[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 Kastrup
Subject: Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr]
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:42:19 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Per Starbäck <address@hidden> writes:

> 2014/1/9 Drew Adams <address@hidden>
>> > Then you are talking about another problem than I am.  Functionality (and
>> > attitudes) that turn away those people is indeed a problem for Emacs.
>> Are you sure that turning away "those people" is a problem for Emacs?
> Yes. Any attitude of "it should be hard to learn because the good
> people can learn things that are hard to learn" is just
> contraproductive.

It's more like "it's unavoidable to provide difficulties to learning
because it can do a lot, and when a lot is easily accessible, you'll
have stuff getting in your hair accidentally".

Musicians learn their instruments, craftsmen learn their tools.
Unfretted bowed string instruments remain a favorite even though the
possibilities for producing wrong notes or sounds that cannot in good
conscience even be called "tones" are staggering when compared to, say,
a piano.  Attempts to cut down on variables the player can get wrong,
like the hurdy gurdy, did not really take off.

A programmer will spend most of his life interacting with an editor and

> Those are not comparable quotes at all. Richard wants Emacs to be
> easier to learn for beginners, and I doubt he would write something
> like your momma quote.

A carving knife with an exploding handle is not going to be popular.
But you won't be able to sell one with a blunt edge "for safety" either.
Within the variables, one wants to make things as simple as possible but
not simpler.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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