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

[Lennart Borgman]

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:02 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>

>> > Emacs is never going to be as easy to learn as simple
>> > editors, because ease of learning is not its priority.
>
> There could be a setup of Emacs that is as easy as any editor to
> learn.

That's a red herring.  What people are looking for are not editors that
are easy to learn, but editors that can be used without learning
anything at all.

Do you believe you will convince me with this, or? ;-)
Facts are much better if we do not agree. If we agreed this might have been better, more fun, of course... ;-)
 

 

> I guess that we are really discussing is if there is an advantage of
> such a setup. In the light of that there was a whole new editor
> (gedit) created I think there could have been a better route. Emacs
> could probably have provided everything that gedit gives.
>
> I also guess it would have been less work. And there would have been a
> larger community using and working on Emacs.

The future of Emacs depends on people with an attention span and
perseverence sufficient for extending it.  Those are the people who are
most likely to be annoyed at the inconsistency of concepts and
operations of things like the full CUA mode (the one which uses
heuristics to decide whether to use C-x and C-c in the Emacs or the CUA
sense).

Are you really sure you want to look down upon those that do not agree? ;-)