IDE for C++: KDevelop vs Emacs vs Other
David Fisher
Like many programmers, I have learned to use makefiles, gcc, grep, vi,
gdb, ddd, ldd and other 'small and beautiful' UNIX tools. However,
lately I've been thinking that I may be missing some things that would
make my C++ programming easier.
Here's a checklist of things that I want an IDE to have, ideally:
- debugger (are there IDEs that will let me see the contents of C++
classes, for example, std::pair<int, float> during debugging?)
- function definition collapsing
- search and replace (I like Vi, but I don't mean :%s/x/y/g here)
- cross-platform-ness - I want to use the same IDE on Windows, if I
ever move there
- cross-language-ness - I want to use the same IDE with Perl and maybe
other languages
- configurability (some might say Turing-completeness). I want an IDE
to make simple things simple, but I also want to have the ability to
*program* it to do *anything*.
- other things that are important, but I might have missed
Måns Rullgård
> Hi
>
> Like many programmers, I have learned to use makefiles, gcc, grep, vi,
> gdb, ddd, ldd and other 'small and beautiful' UNIX tools. However,
> lately I've been thinking that I may be missing some things that would
> make my C++ programming easier.
>
> Here's a checklist of things that I want an IDE to have, ideally:
>
> - debugger (are there IDEs that will let me see the contents of C++
> classes, for example, std::pair<int, float> during debugging?)
AFAIK all Linux IDEs use gdb for debugging, so their capabilities are
pretty much the same.
> - function definition collapsing
Perhaps it's time to split the file.
> - search and replace (I like Vi, but I don't mean :%s/x/y/g here)
emacs
> - cross-platform-ness - I want to use the same IDE on Windows, if I
> ever move there
emacs
> - cross-language-ness - I want to use the same IDE with Perl and maybe
> other languages
emacs
> - configurability (some might say Turing-completeness). I want an IDE
> to make simple things simple, but I also want to have the ability to
> *program* it to do *anything*.
emacs
> - other things that are important, but I might have missed
emacs
Looks like emacs has it all. Personally, I prefer the xemacs variety.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Kai Grossjohann
Eclipse has a lot of these. Just in case you're looking for an
alternative to Emacs ;-)
> - debugger (are there IDEs that will let me see the contents of C++
> classes, for example, std::pair<int, float> during debugging?)
I'm not sure, but CVS Emacs contains gdb-ui which is a much improved
interface to gdb.
> - function definition collapsing
Emacs has hide-show-mode which can do this.
> - search and replace (I like Vi, but I don't mean :%s/x/y/g here)
Yes. Eclipse excels in this category. You can say you want to rename
a (Java) method and then it will adjust the method itself and also all
callers. *Very* convenient!
However, I've only used Eclipse with Java, not with C++.
The fundamental support for providing this in Emacs is there -- search
for the Semantic Bovinator project. However, I'm not sure if anybody
has coded up to actually do intelligent search and replace, using its
facilities.
Anyone?
> - cross-platform-ness - I want to use the same IDE on Windows, if I
> ever move there
Sure.
> - cross-language-ness - I want to use the same IDE with Perl and maybe
> other languages
This is for sure with Emacs, but less so with Eclipse. Eclipse is
quite Java centered, and I gather that its non-Java support is
lacking, compared to the Java functionality.
> - configurability (some might say Turing-completeness). I want an IDE
> to make simple things simple, but I also want to have the ability to
> *program* it to do *anything*.
Sure.
> - other things that are important, but I might have missed
Emacs has been here 20 years ago, I'm sure it will be alive and
kicking in 20 years. So if you invest in learning it, that investment
has a long time to pay off!
Kai
Benny Hill
Hi David,
I use Visual SlickEdit (www.slickedit.com) on Linux and on Windows for
C/C++/Java/HTML/PHP/Javascript programming. It will do other languages as
well.
It has the ability to collapse functions. It has the ability to search
and replace. As for configurability - it does more than what I need so I
haven't looked into this much. I believe that information is provided
that would allow you to write plugins or extensions if you really wanted
to (much like Emacs does).
The main catch though is that it's not free like Emacs or KDevelop.
Licenses are US$299 for single-user. If you are a student you can get an
an academic license for $99 and if you just want to see if you like it or
not, there is a 30 day, fully-functional trial available.
--
Benny
Olaf Groeger
(www.codeforge.com). The reason to buy was to have an IDE which is just
reliable. I lost to many nerves with mighty, but instable IDE. Another pro
of codeforge is that you can forget about the Makefiles. Con is price (300
$) and in your case, that it is not for windows. But to be honest for
windows is Visual studio the best.
Olaf
Joseph Kiniry
>> - search and replace (I like Vi, but I don't mean :%s/x/y/g here)
>
> Yes. Eclipse excels in this category. You can say you want to rename
> a (Java) method and then it will adjust the method itself and also all
> callers. *Very* convenient!
>
> However, I've only used Eclipse with Java, not with C++.
>
> The fundamental support for providing this in Emacs is there -- search
> for the Semantic Bovinator project. However, I'm not sure if anybody
> has coded up to actually do intelligent search and replace, using its
> facilities.
>
> Anyone?
That functionality is not yet part of Cedet/Semantic, but it is part
of X-refactory (http://www.xref-tech.com/). While it is (the only?)
commerical package for Emacs, at $29, it is a complete bargain, IMHO.
Joe
--
Joseph R. Kiniry ID 78860581 ICQ 4344804
SOS Group, University of Nijmegen http://www.cs.kun.nl/~kiniry/
KindSoftware, LLC http://www.kindsoftware.com/
Board Chair: NICE http://www.eiffel-nice.org/
Frederik Hertzum
Olaf Groeger wrote:
Am I completly off here or is this basicly the same as Dev-C++ for win32?
Mirek Fidler
> classes, for example, std::pair<int, float> during debugging?)
> - function definition collapsing
> - search and replace (I like Vi, but I don't mean :%s/x/y/g here)
> - cross-platform-ness - I want to use the same IDE on Windows, if I
> ever move there
> - cross-language-ness - I want to use the same IDE with Perl and maybe
> other languages
> - configurability (some might say Turing-completeness). I want an IDE
> to make simple things simple, but I also want to have the ability to
> *program* it to do *anything*.
> - other things that are important, but I might have missed
What about this one: www.ntllib.org/upp
Linux version is coming this month...
Mirek
Klaus Berndl
Try a combination of Emacs with added semantic-bovinator (or in general the
cedet tools) available at http://cedet.sf.net and ECB (The Emacs Code
Browser), available at http://ecb.sf.net (go to the screenshots-section to see
if this is what you search). One of the biggest advantages is, that this
combination is your IDE for ALL languages, means C++, C, Java, Perl, XML,
Lisp, makefile etc... all these languages can be browsed with ECB.
Debugging should be integrated already very well into Emacs....
Add the fine Xrefactory (mentioned in another followup too), which works very
well in combination with ECB and you have also great refactoring-support, at
least for Java, and C - do not know if for C++ too - Currently i do not know
any really good free C++- refactoring....
But to be fair: Concerning Java, there is currently not better IDE out there
than IntelliJ from IDEA - at least IMHO ;-) But in the long run,
Emacs/ECB/JDEE are on a good way.... ;-)
Does this help?
Klaus
--
Klaus Berndl mailto: klaus....@sdm.de
sd&m AG http://www.sdm.de
software design & management
Carl-Wery-Str. 42, 81739 Muenchen, Germany
Tel +49 89 63812-392, Fax -220
Nils O. Selåsdal
Its nice.
LEE Sau Dan
David> Here's a checklist of things that I want an IDE to have,
David> ideally:
David> - debugger
David> - function definition collapsing
David> - search and replace
David> - cross-platform-ness
David> - cross-language-ness
David> - configurability
Emacs has all of these.
David> - other things that are important, but I might have missed
Emacs has:
- vc and pcl-cvs, which provide nice user interface to the
most popular version control softwares: CVS, RCS, SCCS.
- dir-ed, which is a very productive file/directory browser.
(It also works remotely via ange-ftp.)
- Built-in 'info' browser -- useful if you have the wanted
documents in info format. (I prefer it to HTML browsers,
because the 'info' viewer is more keyboard-friendly.)
- remote operations: ange-ftp (based on non-anonymous FTP) and
<what's the name of the SSH-based equivalent?> for transparent
file access (i.e. reading and saving and editing as if it were
a local file). remote-compile to invoke a remote compiler
and still being able to bring you to the lines with errors.
I think there's also a remote-debugging support.
- multiple frames on different machines: make-frame-on-display
let's you open a frame on a different (or the same) X
server, so that you can access the same Emacs session from
many places concurrently.
- M-/ (dabbrev-expand), making typing super-long identifiers
more fun than tedious.
- ETAGS -- if you care about what tags are.
- EBROWSE -- a C++ class browser.
- hide-ifdef-mode: you pretend to (un)define certain C/C++
preprocessor variables, and Emacs hides the irrelevant
parts of your code.
- also a nice interface for documentations if you do it with
TeXinfo or TeX or LaTeX. (AucTeX and preview-latex have no
substitutes.)
- games -- just in case you get bored
- Gnus -- you don't need to leave Emacs just to post a
question to a newsgroup on programming (or any other group)
and trace the followups. Instead of news, you can send and
receive emails in Gnus, too.
- usable even if you don't have X: Emacs works on dumb terminals,
without lowering your productively too much.
- Emacspeak: making Emacs usable even if your monitor is out of
order (or if you have no monitor at all).
- Calculator? I do it with list-interaction-mode, where I
write the expression in LISP and get the answer immediately.
- ispell-mode: interface to the GNU spell-checker
- i18n: Emacs has been supporting multiple languages since
version 20 (some 6 years back, as far as I remember).
- mailcrypt, bbdb, psgml, calendar, ... so many useful tools,
all with one unified interface.
--
Lee Sau Dan +Z05biGVm-(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Ian Bell
>>>>>> "David" == David Fisher <dave_a...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> David> Here's a checklist of things that I want an IDE to have,
> David> ideally:
>
> David> - debugger
> David> - function definition collapsing
> David> - search and replace
> David> - cross-platform-ness
> David> - cross-language-ness
> David> - configurability
>
> Emacs has all of these.
>
Unfortunately it also has the most counter intuitive interface in the
universe.
Ian
Måns Rullgård
It's all a matter of what you're used to. I personally think programs
without emacs-like key bindings are a nuisance to work with.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Bruce Ingalls
If you like Emacs, then rework its interface!
You can look at my work at <url: http://emacro.sf.net/ > where I
introduce keybinding themes. It also modifies the menu, which will help
you create menu themes. But for actual artwork, the toolbar will be just
as easy to modify.
WTH
> > universe.
>
> It's all a matter of what you're used to.
Ergo his statement about "counter-intuitive" ;). Emacs IS great, but would
scare the bejeesus out of a noobie. It is very "computer-ish"
> I personally think programs
> without emacs-like key bindings are a nuisance to work with.
That's because you're addicted to Emacs crack! Once you get over the hump
of learning how to use it, Emacs is quite simply the end all be all of
editing (anything.)
WTH;)
Måns Rullgård
>> > Unfortunately it also has the most counter intuitive interface in the
>> > universe.
>>
>> It's all a matter of what you're used to.
>
> Ergo his statement about "counter-intuitive" ;). Emacs IS great, but would
> scare the bejeesus out of a noobie. It is very "computer-ish"
That's just because many people are used to using mswindows before
they get into real stuff like emacs. I've been using emacsoids (I had
a DOS machine a long time ago) as long as I've been using computers
and can't remember ever getting scared.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
WTH
> >
> > Ergo his statement about "counter-intuitive" ;). Emacs IS great, but
would
> > scare the bejeesus out of a noobie. It is very "computer-ish"
>
> That's just because many people are used to using mswindows before
> they get into real stuff like emacs. I've been using emacsoids (I had
> a DOS machine a long time ago) as long as I've been using computers
> and can't remember ever getting scared.
Not at all. Long time Mac users are horrified by Emacs (more so than
Windows users.)
WTH
Ian Bell
I agree it's a personal thing. I am a long time linux user and I know Emacs
can do just about anything. It is ideally suited for many of the tasks I
want to perfom but it never operates as I expect, it uses arcane terms like
buffers and a very old widget set. I am not a command line/keyboard buff
so wide ranging key-bindings are not important to me.
Ian
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell wrote:
>> LEE Sau Dan wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>"David" == David Fisher <dave_a...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>> David> Here's a checklist of things that I want an IDE to have,
>>> David> ideally:
>>>
>>> David> - debugger
>>> David> - function definition collapsing
>>> David> - search and replace
>>> David> - cross-platform-ness
>>> David> - cross-language-ness
>>> David> - configurability
>>>
>>>Emacs has all of these.
>>
>> Unfortunately it also has the most counter intuitive interface in the
>> universe.
>>
>> Ian
>
> If you like Emacs, then rework its interface!
I like what Emacs can do but not its interface.
> You can look at my work at <url: http://emacro.sf.net/ > where I
> introduce keybinding themes. It also modifies the menu, which will help
> you create menu themes. But for actual artwork, the toolbar will be just
> as easy to modify.
Sounds interesting. I'll have a look.
Ian
Ian Bell
> "WTH" <ih8...@spamtrap.com> writes:
>
>>> > Unfortunately it also has the most counter intuitive interface in the
>>> > universe.
>>>
>>> It's all a matter of what you're used to.
>>
>> Ergo his statement about "counter-intuitive" ;). Emacs IS great, but
>> would
>> scare the bejeesus out of a noobie. It is very "computer-ish"
>
> That's just because many people are used to using mswindows before
> they get into real stuff like emacs.
Not always. I am a long time linux user and I never did like Windows.
However, Emacs works so differently from just about any other GUI based
application that it does itself a dis-service.
> I've been using emacsoids (I had
> a DOS machine a long time ago) as long as I've been using computers
> and can't remember ever getting scared.
>
It doesn't scare me. It disappoints and frustrates me because I know Emacs
can do many of the things I want to.
Ian
Måns Rullgård
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> "WTH" <ih8...@spamtrap.com> writes:
>>
>>>> > Unfortunately it also has the most counter intuitive interface in the
>>>> > universe.
>>>>
>>>> It's all a matter of what you're used to.
>>>
>>> Ergo his statement about "counter-intuitive" ;). Emacs IS great, but
>>> would
>>> scare the bejeesus out of a noobie. It is very "computer-ish"
>>
>> That's just because many people are used to using mswindows before
>> they get into real stuff like emacs.
>
> Not always. I am a long time linux user and I never did like Windows.
> However, Emacs works so differently from just about any other GUI based
> application that it does itself a dis-service.
Remember that emacs is older than almost any GUI program you are
likely to use. It's the other ones that are wrong. The good thing
with emacs is that if you don't like the way emacs does something you
can change it.
>> I've been using emacsoids (I had a DOS machine a long time ago) as
>> long as I've been using computers and can't remember ever getting
>> scared.
>
> It doesn't scare me. It disappoints and frustrates me because I
> know Emacs can do many of the things I want to.
Emacs can do everything, it's just a matter of hacking Lisp.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Floyd L. Davidson
I learned emacs style commands (using Perfect Writer, a CP/M
version of mince) after first trying WordStar. The WordStar
interface just didn't click with me, but the emacs interface
did.
Can't say any of it was scary, but emacs for a beginner was
*very* nice! Of course two decades and some later, the idea
that emacs is counter intuitive is just hilariously funny. So
is the idea that it is "computer-ish".
Måns is right, people learn bad habits with MS programs first
and then have problems with unlearning when they find something
that does it right. Over the next few years that trend might
just change!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
WTH
My motorcyle could reach orbit, it's just a matter of putting it on the
shuttle... ;)
WTH
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>I agree it's a personal thing. I am a long time linux user and I know Emacs
>can do just about anything. It is ideally suited for many of the tasks I
>want to perfom but it never operates as I expect, it uses arcane terms like
>buffers and a very old widget set. I am not a command line/keyboard buff
>so wide ranging key-bindings are not important to me.
Do you actually expect to use icons and menus to interface to
something as complex as Emacs? That works fairly well for
simple programs not offering the complex functionality that
Emacs does, but I can't imagine using Emacs in a way that is
that inefficient.
And "buffers" is arcane???
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>I agree it's a personal thing. I am a long time linux user and I know
>>Emacs
>>can do just about anything. It is ideally suited for many of the tasks I
>>want to perfom but it never operates as I expect, it uses arcane terms
>>like
>>buffers and a very old widget set. I am not a command line/keyboard buff
>>so wide ranging key-bindings are not important to me.
>
> Do you actually expect to use icons and menus to interface to
> something as complex as Emacs?
Why not? It cannot be any worse than learning a large number of multiple
keystrokes.
> That works fairly well for
> simple programs not offering the complex functionality that
> Emacs does, but I can't imagine using Emacs in a way that is
> that inefficient.
THat's a matter of personal taste.
>
> And "buffers" is arcane???
>
Yup.
Ian
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>
>>> "WTH" <ih8...@spamtrap.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> > Unfortunately it also has the most counter intuitive interface in
>>>>> > the universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all a matter of what you're used to.
>>>>
>>>> Ergo his statement about "counter-intuitive" ;). Emacs IS great, but
>>>> would
>>>> scare the bejeesus out of a noobie. It is very "computer-ish"
>>>
>>> That's just because many people are used to using mswindows before
>>> they get into real stuff like emacs.
>>
>> Not always. I am a long time linux user and I never did like Windows.
>> However, Emacs works so differently from just about any other GUI based
>> application that it does itself a dis-service.
>
> Remember that emacs is older than almost any GUI program you are
> likely to use. It's the other ones that are wrong.
Oh please. There is no right and wrong. We are not talking about absolutes
here but personal preferences.
Ian
Måns Rullgård
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I agree it's a personal thing. I am a long time linux user and I know
>>>Emacs
>>>can do just about anything. It is ideally suited for many of the tasks I
>>>want to perfom but it never operates as I expect, it uses arcane terms
>>>like
>>>buffers and a very old widget set. I am not a command line/keyboard buff
>>>so wide ranging key-bindings are not important to me.
>>
>> Do you actually expect to use icons and menus to interface to
>> something as complex as Emacs?
>
> Why not? It cannot be any worse than learning a large number of multiple
> keystrokes.
You'd need hundreds of menus and submenus in countless levels. Hold
on, [x]emacs has that.
>> That works fairly well for
>> simple programs not offering the complex functionality that
>> Emacs does, but I can't imagine using Emacs in a way that is
>> that inefficient.
>
> THat's a matter of personal taste.
>>
>> And "buffers" is arcane???
>>
> Yup.
And you call them?
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Måns Rullgård
Flame wars get so dull without any jokes, don't you think?
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I agree it's a personal thing. I am a long time linux user and I know
>>>Emacs
>>>can do just about anything. It is ideally suited for many of the tasks I
>>>want to perfom but it never operates as I expect, it uses arcane terms
>>>like
>>>buffers and a very old widget set. I am not a command line/keyboard buff
>>>so wide ranging key-bindings are not important to me.
>>
>> Do you actually expect to use icons and menus to interface to
>> something as complex as Emacs?
>
>Why not? It cannot be any worse than learning a large number of multiple
>keystrokes.
That is the slowest, least time effective interface that I can
imagine. However, if you are physically more adept with a mouse
than with a keyboard, to such an extreme that typing is slower,
then most definitely menus and icons might well be better. But
you haven't indicated any such requirements.
However, if you really want to do it with menus and icons, it
isn't difficult. My experience is that XEmacs menus are easier
to manipulate that are GNU Emacs menus. (Others may have the
opposite experience, as I haven't put as much effort into
learning GNU Emacs' menu operations) XEmacs certainly
comes with a default menu system that is more oriented to
beginners (which is why I have totally rebuilt the entire set of
menus in my init files, as I just cannot see having things like
cursor movement or cut and paste operations wasting space in a
menu and obscuring useful options).
I would suggest using XEmacs if you want to manipulate the
menus, and would recommend comp.emacs.xemacs as a newsgroup to
discuss it in. I'd be very happy to send you a "tutorial" set
of notes that I wrote for myself on how to manipulate menus in
XEmacs, plus a few examples. I don't think my menus would be
useful, since my concept of what should be on the menu is no
doubt very different than yours. (And my idea of a toolbar, is
to turn it off... but the XEmacs toolbar is manipulated much
like the menus.)
>> That works fairly well for
>> simple programs not offering the complex functionality that
>> Emacs does, but I can't imagine using Emacs in a way that is
>> that inefficient.
>
>THat's a matter of personal taste.
No, it is a matter of efficiency that you can time with a clock.
Of course that is probably only true for those who can type
well, and may be less true for those who are not able to do
that.
>> And "buffers" is arcane???
>>
>Yup.
A strange prejudice.
Ian Bell
What flame war. I really would like to use Emacs but I just cannot get on
with it.
Ian
James Miller
I'm still hesitant to switch from ed to vi because it won't work with
my teletype.
aulne
What is intuitive ?
#
aulne
> I use Visual SlickEdit (www.slickedit.com) on Linux and on Windows for
> C/C++/Java/HTML/PHP/Javascript programming. It will do other languages as
> well.
> It has the ability to collapse functions.
Emacs too. C-u 1 C-x Shift-$
"C-u 1" is the key. It specifies to display lines on if they begin, in
this case, at the first column. If you ever see an excruciately long
switch/case you can shrink it by entering the right column number.
"C-u [n]" is in fact giving the argument [n] to the function that will eb
called.
"C-x Shift-$" to revert to normal display (i.e no value given).
#
aulne
> "C-x Shift-$" to revert to normal display (i.e no value given).
Please replace "C-x Shift-$" with "C-x $".
#
Ian Bell
Immediate apprehension.
Ian
Måns Rullgård
> Le Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:12:18 -0600, Benny Hill a écrit :
>
>> I use Visual SlickEdit (www.slickedit.com) on Linux and on Windows for
>> C/C++/Java/HTML/PHP/Javascript programming. It will do other languages as
>> well.
>
>> It has the ability to collapse functions.
>
> Emacs too. C-u 1 C-x Shift-$
C-1 or M-1 will usually be equivalent to C-u 1. However, if you need
to do such things the source file should probably be split into
several pieces.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
LEE Sau Dan
>> > Unfortunately it also has the most counter intuitive
>> interface in the > universe.
>>
>> It's all a matter of what you're used to.
WTH> Ergo his statement about "counter-intuitive" ;). Emacs IS
WTH> great, but would scare the bejeesus out of a noobie. It is
WTH> very "computer-ish"
A computer program that is "computer-ish". What is more intuitive
than that?
Why shouldn't computers be computerish? I like bright text on black
background. That's so much better for the eyes (and most fonts).
dark text on white background simply irritates the eyes, esp. when you
use the normal non-bold fonts. Making the computer screen pretend to
be paper is simply stupid. Paper won't emit light.
>> I personally think programs without emacs-like key bindings are
>> a nuisance to work with.
WTH> That's because you're addicted to Emacs crack!
What's the difference then from people addicted to the WIMP crack?
WTH> Once you get over the hump of learning how to use it, Emacs
WTH> is quite simply the end all be all of editing (anything.)
Yeah. It all boils down to: getting used to it. Everyone can do it.
Don't listen to those myths that you can never do it. Everyone can!
Patience and diligence really important.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
LEE Sau Dan
Ian> Not always. I am a long time linux user and I never did like
Ian> Windows. However, Emacs works so differently from just about
Ian> any other GUI based application that it does itself a
Ian> dis-service.
Emacs has it own consistency among its packages. You want to break this?
Ian> It doesn't scare me. It disappoints and frustrates me
Ian> because I know Emacs can do many of the things I want to.
Learn to use the right tool.
LEE Sau Dan
Ian> LEE Sau Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> "David" == David Fisher <dave_a...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
David> Here's a checklist of things that I want an IDE to have,
David> ideally:
>>
David> - debugger - function definition collapsing - search and
David> replace - cross-platform-ness - cross-language-ness -
David> configurability
>> Emacs has all of these.
>>
Ian> Unfortunately it also has the most counter intuitive
Ian> interface in the universe.
You mean the graphical menus and buttons are counter-intuitive?
Måns Rullgård
>>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Ian> LEE Sau Dan wrote:
> >>>>>>> "David" == David Fisher <dave_a...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> David> Here's a checklist of things that I want an IDE to have,
> David> ideally:
> >>
> David> - debugger - function definition collapsing - search and
> David> replace - cross-platform-ness - cross-language-ness -
> David> configurability
> >> Emacs has all of these.
> >>
> Ian> Unfortunately it also has the most counter intuitive
> Ian> interface in the universe.
>
> You mean the graphical menus and buttons are counter-intuitive?
Of course they are. Computers are meant to be controlled by a
keyboard. Besides, why waste screen space with buttons when you
anyway have a keyboard full of them.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Ian Bell
>>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Ian> LEE Sau Dan wrote:
> >>>>>>> "David" == David Fisher <dave_a...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> David> Here's a checklist of things that I want an IDE to have,
> David> ideally:
> >>
> David> - debugger - function definition collapsing - search and
> David> replace - cross-platform-ness - cross-language-ness -
> David> configurability
> >> Emacs has all of these.
> >>
> Ian> Unfortunately it also has the most counter intuitive
> Ian> interface in the universe.
>
> You mean the graphical menus and buttons are counter-intuitive?
>
>
No
Ian
Ian Bell
Luddite.
Ian
Ian Bell
>>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Ian> Not always. I am a long time linux user and I never did like
> Ian> Windows. However, Emacs works so differently from just about
> Ian> any other GUI based application that it does itself a
> Ian> dis-service.
>
> Emacs has it own consistency among its packages. You want to break this?
>
>
> Ian> It doesn't scare me. It disappoints and frustrates me
> Ian> because I know Emacs can do many of the things I want to.
>
> Learn to use the right tool.
>
>
What defines 'right'?
Ian
Måns Rullgård
>> Of course they are. Computers are meant to be controlled by a
>> keyboard. Besides, why waste screen space with buttons when you
>> anyway have a keyboard full of them.
>
> Luddite.
I see you've run out of arguments.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
WTH
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@kth.se> wrote in message
news:yw1xd673...@kth.se...
> Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> Of course they are. Computers are meant to be controlled by a
> >> keyboard. Besides, why waste screen space with buttons when you
> >> anyway have a keyboard full of them.
> >
> > Luddite.
>
> I see you've run out of arguments.
Actually, it just means he thinks you're happy being stuck in the 70's.
WTH
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>> Of course they are. Computers are meant to be controlled by a
>>> keyboard. Besides, why waste screen space with buttons when you
>>> anyway have a keyboard full of them.
>>
>> Luddite.
>
> I see you've run out of arguments.
>
Not really. Everyone else seems to be expressing personal statements as if
they were facts. That's hardly arguing.
Ian
Ian Bell
Spot on.
Ian
Måns Rullgård
May I then ask you what it is that leads you to that conclusion?
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
WTH
Probably the fact that you espouse the keyboard as the only useful input
device for your computer.
"Helloooo computer..." "Just use the keyboard." "A keyboard... How
'quaint'..."
WTH
Måns Rullgård
I recognize the quote (Star Trek, IIRC), but that's not the sort of
thing I'm talking about. Voice control would of course be neat, but
we're not there yet. What I'm talking about is the silliness of
drawing pictures of buttons on a screen and using a clumsy mouse to
push them one at a time when there is a perfectly good real keyboard
waiting to be used. What's next? Draw an entire qwerty keyboard on
the screen so you won't ever need to let go of the precious rodent?
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Daniel James
> Learn to use the right tool.
That's an infuriatingly glib and patronizing thing to say.
The problem is that there *isn't* a "right" tool. There is emacs --
which is a great tool with a crap interface -- and there are any
number of other tools that are less good but may have better
interfaces.
There is -- as far as I can see -- *no* tool that is *good*
throughout, let alone *right*, for the majority of things for which
many people accept emacs as the best available compromise.
.. and don't let me get started on LISP ...
Cheers,
Daniel.
WTH
I would suggest that, like with all things in life, moderation is necessary.
Most people find e-macs 'a bit' keyboard heavy ;).
I'd sure hate to have to use the keyboard for all of my text selection ;).
WTH
John Hasler
> That's an infuriatingly glib and patronizing thing to say.
> There is emacs -- which is a great tool with a crap interface
And so is that.
--
John Hasler You may treat this work as if it
jo...@dhh.gt.org were in the public domain.
Dancing Horse Hill I waive all rights.
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>I would suggest that, like with all things in life, moderation is necessary.
>Most people find e-macs 'a bit' keyboard heavy ;).
>I'd sure hate to have to use the keyboard for all of my text selection ;).
Thank goodness I use emacs, and don't have to use a mouse and a
menu for everything more complicated than cursor movement!
(If you don't like the interface that Emacs uses, I'd suggest you
continue to edit with something less able. Perhaps some day it might
dawn on you why it is less able... :-)
WTH
> continue to edit with something less able. Perhaps some day it might
> dawn on you why it is less able... :-)
That's funny because I use my computer for work and play and I've never run
into a situation where I said "I sure wish I was using emacs..." Especially
now that decent editors exist on the Unices.
Hell, when I was keyboard centric on *nix, I was a vi man. Ed doods used to
abuse me.
WTH
Floyd L. Davidson
Okay, so you've *always* been used to something less able...
I'm not.
WTH
> >> continue to edit with something less able. Perhaps some day it might
> >> dawn on you why it is less able... :-)
> >
> >That's funny because I use my computer for work and play and I've never
run
> >into a situation where I said "I sure wish I was using emacs..."
Especially
> >now that decent editors exist on the Unices.
> >
> >Hell, when I was keyboard centric on *nix, I was a vi man. Ed doods used
to
> >abuse me.
>
> Okay, so you've *always* been used to something less able...
>
> I'm not.
If that's how you interpret "never needed it" then so be it. Maybe you're
just addicted ;).
WTH
Ian Bell
> "WTH" <spam...@Ih8it.com> writes:
>
>>> May I then ask you what it is that leads you to that conclusion?
>>
>> Probably the fact that you espouse the keyboard as the only useful input
>> device for your computer.
>>
>> "Helloooo computer..." "Just use the keyboard." "A keyboard... How
>> 'quaint'..."
>
> I recognize the quote (Star Trek, IIRC), but that's not the sort of
> thing I'm talking about. Voice control would of course be neat, but
> we're not there yet. What I'm talking about is the silliness of
> drawing pictures of buttons on a screen and using a clumsy mouse to
> push them one at a time when there is a perfectly good real keyboard
> waiting to be used.
That's because it isn't silly. You can put anything you want on a drawn
button so the user can see at a glance what it means/does. Don't know of a
keyboard that can do that.
Ian
Måns Rullgård
I can't remember ever seeing a GUI button that I knew what it did just
from looking at it the first time I saw it. Some icons have become
somewhat standard for certain operations, but there are always some
programs that use them to mean something else, so you anyway have to
check first (though it's not obvious how that should be done). Emacs
has a very easy way of finding out exactly what a certain key does.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
WTH
> from looking at it the first time I saw it.
Really? I've seen literally thousands of GUIs with an 'Exit' button from
which I was capable of deducing that it would 'Exit' me from the
application. Of course, I may just be 'GUI intuitive.' ;)
> Some icons have become
> somewhat standard for certain operations, but there are always some
> programs that use them to mean something else,
Are you obliquely suggesting that all keyboard based UIs use emacs bindings?
> so you anyway have to
> check first (though it's not obvious how that should be done). Emacs
> has a very easy way of finding out exactly what a certain key does.
Yes, if you ONLY use emacs. I wonder why video games don't use keyboard
bindings exclusively, I mean, they're supposed to be very concerned with the
cognitive psychology of user interfaces. That's one stupid 18 billion
dollar a year industry...
WTH
Floyd L. Davidson
>> I can't remember ever seeing a GUI button that I knew what it did just
>> from looking at it the first time I saw it.
>
>Really? I've seen literally thousands of GUIs with an 'Exit' button from
>which I was capable of deducing that it would 'Exit' me from the
>application. Of course, I may just be 'GUI intuitive.' ;)
Yeah right. The only decipherable one, is a one time only
function. :-) It only gets used once per session...
What kind of an intuitive icon do you recommend for a
trim-all-trailing-whitespace command, or a narrow-to-region
command? And to replace the 3 or 400 emacs keyboard commands
that I do reflexively, where am I going to put the icons? Or do
I really have to buy both a set of magnifying goggles and a 48
inch wide screen?
Perhaps a GUI is intuitive for the first two weeks while you
learn the basics, but what about something intuitive for the
rest of your life? The fact is, "intuitive" does *not* just
mean (when applied to computer interfaces) something that is
obvious the first time you see it. It also can, and should,
mean something that helps trigger the memory cells that know
something can be done, but haven't thought about _how_ for weeks
or months and needs a clue. They have to be in patterns that
the mind can follow, or they have to be *easily* (I mean as in
*instantly*) locatable. Not for beginners; for long time
experienced users.
>> Some icons have become
>> somewhat standard for certain operations, but there are always some
>> programs that use them to mean something else,
>
>Are you obliquely suggesting that all keyboard based UIs use emacs bindings?
Definitely! Along with a VI interface, and if they want
something really stupid, it should be included too. (Just as
any decent shell does.)
>> so you anyway have to
>> check first (though it's not obvious how that should be done). Emacs
>> has a very easy way of finding out exactly what a certain key does.
>
>Yes, if you ONLY use emacs. I wonder why video games don't use keyboard
>bindings exclusively, I mean, they're supposed to be very concerned with the
>cognitive psychology of user interfaces. That's one stupid 18 billion
>dollar a year industry...
So editors should have interfaces that match video games, eh? I
suppose the kill-ring should shoot back too... and do we get a
score on who got the most hits, the user or the editor? If the
editor wins, it's allowed to trash our files as a reward?
Sorry, I'm just having a hard time taking most of this very
seriously. What is a "good interface" is itself *not*
intuitive!
WTH
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:87u10dg...@barrow.com...
> "WTH" <spam...@Ih8it.com> wrote:
> >> I can't remember ever seeing a GUI button that I knew what it did just
> >> from looking at it the first time I saw it.
> >
> >Really? I've seen literally thousands of GUIs with an 'Exit' button from
> >which I was capable of deducing that it would 'Exit' me from the
> >application. Of course, I may just be 'GUI intuitive.' ;)
>
> Yeah right. The only decipherable one, is a one time only
> function. :-) It only gets used once per session...
Don't blame me, I'm not the one making the sweeping generalization of "I
can't remember EVER seeing a GUI button that I knew what it did..." It
isn't the only decipherable one, and the majority of the point has to do
with consistency. Windowing system make use of the same icons/buttons all
the time. Virtually nobody makes use of emacs keyboard bindings. Your
trying to dodge Occam's Razor here. Who is most likely delusional about
what constitutes a good UI, emacs zealots or the rest of the world? ;)
> What kind of an intuitive icon do you recommend for a
> trim-all-trailing-whitespace command, or a narrow-to-region
> command?
ANY icon would be more intuitive than the having to develop your own
keybinding for doing so, lol. It is much faster for someone to hover over
an icon for a tooltip than to create a new key binding. Try not to forget
that nobody is saying that emacs isn't powerful, what people are now arguing
is the ludicrous suggestion that emacs UI is better and more intuitive
(ROTFL) than a GUI. Now, conceivably this is possible but NOT with emacs
;).
> And to replace the 3 or 400 emacs keyboard commands
> that I do reflexively, where am I going to put the icons? Or do
> I really have to buy both a set of magnifying goggles and a 48
> inch wide screen?
You have 400 keys on your keyboard? Hmmm... Intentional obtuseness on your
part? You would, of course, layer the GUI, just like you do for the
keyboard. Are you confusing 'quick' with 'intuitive'?
> Perhaps a GUI is intuitive for the first two weeks while you
> learn the basics, but what about something intuitive for the
> rest of your life? The fact is, "intuitive" does *not* just
> mean (when applied to computer interfaces) something that is
> obvious the first time you see it. It also can, and should,
> mean something that helps trigger the memory cells that know
> something can be done, but haven't thought about _how_ for weeks
> or months and needs a clue. They have to be in patterns that
> the mind can follow, or they have to be *easily* (I mean as in
> *instantly*) locatable. Not for beginners; for long time
> experienced users.
Actually, intuitive does mean (roughly) 'obvious the first time you see it'
in the context of a UI.
> >> Some icons have become
> >> somewhat standard for certain operations, but there are always some
> >> programs that use them to mean something else,
> >
> >Are you obliquely suggesting that all keyboard based UIs use emacs
bindings?
>
> Definitely! Along with a VI interface, and if they want
> something really stupid, it should be included too. (Just as
> any decent shell does.)
I think you misunderstood. My response was such as to suggest that if the
OP was insinuating that it was erroneous and counter intuitive to use GUIs
because sometimes the icons mean different things in different applications
that perhaps he was affirming his belief that all current keyboard schemas
are the same (otherwise it is a hypocritical argument.)
> >> so you anyway have to
> >> check first (though it's not obvious how that should be done). Emacs
> >> has a very easy way of finding out exactly what a certain key does.
> >
> >Yes, if you ONLY use emacs. I wonder why video games don't use keyboard
> >bindings exclusively, I mean, they're supposed to be very concerned with
the
> >cognitive psychology of user interfaces. That's one stupid 18 billion
> >dollar a year industry...
>
> So editors should have interfaces that match video games, eh? I
> suppose the kill-ring should shoot back too... and do we get a
> score on who got the most hits, the user or the editor? If the
> editor wins, it's allowed to trash our files as a reward?
How did you get that? We're not just talking about editors here, we're
talking about UI tendencies. You and Mans seem to suggest that GUI is wrong
and that Keyboard is right.
> Sorry, I'm just having a hard time taking most of this very
> seriously. What is a "good interface" is itself *not*
> intuitive!
Sadly, miles of research in both Software Engineering and Cognitive
Psychology suggest you're incorrect here. I wonder why people made such a
big deal about the Lisa and the Mac when they first came out...? They must
all have been stupid... Those Xerox Parc guys, all dummies...
WTH
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Måns Rubeck'srote:
>>
>>> "WTH" <spam...@Ih8it.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> May I then ask you what it is that leads you to that conclusion?
>>>>
>>>> Probably the fact that you espouse the keyboard as the only useful
>>>> input device for your computer.
>>>>
>>>> "Helloooo computer..." "Just use the keyboard." "A keyboard... How
>>>> 'quaint'..."
>>>
>>> I recognize the quote (Star Trek, IIRC), but that's not the sort of
>>> thing I'm talking about. Voice control would of course be neat, but
>>> we're not there yet. What I'm talking about is the silliness of
>>> drawing pictures of buttons on a screen and using a clumsy mouse to
>>> push them one at a time when there is a perfectly good real keyboard
>>> waiting to be used.
>>
>> That's because it isn't silly. You can put anything you want on a drawn
>> button so the user can see at a glance what it means/does. Don't know of
>> a keyboard that can do that.
>
> I can't remember ever seeing a GUI button that I knew what it did just
> from looking at it the first time I saw it.
Cancel, Help, Apply mean nothing to you?
> Some icons have become
> somewhat standard for certain operations, but there are always some
> programs that use them to mean something else, so you anyway have to
> check first (though it's not obvious how that should be done).
> Emacs
> has a very easy way of finding out exactly what a certain key does.
>
But no easy way of finding the key sequence that does what you want it too.
IAn
Måns Rullgård
>> >> Some icons have become somewhat standard for certain
>> >> operations, but there are always some programs that use them to
>> >> mean something else,
>> >
>> >Are you obliquely suggesting that all keyboard based UIs use emacs
>> >bindings?
>>
>> Definitely! Along with a VI interface, and if they want
>> something really stupid, it should be included too. (Just as
>> any decent shell does.)
>
> I think you misunderstood. My response was such as to suggest that if the
> OP was insinuating that it was erroneous and counter intuitive to use GUIs
> because sometimes the icons mean different things in different applications
> that perhaps he was affirming his belief that all current keyboard schemas
> are the same (otherwise it is a hypocritical argument.)
I am merely saying that consistency is not an argument in favor of
GUIs over keyboard commands, since both exhibit variation. Of course,
if all programs used emacs style key bindings life would be a breeze.
>> >> so you anyway have to
>> >> check first (though it's not obvious how that should be done). Emacs
>> >> has a very easy way of finding out exactly what a certain key does.
>> >
>> >Yes, if you ONLY use emacs. I wonder why video games don't use
>> >keyboard bindings exclusively, I mean, they're supposed to be very
>> >concerned with the cognitive psychology of user interfaces.
>> >That's one stupid 18 billion dollar a year industry...
>>
>> So editors should have interfaces that match video games, eh? I
>> suppose the kill-ring should shoot back too... and do we get a
>> score on who got the most hits, the user or the editor? If the
>> editor wins, it's allowed to trash our files as a reward?
LOL
> How did you get that? We're not just talking about editors here,
> we're talking about UI tendencies. You and Mans seem to suggest
> that GUI is wrong and that Keyboard is right.
I'm saying that each application should have a UI that suits its
needs. In the video game case, a mouse is very useful for rapidly
pointing at any location on the screen. However, most games also use
the keyboard. Look at any hard-core gamer. You'll see that he has
one hand on the mouse and the other on the keyboard.
An editor, on the other hand, is used for typing text. Typing is
typically done with both hands on the keyboard. Moving the hand
nearly a foot to grab the mouse, locating the pointer on the screen,
pointing at the 'save' button, clicking the button, and finally moving
the hand back into typing position is an utter waste of time. And the
'save' button is a waste of screen space.
>> Sorry, I'm just having a hard time taking most of this very
>> seriously. What is a "good interface" is itself *not*
>> intuitive!
>
> Sadly, miles of research in both Software Engineering and Cognitive
> Psychology suggest you're incorrect here. I wonder why people made such a
> big deal about the Lisa and the Mac when they first came out...? They must
> all have been stupid... Those Xerox Parc guys, all dummies...
Incidentally, I can't stand using a Mac. In fact, every time I've
used a Mac running something pre-OSX it has locked up hard within a
few minutes. The only way to get it running again was to unplug the
power cord, which, I'll admit, is, in a way, intuitive. And don't get
me going about those GNOME fellows.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Floyd L. Davidson
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@barrow.com> wrote:
>> "WTH" <spam...@Ih8it.com> wrote:
>> >> I can't remember ever seeing a GUI button that I knew what it did just
>> >> from looking at it the first time I saw it.
>> >
>> >Really? I've seen literally thousands of GUIs with an 'Exit' button from
>> >which I was capable of deducing that it would 'Exit' me from the
>> >application. Of course, I may just be 'GUI intuitive.' ;)
>>
>> Yeah right. The only decipherable one, is a one time only
>> function. :-) It only gets used once per session...
>
>Don't blame me, I'm not the one making the sweeping generalization of "I
>can't remember EVER seeing a GUI button that I knew what it did..." It
>isn't the only decipherable one, and the majority of the point has to do
>with consistency. Windowing system make use of the same icons/buttons all
>the time. Virtually nobody makes use of emacs keyboard bindings. Your
>trying to dodge Occam's Razor here. Who is most likely delusional about
>what constitutes a good UI, emacs zealots or the rest of the world? ;)
Speaking of being delusional; /you/ don't represent the rest of
the world.
>> What kind of an intuitive icon do you recommend for a
>> trim-all-trailing-whitespace command, or a narrow-to-region
>> command?
>
>ANY icon would be more intuitive than the having to develop your own
That is delusional to the point of claiming absurdity is somehow normal!
>keybinding for doing so, lol. It is much faster for someone to hover over
>an icon for a tooltip than to create a new key binding. Try not to forget
>that nobody is saying that emacs isn't powerful, what people are now arguing
>is the ludicrous suggestion that emacs UI is better and more intuitive
>(ROTFL) than a GUI. Now, conceivably this is possible but NOT with emacs
>;).
The fact is, you *can't* operate something as powerful as emacs
with a GUI and use that power. A GUI cripples it. Learning to
use emacs with a GUI simply makes it unlikely that the user will
ever be able to tap the power of emacs. The learning curve for
the command line UI might be steeper, but it also pays higher
dividends.
>> And to replace the 3 or 400 emacs keyboard commands
>> that I do reflexively, where am I going to put the icons? Or do
>> I really have to buy both a set of magnifying goggles and a 48
>> inch wide screen?
>
>You have 400 keys on your keyboard? Hmmm... Intentional obtuseness on your
I use something more than 300 "keyboard commands" by reflex.
That means I don't think about how to do it, I just
automatically do it. In many cases if you ask me to tell you
what the keyboard command is for something, I have to do it with
my fingers and to remind me of what the actual key sequences
are. My fingers know the key locations, but my memory of the
key sequence by name is poor.
I expect that is very common for anyone who has been using
either Emacs or VI for decades.
>part? You would, of course, layer the GUI, just like you do for the
>keyboard. Are you confusing 'quick' with 'intuitive'?
No, but in fact if it is intuitive, it will be quicker than a
GUI. Layering a GUI doesn't make it intuitive, and doesn't make
it quick. It does make a lot of things buried in the layers
less useful because of the complexity involved. Compare that
to developing a reflex involving the same number of layers with
a keyboard UI. It takes time, but it is exceedingly effective.
(Ask any concert pianist!)
The simple fact is, GUI's are great for some things. Virtually
all of those things 1) must be relatively simple, and 2) are
best for an unfamiliar user. For programs that are highly
complex, or for programs where the user, through repetitive use
becomes highly familiar with the program, a command line UI is
more effective.
Of course too, the dividing line drawn in the sand is at a
different place for each individual too.
>> Perhaps a GUI is intuitive for the first two weeks while you
>> learn the basics, but what about something intuitive for the
>> rest of your life? The fact is, "intuitive" does *not* just
>> mean (when applied to computer interfaces) something that is
>> obvious the first time you see it. It also can, and should,
>> mean something that helps trigger the memory cells that know
>> something can be done, but haven't thought about _how_ for weeks
>> or months and needs a clue. They have to be in patterns that
>> the mind can follow, or they have to be *easily* (I mean as in
>> *instantly*) locatable. Not for beginners; for long time
>> experienced users.
>
>Actually, intuitive does mean (roughly) 'obvious the first time you see it'
>in the context of a UI.
You can claim such definitions all you like, but for anyone who
has used the same editor for more than a couple of years, your
definition is void.
>> >> Some icons have become
>> >> somewhat standard for certain operations, but there are always some
>> >> programs that use them to mean something else,
>> >
>> >Are you obliquely suggesting that all keyboard based UIs use emacs
>bindings?
>>
>> Definitely! Along with a VI interface, and if they want
>> something really stupid, it should be included too. (Just as
>> any decent shell does.)
>
>I think you misunderstood. My response was such as to suggest that if the
>OP was insinuating that it was erroneous and counter intuitive to use GUIs
>because sometimes the icons mean different things in different applications
No, different icons in different applications for the same action. And
different people react differently to icons. To me they are a *total* waste
of screen space. I don't "see" the detail, but rather see the location and
the basic shape or colors of an icon. That makes them exceedingly difficult
to decipher. I believe that is basically what the OP was referring to, and
it was a very valid point. It is also true that some people see icons very
differently, and for them they may be much more useful.
>that perhaps he was affirming his belief that all current keyboard schemas
>are the same (otherwise it is a hypocritical argument.)
For beginners, different keyboard schemas /are/ easier to live
with than different visual icon schemas, IMHO. Oddly, I personally
find it extremely annoying to have to switch to different basic keyboard
UI's. I know of other people who do that with ease.
>> >> so you anyway have to
>> >> check first (though it's not obvious how that should be done). Emacs
>> >> has a very easy way of finding out exactly what a certain key does.
>> >
>> >Yes, if you ONLY use emacs. I wonder why video games don't use keyboard
>> >bindings exclusively, I mean, they're supposed to be very concerned with the
>> >cognitive psychology of user interfaces. That's one stupid 18 billion
>> >dollar a year industry...
>>
>> So editors should have interfaces that match video games, eh? I
>> suppose the kill-ring should shoot back too... and do we get a
>> score on who got the most hits, the user or the editor? If the
>> editor wins, it's allowed to trash our files as a reward?
>
>How did you get that? We're not just talking about editors here, we're
>talking about UI tendencies. You and Mans seem to suggest that GUI is wrong
>and that Keyboard is right.
For most situations, that is exactly correct. A GUI is useful
for some things, and "more useful" for only a few of them.
But editors are not part of either group.
>> Sorry, I'm just having a hard time taking most of this very
>> seriously. What is a "good interface" is itself *not*
>> intuitive!
>
>Sadly, miles of research in both Software Engineering and Cognitive
>Psychology suggest you're incorrect here.
A self contradicting statement. It takes "miles" of research to
come to an "intuitive" answer?
>I wonder why people made such a
>big deal about the Lisa and the Mac when they first came out...? They must
>all have been stupid... Those Xerox Parc guys, all dummies...
Don't be asinine. Nobody is saying there is no place for a GUI,
and only you are drawing the above conclusions.
Måns Rullgård
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Måns Rubeck'srote:
>>>
>>>> "WTH" <spam...@Ih8it.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> May I then ask you what it is that leads you to that conclusion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably the fact that you espouse the keyboard as the only useful
>>>>> input device for your computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Helloooo computer..." "Just use the keyboard." "A keyboard... How
>>>>> 'quaint'..."
>>>>
>>>> I recognize the quote (Star Trek, IIRC), but that's not the sort of
>>>> thing I'm talking about. Voice control would of course be neat, but
>>>> we're not there yet. What I'm talking about is the silliness of
>>>> drawing pictures of buttons on a screen and using a clumsy mouse to
>>>> push them one at a time when there is a perfectly good real keyboard
>>>> waiting to be used.
>>>
>>> That's because it isn't silly. You can put anything you want on a drawn
>>> button so the user can see at a glance what it means/does. Don't know of
>>> a keyboard that can do that.
>>
>> I can't remember ever seeing a GUI button that I knew what it did just
>> from looking at it the first time I saw it.
>
> Cancel, Help, Apply mean nothing to you?
Let me attempt to draw a message box I've seen a few times:
+-----------------------+
| |
| Error saving file |
| |
| [Yes] [No] [Cancel] |
| |
+-----------------------+
Would you kindly explain to me what those three choices will do?
>> Some icons have become somewhat standard for certain operations,
>> but there are always some programs that use them to mean something
>> else, so you anyway have to check first (though it's not obvious
>> how that should be done). Emacs has a very easy way of finding out
>> exactly what a certain key does.
>
> But no easy way of finding the key sequence that does what you want
> it too.
Oh, but it does, see. C-h w runs the command where-is, which prompts
you for the name of a command, and answers with the key binding for
that command. If you can't remember or guess the name of the command,
use C-h a. It lets you search for all command names and explanations
matching a regular expression. Show me one other program that can do
that.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Roger Leigh
> "WTH" <spam...@Ih8it.com> wrote:
>>
>>I would suggest that, like with all things in life, moderation is necessary.
>>Most people find e-macs 'a bit' keyboard heavy ;).
>>I'd sure hate to have to use the keyboard for all of my text selection ;).
>
> Thank goodness I use emacs, and don't have to use a mouse and a
> menu for everything more complicated than cursor movement!
Agreed. I find it possible to work at great speed in Emacs, making
many changes with relative ease. Watching others struggling to make
minor tweaks with "lesser" editors, and even stuff as mundane as
searching, is positively painful.
Personally, I couldn't write code (in any language) without it; even
vim doesn't compare. The automatic indentation is absolutely
fantastic. I shudder to think that some poor souls actually use tools
like Windows "Notepad" as their tool of choice.
People who feel the need to use a mouse for everything presumably
don't have enough typing to do, or haven't suffered the effects.
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Daniel James
wrote:
> Daniel writes:
> > That's an infuriatingly glib and patronizing thing to say.
>
> > There is emacs -- which is a great tool with a crap interface
>
> And so is that.
Hmm. "blunt" rather than "glib", I'd have said - though one's
mileage may vary, as always. Not patronizing.
It seemed to me at the time to be an appropriate way to express
that opinion, given the general tone of this thread so far. On
reflection I might replace "crap" with "inelegant" or even
"perverse", but I stand by the sentment. A tool as powerful and as
potentially useful as emac /deserves/ to have an interface that's
less obscure.
Note, though, that I am not one of those who advocate replacing
emacs's keyboard interface with a GUI. Keyboards *are* quicker for
most things textual, though for others (such as text selection)
it's nice to have a rodent as an alternative. It's also nice to
have a menuing system (though not necessarily a graphical one) for
the odd times when you need a rarely-used editor function and can't
remember which five keys to press in which order to make it happen.
Emacs is more than just an editing environment, though, it's a
philosophy bordering on a religion. Emacs users seem to use emacs
to do *everything* - not because it's the *best* way to do these
things, but simply because it *can* do them ... and it's just
easier to use the tool you know.
That's actually the same attitude as my attitude to emacs ... it
may be a better editor than the ones I use, but it's easier to use
the tools I already know.
Having said that, I do keep coming back to look at emacs because I
want a powerful editor that will work in the same way on several
platforms, and every time (at around the point that I'm getting
comfortable with the basic editing functions again, despite their
couter-intuitiveness, and want to start really putting it to work)
I get put off by the fact that any customization has to be done in
LISP, and wander off in disgust.
That may just be me - I used to be a Prolog programmer and LISP
drives me up the wall - but I know very few people who actually
/like/ LISP.
Cheers,
Daniel.
WTH
> vim doesn't compare. The automatic indentation is absolutely
> fantastic. I shudder to think that some poor souls actually use tools
> like Windows "Notepad" as their tool of choice.
You should try a professional IDE. I still use emacs occasionally; however,
I find that I've no need to use it when I'm on a machine I've set up myself.
> People who feel the need to use a mouse for everything presumably
> don't have enough typing to do, or haven't suffered the effects.
I've never met anybody who had to use a mouse 'for everything.' Don't get
confused about the discourse here. The pro-keyboard guys are using emacs as
an example of what constitutes a 'better interface' than ANY GUI. lol.
WTH
Måns Rullgård
>> Personally, I couldn't write code (in any language) without it; even
>> vim doesn't compare. The automatic indentation is absolutely
>> fantastic. I shudder to think that some poor souls actually use tools
>> like Windows "Notepad" as their tool of choice.
>
> You should try a professional IDE.
Such as? Every one I've tried was miles behind emacs in features and
usability.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
WTH
> GUIs over keyboard commands, since both exhibit variation. Of course,
> if all programs used emacs style key bindings life would be a breeze.
True, and if all GUI apps used the same symbols and button layouts, life
would be a breeze. The issue would appear to be 'which approach is better
for the most people using computers?'
> > How did you get that? We're not just talking about editors here,
> > we're talking about UI tendencies. You and Mans seem to suggest
> > that GUI is wrong and that Keyboard is right.
>
> I'm saying that each application should have a UI that suits its
> needs. In the video game case, a mouse is very useful for rapidly
> pointing at any location on the screen. However, most games also use
> the keyboard. Look at any hard-core gamer. You'll see that he has
> one hand on the mouse and the other on the keyboard.
Yes, and as mentioned previously, that is (in most games) more advanced
usage of the UI. Just having a mouse UI would be somewhat frustrating to a
gamer, just having a keyboard UI would be VERY frustrating to a gamer
(unless we're zorking ;).)
> An editor, on the other hand, is used for typing text. Typing is
> typically done with both hands on the keyboard. Moving the hand
> nearly a foot to grab the mouse, locating the pointer on the screen,
> pointing at the 'save' button, clicking the button, and finally moving
> the hand back into typing position is an utter waste of time. And the
> 'save' button is a waste of screen space.
A 'foot'...? ;) Surely that's a hyperbole. As for text editors, I'm sure
if you offered the world 'word' and 'emacs' for editing text a vast majority
of people would use word (bugs, security issues, bloat, and all.) No
rational person would argue differently.
> >> Sorry, I'm just having a hard time taking most of this very
> >> seriously. What is a "good interface" is itself *not*
> >> intuitive!
> >
> > Sadly, miles of research in both Software Engineering and Cognitive
> > Psychology suggest you're incorrect here. I wonder why people made such
a
> > big deal about the Lisa and the Mac when they first came out...? They
must
> > all have been stupid... Those Xerox Parc guys, all dummies...
>
> Incidentally, I can't stand using a Mac. In fact, every time I've
> used a Mac running something pre-OSX it has locked up hard within a
> few minutes. The only way to get it running again was to unplug the
> power cord, which, I'll admit, is, in a way, intuitive. And don't get
> me going about those GNOME fellows.
Yes, I think your tastes have much more to do with you personally than with
the tastes of the average computer user.
WTH
Ian Bell
snip
> Let me attempt to draw a message box I've seen a few times:
>
> +-----------------------+
> | |
> | Error saving file |
> | |
> | [Yes] [No] [Cancel] |
> | |
> +-----------------------+
>
> Would you kindly explain to me what those three choices will do?
No idea. There is nothing to prevent a crap interface being designed using
any system. At least buttons with names on has the potential to be
intuitive.
>
>>> Some icons have become somewhat standard for certain operations,
>>> but there are always some programs that use them to mean something
>>> else, so you anyway have to check first (though it's not obvious
>>> how that should be done). Emacs has a very easy way of finding out
>>> exactly what a certain key does.
>>
>> But no easy way of finding the key sequence that does what you want
>> it too.
>
> Oh, but it does, see. C-h w runs the command where-is, which prompts
> you for the name of a command, and answers with the key binding for
> that command. If you can't remember or guess the name of the command,
> use C-h a. It lets you search for all command names and explanations
> matching a regular expression. Show me one other program that can do
> that.
Now that is really usefull information. I have said all along I would
*like* to use emacs, but the prospect of having to learn all its key
sequences is daunting. Thank you for that very usefull tip. Now if the
other emacs users could be as constructive we could make some real
progress.
Ian
P.S AFAIK all WIndoso help programs let you search.
Måns Rullgård
>> I am merely saying that consistency is not an argument in favor of
>> GUIs over keyboard commands, since both exhibit variation. Of course,
>> if all programs used emacs style key bindings life would be a breeze.
>
> True, and if all GUI apps used the same symbols and button layouts, life
> would be a breeze. The issue would appear to be 'which approach is better
> for the most people using computers?'
For something I'm using several hours every day, I care more about
usability for myself than for the average person.
>> > How did you get that? We're not just talking about editors here,
>> > we're talking about UI tendencies. You and Mans seem to suggest
>> > that GUI is wrong and that Keyboard is right.
>>
>> I'm saying that each application should have a UI that suits its
>> needs. In the video game case, a mouse is very useful for rapidly
>> pointing at any location on the screen. However, most games also use
>> the keyboard. Look at any hard-core gamer. You'll see that he has
>> one hand on the mouse and the other on the keyboard.
>
> Yes, and as mentioned previously, that is (in most games) more advanced
> usage of the UI. Just having a mouse UI would be somewhat frustrating to a
> gamer, just having a keyboard UI would be VERY frustrating to a gamer
> (unless we're zorking ;).)
Never played DOOM, did you?
>> An editor, on the other hand, is used for typing text. Typing is
>> typically done with both hands on the keyboard. Moving the hand
>> nearly a foot to grab the mouse, locating the pointer on the screen,
>> pointing at the 'save' button, clicking the button, and finally moving
>> the hand back into typing position is an utter waste of time. And the
>> 'save' button is a waste of screen space.
>
> A 'foot'...? ;) Surely that's a hyperbole. As for text editors, I'm sure
> if you offered the world 'word' and 'emacs' for editing text a vast majority
> of people would use word (bugs, security issues, bloat, and all.) No
> rational person would argue differently.
Are you suggesting that I should start writing C code in msword
because more people use that than emacs?
>> >> Sorry, I'm just having a hard time taking most of this very
>> >> seriously. What is a "good interface" is itself *not*
>> >> intuitive!
>> >
>> > Sadly, miles of research in both Software Engineering and
>> > Cognitive Psychology suggest you're incorrect here. I wonder why
>> > people made such a big deal about the Lisa and the Mac when they
>> > first came out...? They must all have been stupid... Those
>> > Xerox Parc guys, all dummies...
>>
>> Incidentally, I can't stand using a Mac. In fact, every time I've
>> used a Mac running something pre-OSX it has locked up hard within a
>> few minutes. The only way to get it running again was to unplug the
>> power cord, which, I'll admit, is, in a way, intuitive. And don't get
>> me going about those GNOME fellows.
>
> Yes, I think your tastes have much more to do with you personally
> than with the tastes of the average computer user.
Quite likely. The point is that emacs lets me customize it after my
personal taste, rather than force me to change my taste to accept what
it offers.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
WTH
> >Don't blame me, I'm not the one making the sweeping generalization of "I
> >can't remember EVER seeing a GUI button that I knew what it did..." It
> >isn't the only decipherable one, and the majority of the point has to do
> >with consistency. Windowing system make use of the same icons/buttons
all
> >the time. Virtually nobody makes use of emacs keyboard bindings. Your
> >trying to dodge Occam's Razor here. Who is most likely delusional about
> >what constitutes a good UI, emacs zealots or the rest of the world? ;)
>
> Speaking of being delusional; /you/ don't represent the rest of
> the world.
Who said I did? The rest of the world's opinion can be discerned by the
software that is out there. VERY obviously, the rest of the world finds GUI
better than a keyboard UI. Are you saying differently?
> >> What kind of an intuitive icon do you recommend for a
> >> trim-all-trailing-whitespace command, or a narrow-to-region
> >> command?
> >
> >ANY icon would be more intuitive than the having to develop your own
>
> That is delusional to the point of claiming absurdity is somehow normal!
How is it delusional to think that having a ready icon (which a user may not
recognize) with a tooltip telling users what it does is better than a user
having to configure a keyboard shortcut or look it up in a man page (or
manual)? Speaking of 'delusional'...
> >keybinding for doing so, lol. It is much faster for someone to hover
over
> >an icon for a tooltip than to create a new key binding. Try not to
forget
> >that nobody is saying that emacs isn't powerful, what people are now
arguing
> >is the ludicrous suggestion that emacs UI is better and more intuitive
> >(ROTFL) than a GUI. Now, conceivably this is possible but NOT with emacs
> >;).
>
> The fact is, you *can't* operate something as powerful as emacs
> with a GUI and use that power.
Not with the current interface it has now, no. You could not simply make a
GUI version of emacs that had no changes...
> A GUI cripples it.
Not at all. There has never been a real GUI for emacs. The crap half-assed
attempts of course simply show you what a byzantine mess the keyboard UI is
as well.
> Learning to use emacs with a GUI simply makes it unlikely that the user
will
> ever be able to tap the power of emacs. The learning curve for
> the command line UI might be steeper, but it also pays higher
> dividends.
Not at all. Why would a GUI mean you couldn't use the keyboard for macros?
Why do you think one excludes the other? I think many more people would
discover the power of emacs IF it had a rudimentary GUI that would entice
newbies to use it.
> >> And to replace the 3 or 400 emacs keyboard commands
> >> that I do reflexively, where am I going to put the icons? Or do
> >> I really have to buy both a set of magnifying goggles and a 48
> >> inch wide screen?
> >
> >You have 400 keys on your keyboard? Hmmm... Intentional obtuseness on
your
>
> I use something more than 300 "keyboard commands" by reflex.
> That means I don't think about how to do it, I just
> automatically do it. In many cases if you ask me to tell you
> what the keyboard command is for something, I have to do it with
> my fingers and to remind me of what the actual key sequences
> are. My fingers know the key locations, but my memory of the
> key sequence by name is poor.
By reflex, suggesting long usage and experience. So, you're adamant about
supporting a UI system that is broken if you go to use emacs on some other
machine which is configured differently. Oops, suddenly you can't use
emacs...
> I expect that is very common for anyone who has been using
> either Emacs or VI for decades.
Not really. I've been using VI for nearly 20 years and I know how to scoot
around and do things just fine; however, I'm not delusional enough to think
that people will want to use VI for its 'powerful interface', lol.
> >part? You would, of course, layer the GUI, just like you do for the
> >keyboard. Are you confusing 'quick' with 'intuitive'?
>
> No, but in fact if it is intuitive, it will be quicker than a
> GUI. Layering a GUI doesn't make it intuitive, and doesn't make
> it quick. It does make a lot of things buried in the layers
> less useful because of the complexity involved. Compare that
> to developing a reflex involving the same number of layers with
> a keyboard UI. It takes time, but it is exceedingly effective.
> (Ask any concert pianist!)
You are simply stating things which decades of research and experimentation
have shown to be totally untrue.
> The simple fact is, GUI's are great for some things. Virtually
> all of those things 1) must be relatively simple, and 2) are
> best for an unfamiliar user. For programs that are highly
> complex, or for programs where the user, through repetitive use
> becomes highly familiar with the program, a command line UI is
> more effective.
Here you go again with this "one way or the other" line of thinking. A good
UI uses both GUI components and (if a complex application) offers macros,
keybindings, shortcuts, accelerators, or command line abilities.
> >Actually, intuitive does mean (roughly) 'obvious the first time you see
it'
> >in the context of a UI.
>
> You can claim such definitions all you like, but for anyone who
> has used the same editor for more than a couple of years, your
> definition is void.
That makes a lot of sense. Lol. You suggest that 'intuitive' means
something different after using something for years? Intuitive means
figuring something out without using deduction or reasoning, as in 'its use
was apparent.' After a few years 'intuition' has nothing to do with it. Do
you know some other definition for 'intuitive' that I don't?
> >I think you misunderstood. My response was such as to suggest that if
the
> >OP was insinuating that it was erroneous and counter intuitive to use
GUIs
> >because sometimes the icons mean different things in different
applications
>
> No, different icons in different applications for the same action. And
> different people react differently to icons. To me they are a *total*
waste
> of screen space. I don't "see" the detail, but rather see the location
and
> the basic shape or colors of an icon. That makes them exceedingly
difficult
> to decipher.
Luckily the majority of computer users don't share your problems in this
department. I've never found it 'exceedingly difficult' to decipher an
icon. Is that like finding it exceedingly difficult to discern how to exit
emacs without reading any help files, tutorials, onscreen prompts, et
cetera? People just intuitively know how to do something in emacs, right?
> I believe that is basically what the OP was referring to, and
> it was a very valid point. It is also true that some people see icons
very
> differently, and for them they may be much more useful.
The OP was stating that a GUI is useless and inferior to a keyboard UI. I
guess you're agreeing with that.
> >that perhaps he was affirming his belief that all current keyboard
schemas
> >are the same (otherwise it is a hypocritical argument.)
>
> For beginners, different keyboard schemas /are/ easier to live
> with than different visual icon schemas, IMHO. Oddly, I personally
> find it extremely annoying to have to switch to different basic keyboard
> UI's. I know of other people who do that with ease.
Well, you're most definitely entitled to your opinion. I mean, looking at a
image of an open folder could not possibly be better than staring at the 'b'
key and knowing 'hey, that will let me open a file.' Lol.
> >How did you get that? We're not just talking about editors here, we're
> >talking about UI tendencies. You and Mans seem to suggest that GUI is
wrong
> >and that Keyboard is right.
>
> For most situations, that is exactly correct. A GUI is useful
> for some things, and "more useful" for only a few of them.
> But editors are not part of either group.
I'm sorry, but my KDevelop, CodeWarrior and VStudio IDEs are much better for
writing code than emacs for a newbie. If you know both emacs and these
other IDEs you can, of course, make them all do the same things (at least
VStudio and emacs.) I've written lisp for emacs and I've written extensions
(and even add-ins) for VStudio. The solve the same problems with
semantically similar if syntactically different methods.
> >> Sorry, I'm just having a hard time taking most of this very
> >> seriously. What is a "good interface" is itself *not*
> >> intuitive!
> >
> >Sadly, miles of research in both Software Engineering and Cognitive
> >Psychology suggest you're incorrect here.
>
> A self contradicting statement. It takes "miles" of research to
> come to an "intuitive" answer?
Why would research be suggesting that something wasn't intuitive; honestly,
you've gotten it backwards. People tend to research things they believe,
intuitively, to be correct. Not always, because intuition isn't always the
best stimulus for growth. A pretty poor attempt at dissuasion on your part.
Of course people have researched the man-machine interface for decades, of
course the answers about which one to use are not empirically obvious. The
answer is intuitive, but intuition is not something to bet your companies
bottom line on.
> >I wonder why people made such a
> >big deal about the Lisa and the Mac when they first came out...? They
must
> >all have been stupid... Those Xerox Parc guys, all dummies...
>
> Don't be asinine. Nobody is saying there is no place for a GUI,
> and only you are drawing the above conclusions.
I'm not being asinine, re-read your posts. You are all about 'one way or
the other' and most pointedly, so was the OP we are referring to. I QUITE
clearly stated that moderation regarding both is important. You should
practically never go 'all GUI' and you should practically never go 'all
keyboard.'
WTH
WTH
> >> GUIs over keyboard commands, since both exhibit variation. Of course,
> >> if all programs used emacs style key bindings life would be a breeze.
> >
> > True, and if all GUI apps used the same symbols and button layouts, life
> > would be a breeze. The issue would appear to be 'which approach is
better
> > for the most people using computers?'
>
> For something I'm using several hours every day, I care more about
> usability for myself than for the average person.
That's great, then stop suggesting that GUI is wrong and keyboard UI is
right when quite obviously a mix of both is critical.
> Never played DOOM, did you?
Sure I did, I can't imagine playing it without a mouse; however, you can
without the keyboard.
> Are you suggesting that I should start writing C code in msword
> because more people use that than emacs?
No, I'm suggesting you stop harranging GUIs because you love emacs.
> Quite likely. The point is that emacs lets me customize it after my
> personal taste, rather than force me to change my taste to accept what
> it offers.
I agree, nobody has said different. This was a discussion originally about
how un-friendly emacs in to newbies which then escalated into your
predilictions on why GUI is wrong and keyboard is right. Remember, I love
emacs, but I wouldn't recommend it for most people.
WTH
Måns Rullgård
>>>> how that should be done). Emacs has a very easy way of finding out
>>>> exactly what a certain key does.
>>>
>>> But no easy way of finding the key sequence that does what you want
>>> it too.
>>
>> Oh, but it does, see. C-h w runs the command where-is, which prompts
>> you for the name of a command, and answers with the key binding for
>> that command. If you can't remember or guess the name of the command,
>> use C-h a. It lets you search for all command names and explanations
>> matching a regular expression. Show me one other program that can do
>> that.
>
> Now that is really usefull information. I have said all along I would
> *like* to use emacs, but the prospect of having to learn all its key
> sequences is daunting. Thank you for that very usefull tip. Now if the
> other emacs users could be as constructive we could make some real
> progress.
Emacs comes with very extensive documentation, and a good tutorial to
get started. Type C-h t to launch the tutorial.
> P.S AFAIK all WIndoso help programs let you search.
I have yet to see one that supports regular expressions.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
WTH
>
> +-----------------------+
> | |
> | Error saving file |
> | |
> | [Yes] [No] [Cancel] |
> | |
> +-----------------------+
>
> Would you kindly explain to me what those three choices will do?
What keyboard commands would you suggest are 'intuitive' enough for a user
to know what to press here? lol...
WTH
WTH
> >> you for the name of a command, and answers with the key binding for
> >> that command. If you can't remember or guess the name of the command,
> >> use C-h a. It lets you search for all command names and explanations
> >> matching a regular expression. Show me one other program that can do
> >> that.
Lol, the intuitive 'C-h w' command.
> > Now that is really usefull information. I have said all along I would
> > *like* to use emacs, but the prospect of having to learn all its key
> > sequences is daunting. Thank you for that very usefull tip. Now if the
> > other emacs users could be as constructive we could make some real
> > progress.
>
> Emacs comes with very extensive documentation, and a good tutorial to
> get started. Type C-h t to launch the tutorial.
>
> > P.S AFAIK all WIndoso help programs let you search.
>
> I have yet to see one that supports regular expressions.
Oh yes, most people on computers find regular expressions a joy...
WTH
WTH
> usability.
Let's take the one you'd probably consider the worst, VStudio .Net 2003.
We're not just sticking to Linux are we? If so, KDevelop (a very young
IDE.) Both IDEs are totally extensible.
What code related features are you concerned with?
WTH
Måns Rullgård
>> >Don't blame me, I'm not the one making the sweeping generalization of "I
>> >can't remember EVER seeing a GUI button that I knew what it did..." It
>> >isn't the only decipherable one, and the majority of the point has to do
>> >with consistency. Windowing system make use of the same icons/buttons all
>> >the time. Virtually nobody makes use of emacs keyboard bindings. Your
>> >trying to dodge Occam's Razor here. Who is most likely delusional about
>> >what constitutes a good UI, emacs zealots or the rest of the world? ;)
>>
>> Speaking of being delusional; /you/ don't represent the rest of
>> the world.
>
> Who said I did? The rest of the world's opinion can be discerned by
> the software that is out there. VERY obviously, the rest of the
> world finds GUI better than a keyboard UI. Are you saying
> differently?
There are some people who prefer a keyboard interface. "The rest of
the world" will by definition prefer something else. What's your point?
>> I expect that is very common for anyone who has been using
>> either Emacs or VI for decades.
>
> Not really. I've been using VI for nearly 20 years and I know how
> to scoot around and do things just fine; however, I'm not delusional
> enough to think that people will want to use VI for its 'powerful
> interface', lol.
Have you missed all the vi vs. emacs flame wars?
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
WTH
> >> Speaking of being delusional; /you/ don't represent the rest of
> >> the world.
> >
> > Who said I did? The rest of the world's opinion can be discerned by
> > the software that is out there. VERY obviously, the rest of the
> > world finds GUI better than a keyboard UI. Are you saying
> > differently?
>
> There are some people who prefer a keyboard interface. "The rest of
> the world" will by definition prefer something else. What's your point?
More precisely, what is your point in stating that? My point was very
obviously directly in response to the "you don't represent" statement. Is
that confusing?
> >> I expect that is very common for anyone who has been using
> >> either Emacs or VI for decades.
> >
> > Not really. I've been using VI for nearly 20 years and I know how
> > to scoot around and do things just fine; however, I'm not delusional
> > enough to think that people will want to use VI for its 'powerful
> > interface', lol.
>
> Have you missed all the vi vs. emacs flame wars?
I tend to skip all flame wars as they are frequented by zealots who tend to
believe one thing is better than the other to exclusivity. I find that
reality is much more grey than black and white. GUI exclusively? Hell no.
Keyboard exclusively? Hell no. GUI and keyboard? Hell yes. ;)
WTH
Måns Rullgård
>> >> Oh, but it does, see. C-h w runs the command where-is, which prompts
>> >> you for the name of a command, and answers with the key binding for
>> >> that command. If you can't remember or guess the name of the command,
>> >> use C-h a. It lets you search for all command names and explanations
>> >> matching a regular expression. Show me one other program that can do
>> >> that.
>
> Lol, the intuitive 'C-h w' command.
It is quite intuitive. C-h for Help, I'm sure even you have seen that
one before. Then w for Where. Could it be simpler?
>> > Now that is really usefull information. I have said all along I would
>> > *like* to use emacs, but the prospect of having to learn all its key
>> > sequences is daunting. Thank you for that very usefull tip. Now if the
>> > other emacs users could be as constructive we could make some real
>> > progress.
>>
>> Emacs comes with very extensive documentation, and a good tutorial to
>> get started. Type C-h t to launch the tutorial.
>>
>> > P.S AFAIK all WIndoso help programs let you search.
>>
>> I have yet to see one that supports regular expressions.
>
> Oh yes, most people on computers find regular expressions a joy...
Again, you are trying to make me adjust myself to the majority.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Måns Rullgård
The message is merely informational, so presenting multiple choices is
wrong. If it's a gui, a simple [OK] button would be enough.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
WTH
prompts
> >> >> you for the name of a command, and answers with the key binding for
> >> >> that command. If you can't remember or guess the name of the
command,
> >> >> use C-h a. It lets you search for all command names and
explanations
> >> >> matching a regular expression. Show me one other program that can
do
> >> >> that.
> >
> > Lol, the intuitive 'C-h w' command.
>
> It is quite intuitive. C-h for Help, I'm sure even you have seen that
> one before. Then w for Where. Could it be simpler?
Are you sure you understand what 'intuitive' means? If someone has never
used emacs before they would (1)not know when they were typing text and when
they were typing a command to emacs and (2)have no idea what 'where' is to
begin with.
> > Oh yes, most people on computers find regular expressions a joy...
>
> Again, you are trying to make me adjust myself to the majority.
You're the one stating that GUIs suck...
WTH
Floyd L. Davidson
Emacs *is* a professional IDE. It is probably the oldest one, and it
is, as you say, the most advanced one.
It just doesn't come with an "IDE" label on it.
John Hasler
> Are you sure you understand what 'intuitive' means?
There are no intuitive computer interfaces. People who have never seen
GUIs are baffled by them.
> If someone has never used emacs before they would (1)not know when they
> were typing text and when they were typing a command to emacs and (2)have
> no idea what 'where' is to begin with.
Someone who has never used Emacs before can't click on 'Help' and select
'Emacs Tutorial'?
BTW it's pretty easy to know when you are typing text. It appears on the
screen.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
WTH
>
> There are no intuitive computer interfaces. People who have never seen
> GUIs are baffled by them.
That's not exactly true. First you need to define who your audience is
before assigning whether something is intuitive or not. I am referring to
current software users in general. These people do find that GUIs can be
more or less intuitive.
If you mean "there are no intuitive computer interfaces for people who've
never used a computer" that's not accurate either. It could be argued that
nearly all GUIs are non intuitive for people who've never used a computer
though.
I recently wrote a voice recognition application for controlling a virtual
camera for complete and utterly clueless computer users (read as 'upper
level pentagon personnel') and if you know what the purpose of the program
is and you can speak english, you can use the software.
"Examine/Look/Target/focus on/at that Humvee",
"turn/move/slide/translate/place/position camera left" Et cetera. Now, you
can't use (currently) a UI like this in general cases because it requires
much preparator work (synonyming, key wording, condition substitution,
pronoun substitution, et cetera) but for manipulating a 3D scene it has
proven to be incredibly effective. Guess how they demo'd it? ;) They
simply started it and told a general to "tell it to do what you want it to
do" and that was it.
> > If someone has never used emacs before they would (1)not know when they
> > were typing text and when they were typing a command to emacs and
(2)have
> > no idea what 'where' is to begin with.
>
> Someone who has never used Emacs before can't click on 'Help' and select
> 'Emacs Tutorial'?
Woah, are you suggesting that emacs more intuitive features require GUI?
Remember, this isn't an anti-emacs thread, this is a thread where some very
emacs friendly proponents are denigrating GUIs as useless.
> BTW it's pretty easy to know when you are typing text. It appears on the
> screen.
Ahhh, but some applications which use keyboard bindings (such as vi/vim)
display your command text as you type it.
WTH
Ian Bell
> Ian Bell <i...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>>>> how that should be done). Emacs has a very easy way of finding out
>>>>> exactly what a certain key does.
>>>>
>>>> But no easy way of finding the key sequence that does what you want
>>>> it too.
>>>
>>> Oh, but it does, see. C-h w runs the command where-is, which prompts
>>> you for the name of a command, and answers with the key binding for
>>> that command. If you can't remember or guess the name of the command,
>>> use C-h a. It lets you search for all command names and explanations
>>> matching a regular expression. Show me one other program that can do
>>> that.
>>
>> Now that is really usefull information. I have said all along I would
>> *like* to use emacs, but the prospect of having to learn all its key
>> sequences is daunting. Thank you for that very usefull tip. Now if the
>> other emacs users could be as constructive we could make some real
>> progress.
>
> Emacs comes with very extensive documentation, and a good tutorial to
> get started. Type C-h t to launch the tutorial.
For some reason, in my installation, the tutorial is absent ;-(
>
>> P.S AFAIK all WIndoso help programs let you search.
>
> I have yet to see one that supports regular expressions.
>
*I* don't support regular expressions, and before you ask, no I don't use
grep.
Ian
John Hasler
> Woah, are you suggesting that emacs more intuitive features require GUI?
When started in a terminal Emacs tells you exactly what to type in order to
enter the tutorial. One of its many advantages is its ability to work with
or without graphics and/or a mouse.
> Remember, this isn't an anti-emacs thread...
"...crap interface..."
> ...this is a thread where some very emacs friendly proponents are
> denigrating GUIs as useless.
I'm not one of them.
--
John Hasler You may treat this work as if it
jo...@dhh.gt.org were in the public domain.
Dancing Horse Hill I waive all rights.
Elmwood, Wisconsin
John Hasler
> I don't support regular expressions, and before you ask, no I don't use
> grep.
Why?
WTH
>
> When started in a terminal Emacs tells you exactly what to type in order
to
> enter the tutorial. One of its many advantages is its ability to work
with
> or without graphics and/or a mouse.
So there is a VISUAL cue for the user to access tutorials when emacs starts?
> > Remember, this isn't an anti-emacs thread...
>
> "...crap interface..."
It does have a crappy interface, it doesn't mean I don't love it (I think
emacs is amazing, but that doesn't make it perfect.)
> > ...this is a thread where some very emacs friendly proponents are
> > denigrating GUIs as useless.
>
> I'm not one of them.
I know, but you're responding to my posts which are directed at *them*.
WTH
WTH
news:87smfws...@toncho.dhh.gt.org...
> Ian writes:
> > I don't support regular expressions, and before you ask, no I don't use
> > grep.
>
> Why?
For myself I rarely use it anymore because I'm rather organized and don't
find myself needing it as often as I used to. If I was a sysadmin instead
of a dev, I'd probably grep my ass off daily ;). For that matter I don't
sed|awk often either (although they are great tools.)
WTH
aulne
> aulne <auln...@yahoo.ca> writes:
>
>> Le Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:12:18 -0600, Benny Hill a écrit :
>>
>>> I use Visual SlickEdit (www.slickedit.com) on Linux and on Windows for
>>> C/C++/Java/HTML/PHP/Javascript programming. It will do other languages as
>>> well.
>>
>>> It has the ability to collapse functions.
>>
>> Emacs too. C-u 1 C-x Shift-$
>
> C-1 or M-1 will usually be equivalent to C-u 1. However, if you need
> to do such things the source file should probably be split into
> several pieces.
Thanks for the tip regarding the passing of values.
In an Ideal World all source files are concise and to the point. But
really, most of the time there's no time to re-organize sources when work
has to be done. When starting a new project it's a nice idea though ;-)
Al
Roger Leigh
> I do keep coming back to look at emacs because I want a powerful
> editor that will work in the same way on several platforms, and
> every time (at around the point that I'm getting comfortable with
> the basic editing functions again, despite their
> couter-intuitiveness, and want to start really putting it to work) I
> get put off by the fact that any customization has to be done in
> LISP, and wander off in disgust.
Try "M-x customize-browse", or with the menus "Options->Customise
Emacs". No need to get dirty with Lisp if you don't want.
--
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Roger Leigh
>> Personally, I couldn't write code (in any language) without it; even
>> vim doesn't compare. The automatic indentation is absolutely
>> fantastic. I shudder to think that some poor souls actually use tools
>> like Windows "Notepad" as their tool of choice.
>
> You should try a professional IDE. I still use emacs occasionally; however,
> I find that I've no need to use it when I'm on a machine I've set up myself.
I have dabbled occasionally. They have very little to offer me. The
last I looked at was Sun ONE, which was dire.
Since all the build processes for my projects are done using the GNU
autotools (all hand-crafted myself, with my own custom m4 macros), the
only thing I need is an editor to edit, CVS for version control and
obviously the development toolchain and gdb. All those are accessible
from within emacs and ready at my fingertips.
I don't just use Emacs for typing code; it's also used for editing all
the build scripts, writing the documentation (in DocBook, LaTeX and
*roff), compiling and CVS interaction, Info for access to
documentation, Gnus for mail/news to collaborate with others.
The only thing I don't use Emacs for is for editing diffs, since vim
colourises them much better. And I also use Glade for UI design. But
I seem to manage very happily without some monolithic IDE behemoth.
For me, development happens in two parts: design (in my head and
scribbled on pieces of paper) and then converting this into code
(writing source in Emacs). What would an IDE add to that, other than
needless complexity?
>> People who feel the need to use a mouse for everything presumably
>> don't have enough typing to do, or haven't suffered the effects.
>
> I've never met anybody who had to use a mouse 'for everything.' Don't get
> confused about the discourse here. The pro-keyboard guys are using emacs as
> an example of what constitutes a 'better interface' than ANY GUI. lol.
I don't think so. IMHO it's the best interface for editing text, but
then it's only a text editor (albeit the best available).
Måns Rullgård
> m...@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) wrote:
>>"WTH" <spam...@Ih8it.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Personally, I couldn't write code (in any language) without it; even
>>>> vim doesn't compare. The automatic indentation is absolutely
>>>> fantastic. I shudder to think that some poor souls actually use tools
>>>> like Windows "Notepad" as their tool of choice.
>>>
>>> You should try a professional IDE.
>>
>>Such as? Every one I've tried was miles behind emacs in features and
>>usability.
>
> Emacs *is* a professional IDE. It is probably the oldest one, and it
> is, as you say, the most advanced one.
I assumed he meant something other than emacs. When people say IDE,
they generally mean something like MS Visual Studio (sounds more like
a graphics design program to me) or Borland JBuilder, both of which I
find it cumbersome to work with.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
Ian Bell
> Ian writes:
>> I don't support regular expressions, and before you ask, no I don't use
>> grep.
>
> Why?
I am already fluent in many assembly languages and C, I have spent a lot of
time learning gtk+, I came to linux via DOS and a brief spell with Windose,
I am an electronic engineer not a software one, I am 53, retired, spend a
lot of time restoring valve radios and reel to reel recorders and recording
my next door neighbour who is a country blues singer, and basically I can't
be arsed to learn something that complex that I will hardly ever use.
Ian
Daniel James
wrote:
> One of its many advantages is its ability to work with
> or without graphics and/or a mouse.
That is certainly true.
I'd like to add that -- whilst I don't think anyone is seriously
going to suggest that one should be able to operate a text editor
without a keyboard -- the point is that a good user interface should
be felxible enough to be operable with whatever input devices are
present, and are preferred by the user.
For any application, it is definitely a good thing if everything can
be done /via/ the keyboard, but equally everything (within reason)
should be doable without a keyboard.
In the particular case of emacs the lack of a standard non-keyboard
interface is unfortunate ... and I also happen to think that the
keyboard interface is not as easy to use as it could (and should) be.
> > Remember, this isn't an anti-emacs thread...
>
> "...crap interface..."
I wrote that. I also wrote:
> On reflection I might replace "crap" with "inelegant" or even
> "perverse", but I stand by the sentment. A tool as powerful and as
> potentially useful as emac /deserves/ to have an interface that's
> less obscure.
.. so I wasn't really being anti-emacs, just bemoaning the fact that
it could be better.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Måns Rullgård
> In article news:<87y8pos...@toncho.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler
> wrote:
>> One of its many advantages is its ability to work with
>> or without graphics and/or a mouse.
>
> That is certainly true.
>
> I'd like to add that -- whilst I don't think anyone is seriously
> going to suggest that one should be able to operate a text editor
> without a keyboard -- the point is that a good user interface should
> be felxible enough to be operable with whatever input devices are
> present, and are preferred by the user.
>
> For any application, it is definitely a good thing if everything can
> be done /via/ the keyboard, but equally everything (within reason)
> should be doable without a keyboard.
I come to think of the time I accidentally mapped all the keys to the
digit 1. The mouse came out handy fixing that. It didn't involve
emacs, though.
> In the particular case of emacs the lack of a standard non-keyboard
> interface is unfortunate ...
The problem is that the so-called standard GUIs are too limited for
emacs.
> and I also happen to think that the keyboard interface is not as
> easy to use as it could (and should) be.
A keyboard has only just so many keys, and if you need more commands
than keys, you'll need to use multi-key bindings. Simple applications
often get away with using the control key in combination with other
things, but that's not enough for the thousands of commands in emacs.
If you use emacs for a while, you will however notice that the key
sequences are grouped rather logically. For instance, bindings
starting with C-c are (mostly) reserved for mode-specific bindings,
and related commands usually have a common prefix.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@kth.se
d2004xx
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 04:59:49 -0800, David Fisher wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Like many programmers, I have learned to use makefiles, gcc, grep, vi,
> > gdb, ddd, ldd and other 'small and beautiful' UNIX tools. However,
> > lately I've been thinking that I may be missing some things that would
> > make my C++ programming easier.
> >
> > Here's a checklist of things that I want an IDE to have, ideally:
> >
> > - debugger (are there IDEs that will let me see the contents of C++
> > classes, for example, std::pair<int, float> during debugging?)
> > - function definition collapsing
> > - search and replace (I like Vi, but I don't mean :%s/x/y/g here)
> > - cross-platform-ness - I want to use the same IDE on Windows, if I
> > ever move there
> > - cross-language-ness - I want to use the same IDE with Perl and maybe
> > other languages
> > - configurability (some might say Turing-completeness). I want an IDE
> > to make simple things simple, but I also want to have the ability to
> > *program* it to do *anything*.
> > - other things that are important, but I might have missed
>
> Hi David,
>
> I use Visual SlickEdit (www.slickedit.com) on Linux and on Windows for
> C/C++/Java/HTML/PHP/Javascript programming. It will do other languages as
> well.
- Code Beautify supports only C-like languages and HTML/XML..
- Class browser doesn't work with Python (it flatens all
methods/classes).
>
> It has the ability to collapse functions. It has the ability to search
> and replace.
including forward/backward [regexp] incremental search, better than
emacs's I think.
> As for configurability - it does more than what I need so I
> haven't looked into this much. I believe that information is provided
> that would allow you to write plugins or extensions if you really wanted
> to (much like Emacs does).
I found its documentation is poor...
>
> The main catch though is that it's not free like Emacs or KDevelop.
> Licenses are US$299 for single-user. If you are a student you can get an
> an academic license for $99 and if you just want to see if you like it or
> not, there is a 30 day, fully-functional trial available.
BTW I'm wondering if visual slickedit is still being developed? They
seem to have moved to slickedit studio...