habit to always press 【Esc w】 instead to copy in emacs.
i've done extensive keyboard shortcut studies. Not related directly to
the subject in this thread, but the emacs key set, is in fact one the
most inefficient. (See:〈Why Emacs's Keyboard Shortcuts are Painful〉 @
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_kb_shortcuts_pain.html )
for those CUA mode users, please speak out. The process to get GNU
Emacs to adop will not be easy, but we need to speak out, even if
often means you'll be sneered. We are already getting more people to
speak out in past 3 years. When more and more emacs people hear about
this, it'll be more natural, and hopefully we get GNU Emacs to have
CUA mode on by default, and for linuxes to have emacs as the default
editor, and newer programers can easily get hooked to emacs's real
power and win for emacs dev.
Xah
------------------
Xah Lee
Feb 29, 2012, 7:12:46 PM2/29/12
to
On Feb 29, 2:37 am, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> >> Current Emacs on OSX supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc anyway.
>
> > yes. But it's not standard in GNU Emacs.
>
> I'm not talking about Aquamacs. GNU Emacs, on OSX, supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc.
I see. Are those on by default?
> Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> >> Current Emacs on OSX supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc anyway.
>
> > yes. But it's not standard in GNU Emacs.
>
> I'm not talking about Aquamacs. GNU Emacs, on OSX, supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc.
anyway, this thread is drifting. Thank you for this interesting point
and discussion.
Xah
oni...@gmail.com
Feb 29, 2012, 8:37:21 PM2/29/12
to
On 2月29日, 下午12时03分, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
1. I see most of (GUI based, if I remember) OSes now adopt ZXCV keys
> 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.
>
to fit into "a sort of convention".
But this sort of convention just doesn't seem like, say what i mean,
it hasn't to be a sensible "modernized way".
2. I mean it is just a choice of design before the system came out.
(Though I do really think the choice has some basis. But it is also a
case by case one.)
Example,
a. Besides the GUI part, the CLI part of linux/unix didn't adopt such
a convention, did them?
When you press Ctrl-c or Ctrl-z, you just sends out a signal even in
your GUI pseudo-terminal.
b. Well, bash also has an emacs-like key bindings for forwarding/
backwarding cursors, how does it feel like?
And more, when you use vi, you do not have to mess yourself with
combining ctrl/meta/shift to do cut/copy/pase/undo.
If you want to change the vi default keybindings to the "modernized
way", I think no user would ever like to touch vi anymore.
> If you haven't tried, check Linux out. One of the most popular distro
> to use as Windows.
>
I'm using several linuxes (including federa/ubuntu/gentoo) several
years.
And I do appreciate it has a keybindings like Windows for cut/copy/
paste. I don't hate 'em either.
> 何路英雄？ ☺
上班无聊打发时间。：）
>
> Xah
oni...@gmail.com
Feb 29, 2012, 9:28:33 PM2/29/12
to
On 3月1日, 上午7时58分, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi Raffaele Ricciardi,
>
[...]
powerful customization.
I think the reason that Emacs collects its fanatics is Elisp and the
powerful customization.
You have your choice, standing on your feet.
This sometimes appealing sometimes helplessly annoying.
So CUA-mode and the sort of ZXCV keybinding rework will not bring
folks back even it is on by default.
It is trivial changes comparing what the Emacsbeast are.
--------------------------------------------
Joking only:
Do you want to hear my suggestion on "modernization"?
If you really want to annoy hardcore emacs hacker,
why not bring 'em a powerful Voice-bindings like the Key-bindings.
So you say "Voice-Cut", "Voice-Copy", "Voice-Paste", rather than
touching your keyboards.
This is what canonical(HUD), apple(siri) is doing right now!
Emacs is instintively appropriate to do that and would be far more
better than those two above.
(You can teach emacs do what you say like you teach emacs do what you
type. What a powerful idea!)
--------------------------------------------
Sorry, I'm just so boring working today. :)
> hi Raffaele Ricciardi,
>
[...]
> CUA mode on by default, and for linuxes to have emacs as the default
> editor, and newer programers can easily get hooked to emacs's real
> power and win for emacs dev.
I think the reason that Emacs frightens people off is Elisp and the
> editor, and newer programers can easily get hooked to emacs's real
> power and win for emacs dev.
powerful customization.
I think the reason that Emacs collects its fanatics is Elisp and the
powerful customization.
You have your choice, standing on your feet.
This sometimes appealing sometimes helplessly annoying.
So CUA-mode and the sort of ZXCV keybinding rework will not bring
folks back even it is on by default.
It is trivial changes comparing what the Emacsbeast are.
--------------------------------------------
Joking only:
Do you want to hear my suggestion on "modernization"?
If you really want to annoy hardcore emacs hacker,
why not bring 'em a powerful Voice-bindings like the Key-bindings.
So you say "Voice-Cut", "Voice-Copy", "Voice-Paste", rather than
touching your keyboards.
This is what canonical(HUD), apple(siri) is doing right now!
Emacs is instintively appropriate to do that and would be far more
better than those two above.
(You can teach emacs do what you say like you teach emacs do what you
type. What a powerful idea!)
--------------------------------------------
Sorry, I'm just so boring working today. :)
Chiron
Feb 29, 2012, 11:27:24 PM2/29/12
to
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:58:14 -0800, Xah Lee wrote:
Your argument cuts both ways:
> 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.
<snip>
> 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
Your insistence on CUA is similar to your claim that experienced emacs
users won't see a reason to change the interface. Just as an experienced
emacs user won't see much advantage in changing the emacs interface, you
don't want to change your own "interface." No one wants to change the
interface they've grown accustomed to. Why should they?
There is no good reason to change the emacs interface. It works for its
users. There isn't even a particularly good reason to want to boost the
number of emacs users, as far as I can see. People who find emacs
useful, will use it. Those who don't, will use something else. What
difference does it make how many people use any given tool? It's not a
popularity contest. Multiply the revenues by ten, and you get just about
the same number...
I am skeptical of studies showing emacs key bindings to be
"inefficient." Certainly any unfamiliar key binding system will be
inefficient for a person; but once he learns his way around, the
efficiency goes up. Efficiency isn't so much a function of which keys
are used, but how well a user manages to use them. That is a matter of
practice. It seems reasonable to suspect that the studies were measuring
the users' familiarity with the bindings.
I suppose one could argue that the layout of keys on a keyboard should be
changed, because that is inefficient as well. The Dvorak keyboard is
clearly more logical. But for most typists, the old Qwerty arrangement
is most efficient, because that is what they've learned. Change to
Dvorak and their efficiency will take a serious dive. Despite the
obvious superiority of the Dvorak keyboard, efforts to encourage its
adoption have been essentially futile. Qwerty is likely to remain until
keyboard interface is completely replaced by something far better.
I will freely admit that you have a point about the emacs interface
discouraging new users. Like you, it was many years before I seriously
considered emacs as even a possibility, much less as my preferred editor/
OS (I'm only exaggerating a little bit - I've seen emacs described as a
"nice OS, lacking only a decent editor"). But again - whose loss was
this? Surely not yours. It was mine. Had I been more open-minded, I
might have learned the emacs interface years earlier. My stubborn
refusal came with a high price.
My gut tells me that it is unlikely the that emacs developers (who is
that - just RMS?) are unlikely to make a change to the interface. After
all, emacs is most likely the tool they themselves use; and as you say,
they're not likely to want to change their own interface just to please
someone else.
But surely someone out there - if not you, then some other lisp
programmers - could come up with a customization module or macro or set
of macros that would make all the desired changes. This could be
presented to the developers and perhaps bundled with the rest of the
program, available to whoever wants to use it. That way new users could
have their CUA, and the "old dogs" could use their Escape-Meta-Alt-
Control-Shift interface. Everybody wins.
--
Hoare's Law of Large Problems:
Inside every large problem is a small problem struggling to get
out.
Your argument cuts both ways:
> 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.
> 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
users won't see a reason to change the interface. Just as an experienced
emacs user won't see much advantage in changing the emacs interface, you
don't want to change your own "interface." No one wants to change the
interface they've grown accustomed to. Why should they?
There is no good reason to change the emacs interface. It works for its
users. There isn't even a particularly good reason to want to boost the
number of emacs users, as far as I can see. People who find emacs
useful, will use it. Those who don't, will use something else. What
difference does it make how many people use any given tool? It's not a
popularity contest. Multiply the revenues by ten, and you get just about
the same number...
I am skeptical of studies showing emacs key bindings to be
"inefficient." Certainly any unfamiliar key binding system will be
inefficient for a person; but once he learns his way around, the
efficiency goes up. Efficiency isn't so much a function of which keys
are used, but how well a user manages to use them. That is a matter of
practice. It seems reasonable to suspect that the studies were measuring
the users' familiarity with the bindings.
I suppose one could argue that the layout of keys on a keyboard should be
changed, because that is inefficient as well. The Dvorak keyboard is
clearly more logical. But for most typists, the old Qwerty arrangement
is most efficient, because that is what they've learned. Change to
Dvorak and their efficiency will take a serious dive. Despite the
obvious superiority of the Dvorak keyboard, efforts to encourage its
adoption have been essentially futile. Qwerty is likely to remain until
keyboard interface is completely replaced by something far better.
I will freely admit that you have a point about the emacs interface
discouraging new users. Like you, it was many years before I seriously
considered emacs as even a possibility, much less as my preferred editor/
OS (I'm only exaggerating a little bit - I've seen emacs described as a
"nice OS, lacking only a decent editor"). But again - whose loss was
this? Surely not yours. It was mine. Had I been more open-minded, I
might have learned the emacs interface years earlier. My stubborn
refusal came with a high price.
My gut tells me that it is unlikely the that emacs developers (who is
that - just RMS?) are unlikely to make a change to the interface. After
all, emacs is most likely the tool they themselves use; and as you say,
they're not likely to want to change their own interface just to please
someone else.
But surely someone out there - if not you, then some other lisp
programmers - could come up with a customization module or macro or set
of macros that would make all the desired changes. This could be
presented to the developers and perhaps bundled with the rest of the
program, available to whoever wants to use it. That way new users could
have their CUA, and the "old dogs" could use their Escape-Meta-Alt-
Control-Shift interface. Everybody wins.
--
Hoare's Law of Large Problems:
Inside every large problem is a small problem struggling to get
out.
Richard Kettlewell
Mar 1, 2012, 4:21:56 AM3/1/12
to
Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> Current Emacs on OSX supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc anyway.
>>> yes. But it's not standard in GNU Emacs.
>> I'm not talking about Aquamacs. GNU Emacs, on OSX, supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc.
> I see. Are those on by default?
Yes, they are.
> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> Current Emacs on OSX supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc anyway.
>>> yes. But it's not standard in GNU Emacs.
>> I'm not talking about Aquamacs. GNU Emacs, on OSX, supports ⌘C, ⌘V, etc.
> I see. Are those on by default?
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Stefan Monnier
Mar 1, 2012, 9:14:55 AM3/1/12
to
> There isn't even a particularly good reason to want to boost the
> number of Emacs users, as far as I can see.
Tho we don't get revenue from users, we do get contributors from users,
so more users imply more contributors and less users imply
fewer contributors.
> My gut tells me that it is unlikely the that Emacs developers (who is
> that - just RMS?)
A whole bunch of people (maybe about 10 really active, and about 50
contributing on-and-off).
Stefan
Chiron
Mar 1, 2012, 9:56:38 AM3/1/12
to
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:14:55 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Tho we don't get revenue from users, we do get contributors from users,
> so more users imply more contributors and less users imply fewer
> contributors.
OK, that makes a lot of sense... Until you explained that, I never
> Tho we don't get revenue from users, we do get contributors from users,
> so more users imply more contributors and less users imply fewer
> contributors.
understood why so many FLOSS people were concerned about numbers.
Figured it was just a sort of macho thing or something.
--
Charity begins at home.
-- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)
Stefan Monnier
Mar 1, 2012, 10:06:41 PM3/1/12
to
>> Tho we don't get revenue from users, we do get contributors from users,
>> so more users imply more contributors and less users imply fewer
>> contributors.
> OK, that makes a lot of sense... Until you explained that, I never
> understood why so many FLOSS people were concerned about numbers.
> Figured it was just a sort of macho thing or something.
Actually, there's a further aspect: most contributors don't only do it
>> so more users imply more contributors and less users imply fewer
>> contributors.
> OK, that makes a lot of sense... Until you explained that, I never
> understood why so many FLOSS people were concerned about numbers.
> Figured it was just a sort of macho thing or something.
to satisfy their own needs, but also because they like the idea of
contributing and seeing their work used by other people.
So, contributing to a widely used package is more rewarding from this
point of view.
Stefan
Alan Mackenzie
Mar 3, 2012, 5:26:06 AM3/3/12
to
Raffaele Ricciardi <rffl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 02:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> 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.
> On 02/29/2012 02:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> 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.
>> And more importantly, where should we then put all the commands
>> traditionally bound under the C-x or C-x prefixes?
> Agreed. IMO, the best option would be remapping C-c and C-x to some
> less used yet easily reachable keys, whilst moving such keys' original
> commands to longer sequences.
Less used, yet easily reachable. Less used by whom? Every user has a
>> traditionally bound under the C-x or C-x prefixes?
> Agreed. IMO, the best option would be remapping C-c and C-x to some
> less used yet easily reachable keys, whilst moving such keys' original
> commands to longer sequences.
different pattern of use, and I doubt there's any key sequence which
isn't frequently used by somebody.
Quite a few people make this suggestion, but nobody comes up with any
proposal for specific keys.
> We could also exploit the fact that CUA's C-c and C-x only make sense
> when the region is active, therefore users won't be annoyed by such keys
> being prefixes when no region is selected. AFAIK, cua-mode does that
> already (I use Viper-mode, therefore I'm not sure). To avoid long
> sequences for frequently used commands, shortest sequences could be
> overloaded by making their bound commands context-sensitive.
sequences are NOT context sensitive; there are no "modes" in the sense of
vi's insert mode and command mode. That context sensitivity is why I
can't really use vi, so I'd hate having the same thing built into Emacs.
Raffaele Ricciardi
Mar 3, 2012, 3:37:46 PM3/3/12
to
On 03/03/2012 10:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Raffaele Ricciardi<rffl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/29/2012 02:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>>> And more importantly, where should we then put all the commands
>>> traditionally bound under the C-x or C-x prefixes?
>
>> Agreed. IMO, the best option would be remapping C-c and C-x to some
>> less used yet easily reachable keys, whilst moving such keys' original
>> commands to longer sequences.
>
> Less used, yet easily reachable. Less used by whom? Every user has a
> different pattern of use, and I doubt there's any key sequence which
> isn't frequently used by somebody.
Mmm... Let me see...
> Raffaele Ricciardi<rffl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02/29/2012 02:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>>> And more importantly, where should we then put all the commands
>>> traditionally bound under the C-x or C-x prefixes?
>
>> Agreed. IMO, the best option would be remapping C-c and C-x to some
>> less used yet easily reachable keys, whilst moving such keys' original
>> commands to longer sequences.
>
> Less used, yet easily reachable. Less used by whom? Every user has a
> different pattern of use, and I doubt there's any key sequence which
> isn't frequently used by somebody.
emacs -Q
C-h c C-. -> C-. is undefined
C-h c C-, -> C-, is undefined
I'd bet there aren't many users out there using these commands ;-)
C-h c C-w -> C-w runs the command kill-region
Wait! kill-region will be bound to C-x, thus freeing C-w.
C-h c C-q -> C-q runs the command quoted-insert
How many users out there insert that much quoted text?
I didn't look further.
>
> Quite a few people make this suggestion, but nobody comes up with any
> proposal for specific keys.
is the reason I later suggested to have different binding schemes.
Emacs' binding scheme is an arbitrary one, therefore there are no reason
alternative binding schemes can't exist.
>
>> We could also exploit the fact that CUA's C-c and C-x only make sense
>> when the region is active, therefore users won't be annoyed by such keys
>> being prefixes when no region is selected. AFAIK, cua-mode does that
>> already (I use Viper-mode, therefore I'm not sure). To avoid long
>> sequences for frequently used commands, shortest sequences could be
>> overloaded by making their bound commands context-sensitive.
>
> No, no no!! One of the prime characteristics of Emacs is that its key
> sequences are NOT context sensitive; there are no "modes" in the sense of
> vi's insert mode and command mode. That context sensitivity is why I
> can't really use vi, so I'd hate having the same thing built into Emacs.
>
example of a context-sensitive command: C-h f comment-dwim RET
Alan Mackenzie
Mar 4, 2012, 5:42:25 AM3/4/12
to
Hi, Raffaele.
Raffaele Ricciardi <rffl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/03/2012 10:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Raffaele Ricciardi<rffl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/29/2012 02:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> And more importantly, where should we then put all the commands
>>>> traditionally bound under the C-x or C-x prefixes?
>>> Agreed. IMO, the best option would be remapping C-c and C-x to some
>>> less used yet easily reachable keys, whilst moving such keys' original
>>> commands to longer sequences.
>> Less used, yet easily reachable. Less used by whom? Every user has a
>> different pattern of use, and I doubt there's any key sequence which
>> isn't frequently used by somebody.
> Mmm... Let me see...
> emacs -Q
> C-h c C-. -> C-. is undefined
> C-h c C-, -> C-, is undefined
> I'd bet there aren't many users out there using these commands ;-)
C-. and C-, don't exist on (unmodified) ttys.
> C-h c C-w -> C-w runs the command kill-region
> Wait! kill-region will be bound to C-x, thus freeing C-w.
OK, but I'm not sure C-w counts as easily reachable. For me, I don't
use the RH control key when in the home position, since it's too far
away. C-w, entirely with LH, is quite a stretch.
> C-h c C-q -> C-q runs the command quoted-insert
> How many users out there insert that much quoted text?
I do.
> I didn't look further.
change, change the three or four keys you mentioned above, and put your
layout onto the market.
>>> We could also exploit the fact that CUA's C-c and C-x only make sense
>>> when the region is active, therefore users won't be annoyed by such keys
>>> being prefixes when no region is selected. AFAIK, cua-mode does that
>>> already (I use Viper-mode, therefore I'm not sure). To avoid long
>>> sequences for frequently used commands, shortest sequences could be
>>> overloaded by making their bound commands context-sensitive.
>> No, no no!! One of the prime characteristics of Emacs is that its key
>> sequences are NOT context sensitive; there are no "modes" in the sense of
>> vi's insert mode and command mode. That context sensitivity is why I
>> can't really use vi, so I'd hate having the same thing built into Emacs.
> Context-sensitivity and modal editing are two different things. For an
> example of a context-sensitive command: C-h f comment-dwim RET.
I think you're avoiding my main point there. Having continually to press
C-g to get rid of the region is like having to press ESC to get into
command mode.
Raffaele Ricciardi <rffl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/03/2012 10:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Raffaele Ricciardi<rffl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/29/2012 02:33 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> And more importantly, where should we then put all the commands
>>>> traditionally bound under the C-x or C-x prefixes?
>>> Agreed. IMO, the best option would be remapping C-c and C-x to some
>>> less used yet easily reachable keys, whilst moving such keys' original
>>> commands to longer sequences.
>> Less used, yet easily reachable. Less used by whom? Every user has a
>> different pattern of use, and I doubt there's any key sequence which
>> isn't frequently used by somebody.
> Mmm... Let me see...
> emacs -Q
> C-h c C-. -> C-. is undefined
> C-h c C-, -> C-, is undefined
> I'd bet there aren't many users out there using these commands ;-)
> C-h c C-w -> C-w runs the command kill-region
> Wait! kill-region will be bound to C-x, thus freeing C-w.
use the RH control key when in the home position, since it's too far
away. C-w, entirely with LH, is quite a stretch.
> C-h c C-q -> C-q runs the command quoted-insert
> How many users out there insert that much quoted text?
> I didn't look further.
> Emacs' binding scheme is an arbitrary one, therefore there are no reason
> alternative binding schemes can't exist.
They do. Try out Xah Lee's Ergoemacs. Or if you want a less radical
> alternative binding schemes can't exist.
change, change the three or four keys you mentioned above, and put your
layout onto the market.
>>> We could also exploit the fact that CUA's C-c and C-x only make sense
>>> when the region is active, therefore users won't be annoyed by such keys
>>> being prefixes when no region is selected. AFAIK, cua-mode does that
>>> already (I use Viper-mode, therefore I'm not sure). To avoid long
>>> sequences for frequently used commands, shortest sequences could be
>>> overloaded by making their bound commands context-sensitive.
>> No, no no!! One of the prime characteristics of Emacs is that its key
>> sequences are NOT context sensitive; there are no "modes" in the sense of
>> vi's insert mode and command mode. That context sensitivity is why I
>> can't really use vi, so I'd hate having the same thing built into Emacs.
> Context-sensitivity and modal editing are two different things. For an
I think you're avoiding my main point there. Having continually to press
C-g to get rid of the region is like having to press ESC to get into
command mode.
Raffaele Ricciardi
Mar 4, 2012, 9:31:31 AM3/4/12
to
On 03/04/2012 10:42 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Mmm... Let me see...
>
>> emacs -Q
>> C-h c C-. -> C-. is undefined
>> C-h c C-, -> C-, is undefined
>
>> I'd bet there aren't many users out there using these commands ;-)
>
> C-. and C-, don't exist on (unmodified) ttys.
Oops! Well, they could work in a GUI binding scheme, then. In such
>> Mmm... Let me see...
>
>> emacs -Q
>> C-h c C-. -> C-. is undefined
>> C-h c C-, -> C-, is undefined
>
>> I'd bet there aren't many users out there using these commands ;-)
>
> C-. and C-, don't exist on (unmodified) ttys.
case, we'll have C-i available as well. Actually, I think it's the GUI
crowd who is more likely to be upset by Emacs' different bindings.
>
>> C-h c C-w -> C-w runs the command kill-region
>
>> Wait! kill-region will be bound to C-x, thus freeing C-w.
>
> OK, but I'm not sure C-w counts as easily reachable. For me, I don't
> use the RH control key when in the home position, since it's too far
> away. C-w, entirely with LH, is quite a stretch.
on a keyboard where Control keys were easier to reach. IMO, Emacs'
standard bindings shouldn't be used on a standard PC layout, unless you
are working at catching RSI.
>
>> C-h c C-q -> C-q runs the command quoted-insert
>
>> How many users out there insert that much quoted text?
>
> I do.
>> Context-sensitivity and modal editing are two different things. For an
>> example of a context-sensitive command: C-h f comment-dwim RET.
>
> I think you're avoiding my main point there. Having continually to press
> C-g to get rid of the region is like having to press ESC to get into
> command mode.
were related, for instance: TAB for both indent-according-to-mode and
indent-region.
unfrostedpoptart
Mar 4, 2012, 1:50:28 PM3/4/12
to
On Thursday, March 1, 2012 1:21:56 AM UTC-8, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Yes - it's great on Mac. The command/Mac key by default is the emacs super modifier. This works great since this isn't used in any modes' keymaps so it's free to be assigned for things like copy/cut/paste/etc without any conflict.
So, the obvious solution is to run emacs on Macs!
David
So, the obvious solution is to run emacs on Macs!
David
unfrostedpoptart
Mar 4, 2012, 1:56:47 PM3/4/12
to
David
Alan Mackenzie
Mar 5, 2012, 4:15:04 AM3/5/12
to
Raffaele Ricciardi <rffl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/04/2012 10:42 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> Mmm... Let me see...
>>> emacs -Q
>>> C-h c C-. -> C-. is undefined
>>> C-h c C-, -> C-, is undefined
>>> I'd bet there aren't many users out there using these commands ;-)
>> C-. and C-, don't exist on (unmodified) ttys.
> Oops! Well, they could work in a GUI binding scheme, then. In such
> case, we'll have C-i available as well.
That's TAB (0x09).
> On 03/04/2012 10:42 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> Mmm... Let me see...
>>> emacs -Q
>>> C-h c C-. -> C-. is undefined
>>> C-h c C-, -> C-, is undefined
>>> I'd bet there aren't many users out there using these commands ;-)
>> C-. and C-, don't exist on (unmodified) ttys.
> Oops! Well, they could work in a GUI binding scheme, then. In such
> case, we'll have C-i available as well.
> Actually, I think it's the GUI
> crowd who is more likely to be upset by Emacs' different bindings.
>>> C-h c C-q -> C-q runs the command quoted-insert
>>> How many users out there insert that much quoted text?
>> I do.
> Really!? Do you use it as much as cut, copy and paste? How is that?
as much as these commands, but I do use it surprisingly often - things
like inserting a CR into a compilation mode buffer, searching for non-ascii
or non-printable characters, that sort of thing. I wouldn't want to be
without it.
>>> Context-sensitivity and modal editing are two different things. For an
>>> example of a context-sensitive command: C-h f comment-dwim RET.
>> I think you're avoiding my main point there. Having continually to press
>> C-g to get rid of the region is like having to press ESC to get into
>> command mode.
> Well, when I said "context-sensitive", I was referring to commands which
> were related, for instance: TAB for both indent-according-to-mode and
> indent-region.
Xah Lee
Mar 5, 2012, 7:02:56 AM3/5/12
to
On Mar 5, 1:15 am, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: …
the reason we need to change ZXCV keys to undo/cut/copy/paste ASAP, is
because there are a slew of old guys who insist on their habits.
it's not unlike religion. The old guys grew up with it. There is
absolutely NO WAY to get these guys to think. Logical argument doesn't
work. They'll forever come up with anything to ensure, one way or
another, emacs stay the same. Much like in politics. And the vast
majority of newer generation of younger coders simply won't touch
emacs. All the real power of emacs goes down the drain. The majority
of emacs dev are these old guys. (judging by timeframe, it'll probably
take another decade for these old guys to die off.)
as soon as we switch, there'd be a massive number of younger coders.
Whatever these old guy's gimmicks in argument, will simply be washed
out.
recommended video:
http://yuiblog.com/crockford/
first one.
Xah
the reason we need to change ZXCV keys to undo/cut/copy/paste ASAP, is
because there are a slew of old guys who insist on their habits.
it's not unlike religion. The old guys grew up with it. There is
absolutely NO WAY to get these guys to think. Logical argument doesn't
work. They'll forever come up with anything to ensure, one way or
another, emacs stay the same. Much like in politics. And the vast
majority of newer generation of younger coders simply won't touch
emacs. All the real power of emacs goes down the drain. The majority
of emacs dev are these old guys. (judging by timeframe, it'll probably
take another decade for these old guys to die off.)
as soon as we switch, there'd be a massive number of younger coders.
Whatever these old guy's gimmicks in argument, will simply be washed
out.
recommended video:
http://yuiblog.com/crockford/
first one.
Xah
Alan Mackenzie
Mar 5, 2012, 7:38:11 AM3/5/12
to
In gnu.emacs.help Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:15?am, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: ?
> the reason we need to change ZXCV keys to undo/cut/copy/paste ASAP, is
> because there are a slew of old guys who insist on their habits.
> [...] There is absolutely NO WAY to get these guys to think. Logical
> argument doesn't work.
Indeed it doesn't, Xah, unless the premisses upon which it's based are
valid. Several good reasons have been been advanced in this thread for
retaining the fundamental design of the Emacs keymap.
> Xah
> On Mar 5, 1:15?am, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: ?
> the reason we need to change ZXCV keys to undo/cut/copy/paste ASAP, is
> because there are a slew of old guys who insist on their habits.
> argument doesn't work.
Indeed it doesn't, Xah, unless the premisses upon which it's based are
valid. Several good reasons have been been advanced in this thread for
retaining the fundamental design of the Emacs keymap.
> Xah
Memnon Anon
Mar 5, 2012, 7:34:23 AM3/5/12
to
Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> writes:
> as soon as we switch, there'd be a massive number of younger coders.
Many people have rejected that assumption over the years, and they are
> as soon as we switch, there'd be a massive number of younger coders.
right IMHO.
Memnon
--
/-------------------------------------------\
| SDF and SDF-EU Public Access UNIX System |
| http://sdf.org || http://sdf-eu.org |
=============================================
Chiron
Mar 5, 2012, 8:06:39 AM3/5/12
to
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 04:02:56 -0800, Xah Lee wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:15 am, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: …
>
> the reason we need to change ZXCV keys to undo/cut/copy/paste ASAP, is
> because there are a slew of old guys who insist on their habits.
>
> it's not unlike religion. The old guys grew up with it. There is
> absolutely NO WAY to get these guys to think. Logical argument doesn't
> work. They'll forever come up with anything to ensure, one way or
> another, emacs stay the same. Much like in politics. And the vast
What you're saying is silly. People - old, young, or otherwise - tend to
> On Mar 5, 1:15 am, Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote: …
>
> the reason we need to change ZXCV keys to undo/cut/copy/paste ASAP, is
> because there are a slew of old guys who insist on their habits.
>
> it's not unlike religion. The old guys grew up with it. There is
> absolutely NO WAY to get these guys to think. Logical argument doesn't
> work. They'll forever come up with anything to ensure, one way or
> another, emacs stay the same. Much like in politics. And the vast
stick with what works for them. Those so-called "old guys" learned the
UI and that's what they're comfortable with. There is absolutely no
reason for them to change it. It's got nothing to do with "logic" or
"thinking." It has to do with using what works for them. They have at
least as much right to insist on using the key bindings they prefer, as
you do in insisting on changing them. More, since they were there first.
Again I refer you to the concept of the Dvorak typewriter keyboard - far
more ergonomic, but it is never going to replace the old QWERTY one (or
the equivalent, depending on languages). It has nothing to do with "old
guys." It has to do with every new generation of keyboard users being
trained to use the QWERTY keyboard, and being unwilling to bother
learning a new arrangement.
> majority of newer generation of younger coders simply won't touch emacs.
> All the real power of emacs goes down the drain. The majority of emacs
> dev are these old guys. (judging by timeframe, it'll probably take
> another decade for these old guys to die off.)
piss you off.
Why *should* the newer generation of coders use emacs? If emacs doesn't
offer what they need, they'll never use it. If it does, they'll either
overcome the UI problem, or rearrange it to their liking. In either
case, they'll do what works for them. Just as will the "old guys."
BTW - while I'm one of those "old guys," I didn't seriously consider
using emacs until last year. I never learned its unfamiliar UI, the
strange key bindings. But, since I want to learn emacs, I *am* learning
the bindings. Big deal. I *could* change it to the CUA interface. I
(in theory) could write some elisp macros to make the bindings suit me.
I'm used to the Windows standard. But - I'm using emacs, which isn't
Windows or Word, and it has a different UI. So I'm learning a new UI.
Big, fat, hairy deal.
> as soon as we switch, there'd be a massive number of younger coders.
> Whatever these old guy's gimmicks in argument, will simply be washed
> out.
>
for someone else to do the work you suggest, to "fix" the emacs key
bindings. Unfortunately for you, the people who maintain emacs are the
same "old guys" who are used to the emacs key bindings. They're not
going to do it. The maintainers that come up are going to learn the
emacs key bindings, too - and they won't make the changes, either. Why
should they?
Emacs was designed and implemented with a certain key binding. This
binding is what is used, whether good, bad, or indifferent. It has been
used for decades. That doesn't prove that it's better than your idea; it
simply means it's been accepted.
Now you come along and want to change. You accuse the emacs users of
being "old guys" who use gimmicks to maintain the status quo. However,
that's not how things work.
When you want to make changes to an existing system, you need to show how
your changes will be an improvement on that system. You can't just waltz
in and claim that the "old guys" are refusing to listen to your pearls of
wisdom. You have to show that your pearls make any sense.
So far, all you've really said is that people who are familiar with emacs
use a certain, "non-standard" key binding. Those who are unfamiliar with
emacs are also unfamiliar with that key binding - so they avoid using
emacs. So, your logic is that emacs should change, so that these people
who haven't tried it will now want to try it. But you're apparently
insisting that the people who maintain and use emacs should rewrite their
own tool to please people who don't even use this tool. Ain't gonna
happen.
Don't like emacs's key bindings? Change it or use something else. If
you don't know how to change it, find someone who does; but you're never
going to persuade people to do it for you, if you insist on calling them
"old guys" and claim they're too old-fashioned or stubborn to change. To
be fair, you're probably never going to persuade them at all, but you so
far haven't (apparently) tried being nice about it.
BTW - doesn't FSF have some sort of option for feature requests -
Savannah or something? Seems I remember something like that, but I could
be mistaken. Maybe you should be badgering FSF and RMS instead of a
newsgroup.
--
"If you don't want your dog to have bad breath, do what I do: Pour a
little Lavoris in the toilet."
-- Jay Leno
stan
Mar 5, 2012, 9:57:12 AM3/5/12
to
> the reason we need to change ZXCV keys to undo/cut/copy/paste ASAP, is
> because there are a slew of old guys who insist on their habits.
>
> it's not unlike religion. The old guys grew up with it. There is
> absolutely NO WAY to get these guys to think. Logical argument doesn't
> work. They'll forever come up with anything to ensure, one way or
> another, emacs stay the same. Much like in politics. And the vast
> majority of newer generation of younger coders simply won't touch
> emacs. All the real power of emacs goes down the drain. The majority
> of emacs dev are these old guys. (judging by timeframe, it'll probably
> take another decade for these old guys to die off.)
>
> as soon as we switch, there'd be a massive number of younger coders.
> Whatever these old guy's gimmicks in argument, will simply be washed
> out.
Then why don't these young coders simply start now? Nothing stops you
> because there are a slew of old guys who insist on their habits.
>
> it's not unlike religion. The old guys grew up with it. There is
> absolutely NO WAY to get these guys to think. Logical argument doesn't
> work. They'll forever come up with anything to ensure, one way or
> another, emacs stay the same. Much like in politics. And the vast
> majority of newer generation of younger coders simply won't touch
> emacs. All the real power of emacs goes down the drain. The majority
> of emacs dev are these old guys. (judging by timeframe, it'll probably
> take another decade for these old guys to die off.)
>
> as soon as we switch, there'd be a massive number of younger coders.
> Whatever these old guy's gimmicks in argument, will simply be washed
> out.
and these mythical hoards from simply accomplishing what you seem to
think is inevitable. Why continue in your self proclaimed suffering
simply because the old guys haven't died yet?
Stefan Monnier
Mar 5, 2012, 11:43:27 AM3/5/12
to
> As soon as we switch, there'd be a massive number of younger coders.
While I'd be happy to improve Emacs's support for "standard" key
bindings, I highly doubt that would make such a large difference.
Remember: at least since Emacs-22, any user can do "Options => Use CUA
Keys" to get their C-x/C-v/C-c bindings.
There many other "details" that make some users prefer other editors.
Stefan
While I'd be happy to improve Emacs's support for "standard" key
bindings, I highly doubt that would make such a large difference.
Remember: at least since Emacs-22, any user can do "Options => Use CUA
Keys" to get their C-x/C-v/C-c bindings.
There many other "details" that make some users prefer other editors.
Stefan
LanX
Mar 5, 2012, 5:26:50 PM3/5/12
to
my 2 ¢
While I'd apreciate a mainstream-compability mode, but calling it
"ergonomic"
must provoke flame-wars.
There are far too many edge cases and incompabilities to be considered
and
there is more than just changing keybindings neccessary to please the
crowds
of generation-M (M=Mouse). (like context-menues on right-click)
For instance, I'm trying to solve it personally with setting like C-a
(once)
for beginning-of-line and C-a C-a (twice) for mark-whole-buffer.
Like this I'm not constantly shooting into my foot when switching
from
Emacs to Firefox and back.
CUA-mode is OK, but his DWIM timing heuristics on C-x do not really
work for me,
even if I restrict it to visible regions.
So my plan is to make a second C-x undo the cut and start the modifier
key behavior.
(I rearly need switch-point-and-mark if the region is already
visible)
Like that I can cut a visible region with C-x and safe the buffer with
C-x C-x s.
Why?
1. Emacs shortcuts are not only present in emacs I don't wanna miss C-
a or C-r
in various shells using readline.
2. typing C-x or C-a twice doesn't do any harm in mainstream
applications.
I'm still struggeling to find a compatible solution for C-f, since I
hate it
when firefox tries to safe the page when I hit C-s. But personally I
always
use the arrow keys so I will most probably just alias C-f to C-s.
There is more to say about giving emacs a second default set for
mainstream
compability, but completely destroying the old structures of a 30 year
old
culture won't do it.
Thats like trying to change Britain and Japan out of a sudden to right-
lane
drivers and causing masive chaos.
And propagating that the right-lane is more ergonomic doesn't really
help to have
a productive discussion.
Cheers
LanX
While I'd apreciate a mainstream-compability mode, but calling it
"ergonomic"
must provoke flame-wars.
There are far too many edge cases and incompabilities to be considered
and
there is more than just changing keybindings neccessary to please the
crowds
of generation-M (M=Mouse). (like context-menues on right-click)
For instance, I'm trying to solve it personally with setting like C-a
(once)
for beginning-of-line and C-a C-a (twice) for mark-whole-buffer.
Like this I'm not constantly shooting into my foot when switching
from
Emacs to Firefox and back.
CUA-mode is OK, but his DWIM timing heuristics on C-x do not really
work for me,
even if I restrict it to visible regions.
So my plan is to make a second C-x undo the cut and start the modifier
key behavior.
(I rearly need switch-point-and-mark if the region is already
visible)
Like that I can cut a visible region with C-x and safe the buffer with
C-x C-x s.
Why?
1. Emacs shortcuts are not only present in emacs I don't wanna miss C-
a or C-r
in various shells using readline.
2. typing C-x or C-a twice doesn't do any harm in mainstream
applications.
I'm still struggeling to find a compatible solution for C-f, since I
hate it
when firefox tries to safe the page when I hit C-s. But personally I
always
use the arrow keys so I will most probably just alias C-f to C-s.
There is more to say about giving emacs a second default set for
mainstream
compability, but completely destroying the old structures of a 30 year
old
culture won't do it.
Thats like trying to change Britain and Japan out of a sudden to right-
lane
drivers and causing masive chaos.
And propagating that the right-lane is more ergonomic doesn't really
help to have
a productive discussion.
Cheers
LanX
Stefan Monnier
Mar 5, 2012, 9:06:59 PM3/5/12
to
> There is more to say about giving Emacs a second default set for
a completely new set of key-bindings (preserving existing bindings
where possible).
I'd expect it to work as follows:
- no "hack" like what cua-mode had to use (and I don't mean to
criticize cua-mode, which does a great job given the constraints it
has to live with).
- can/will start half-broken.
- improvements will come OT1H from direct improvements to the new
keymaps and OTOH from restructuring of the existing code and keymaps
to make the new cua mode easier to implement and more robust
(e.g. don't hard code C-c or C-x prefixes in major mode key
bindings).
Stefan
> mainstream compability, but completely destroying the old structures
> of a 30 year old culture won't do it.
As mentioned, I'd welcome a new cua-mode, which could try and design
> of a 30 year old culture won't do it.
a completely new set of key-bindings (preserving existing bindings
where possible).
I'd expect it to work as follows:
- no "hack" like what cua-mode had to use (and I don't mean to
criticize cua-mode, which does a great job given the constraints it
has to live with).
- can/will start half-broken.
- improvements will come OT1H from direct improvements to the new
keymaps and OTOH from restructuring of the existing code and keymaps
to make the new cua mode easier to implement and more robust
(e.g. don't hard code C-c or C-x prefixes in major mode key
bindings).
Stefan
Loris Bennett
Mar 6, 2012, 2:37:37 AM3/6/12
to
LanX <lanx...@googlemail.com> writes:
> I'm still struggeling to find a compatible solution for C-f, since I
> hate it when firefox tries to safe the page when I hit C-s. But
> personally I always use the arrow keys so I will most probably just
> alias C-f to C-s.
If you want to use emacs bindings with your browser and are open to
> I'm still struggeling to find a compatible solution for C-f, since I
> hate it when firefox tries to safe the page when I hit C-s. But
> personally I always use the arrow keys so I will most probably just
> alias C-f to C-s.
using something other than Firefox, you could have a
look at Conkeror (http://conkeror.org/).
I now only have Evince to hate for doing the wrong thing when I press
C-s ...
Loris
rusi
Mar 6, 2012, 12:38:42 PM3/6/12
to
On Mar 6, 3:26 am, LanX <lanx.p...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> my 2 ¢
>
> While I'd apreciate a mainstream-compability mode,
+1
> my 2 ¢
>
> While I'd apreciate a mainstream-compability mode,
> but calling it "ergonomic" must provoke flame-wars.
One of my wishes is for emacs to embrace the concept of 'emacsicality'
(see eg http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-gnu-emacs/2011-02/msg00550.html)
Basically a granularity of customization larger than a keybinding or a
mode.
rusi
Mar 6, 2012, 12:40:42 PM3/6/12
to
On Mar 6, 12:37 pm, "Loris Bennett" <loris.benn...@fu-berlin.de>
wrote:
like foxmarks
wrote:
> LanX <lanx.p...@googlemail.com> writes:
> > I'm still struggeling to find a compatible solution for C-f, since I
> > hate it when firefox tries to safe the page when I hit C-s. But
> > personally I always use the arrow keys so I will most probably just
> > alias C-f to C-s.
>
> If you want to use emacs bindings with your browser and are open to
> using something other than Firefox, you could have a
> look at Conkeror (http://conkeror.org/).
I gave up on conkeror because it does not support key firefox addons
> > I'm still struggeling to find a compatible solution for C-f, since I
> > hate it when firefox tries to safe the page when I hit C-s. But
> > personally I always use the arrow keys so I will most probably just
> > alias C-f to C-s.
>
> If you want to use emacs bindings with your browser and are open to
> using something other than Firefox, you could have a
> look at Conkeror (http://conkeror.org/).
like foxmarks
0 new messages