[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr]

From: David Reitter
Subject: Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr]
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:56:50 -0500

On Jan 7, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:

>> Beyond trying to remember, using current terminology is sends
>> the message that Emacs is old, stubborn, and crufty, which is a
>> problem when trying to introduce new users to Emacs.
> No, it does not.  If Emacs were invented from scratch today, it
> would still need its own jargon.  Some of the particulars would
> no doubt be different, but Emacs would still stand apart in both
> behavior and terminology.

Yes, but the jargon would not conflict with widely used terminology.  Would you 
really redefine a common word like "window", and invent another one referring 
to the established meaning of windows?  

Other things are actually different, and different terms are appropriate. 
"Mark" comes to mind, or "major" and "minor" modes.

You're right in that Emacs is not yet another editor, and you want to send that 
message.  But, don't people see this soon enough when they actually use it?

The UI experiment that I have been interested in with Aquamacs, is to allow 
people to gradually transition from a newbie user to a proficient one with high 
routinized sequences of actions.  This is actually something that other editors 
and IDEs can't provide to the extent that Emacs does.  Netbeans, Eclipse, Xcode 
- they're great IDEs and very integrated, and certainly useful for proficient 
users, but they're nowhere nearly as efficient as Emacs.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]