|Subject:||Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr]|
|Date:||Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:27:04 +0100|
> Then you are talking about another problem than I am. Functionality (andAre you sure that turning away "those people" is a problem for Emacs?
> attitudes) that turn away those people is indeed a problem for Emacs.
>> (And _you_ are not using That Other Editor why? Did you perhapsEmacs _is_ a better mousetrap.
>> spend more than 1/2 hour learning This Old Editor?)
> This seems irrelevant to me. What is your point?
To really appreciate it, some people, if not most, need to give it more
than 1/2 hour, before jumping to the conclusion that it is not worth
their spending more time with it. As Richard put it, "Learning Emacs is
never going to be easy." Or as I said:your momma's editor. And it rightfully has its own terminology.
Learning Emacs is learning something new and different - it is not
"Those people" who don't feel they need to bother - well, they will
either get it later, by way of others, or they will not. Tant pis.
But Emacs being "weird" because it uses the word "window" differently -
that's another thing. I have never encountered a newbie taking Emacs
for a test drive who could not understand, when told what an Emacs
window is. Have you?
Other things being equal, of course we want to make things easy to learn.
Of course we do not want to throw up unnecessary obstacles. Gratuitous
differences in terminology for identical things should be dealt with -
and they generally are.
That kind of hand-holding encouragement is fine. But there is no reason
to underestimate potential users. Some people will give up without
giving Emacs a chance. So what? Others will not - just as you did not.
Why suppose that potential Emacs users are less patient or curious or
intelligent than we are?
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|