[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Upcoming loss of usability of Emacs source files and Emacs.

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: Upcoming loss of usability of Emacs source files and Emacs.
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:43:26 -0700 (PDT)

> Despite what I wrote above, I don't see a need for this, it is
> going to be a PITA for quite a few individuals (even if they're
> a small fraction), so I'm basically +0 on it.

Yippee!  For once I agree with an occurrence of Stephen's recurrent
"YAGNI" bray.  *No need* for this change.

Beyond that, this change is at best a blunder.  It should be reverted.
It is not just cosmetic.

> Just as some users dislike changes, possibly a lot, others dislike
> the status quo ante, possibly a lot.  Why should a few reactionary
> curmudgeons :-) hold the progressives back?

Demagogy & pandering, despite the smily.  Opposition to a particular
change, giving particular reasons, is not tantamount to knee-jerk,
reactionary opposition to change in general.  For shame.  We see this
kind of slight-of-hand charlatanism employed all too often - those
opposed to a purported innovation are branded as "afraid of change".

It is not about change vs no-change in general.  It is about this

For the same reason, though a superficial poll (of readers here
or of Emacs users) can tell us something, good arguments for and
against are generally more helpful.

> It used to be a Bad Thing[tm].  Now, modern VCS means that such
> changes can be made and reverted quickly (although not always
> effortlessly or without help of developers experienced in the
> software), so rather than poll, just give them what you think they
> need.  If they don't like it, you revert.  That method provides far
> more accurate assessments of user sentiment than polling in advance,
> and is less costly (unless you're stupid enough to make such a
> change in a late beta).

I'm not convinced.  Momentum.  Inertia.

And there is no good reason *not* to bring such matters up for
discussion first (here, for example), and that can include
discussion with users.

> Of course the proponents have to be cooperative.  I know that Paul
> has a reasonably high opinion of his own opinions ;-), but I've also
> seen him revert patches for reasons of "general user taste", and with
> very little backtalk, on request.

Consider this one such request, by one user.

reply via email to

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