[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: "modern" colors Re: Changes for emacs 28

From: Alfred M. Szmidt
Subject: Re: "modern" colors Re: Changes for emacs 28
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:02:54 -0400

   On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 10:52:37AM -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
   >   I will try my best but my terminology could be totally wrong (worst than
   >   my English). (Note that I only use emacs from the terminal anyway)
   >I'd like to get back to the initial premsis that "some color changes"
   >could make Emacs more modern.  While this list is interesting, and
   >lists things that Emacs already provides, it is slightly on the left
   >side of the topic.  I wanted to understand what is the meaning of
   >"modern", and "some color" changes seemed to be easy enough to
   The meaning of modern is by default not old; it means not to look like a
   win95 app in 2020. The grays and white backgrounds has been substituted
   by blue black and other colors.

Emacs from default screenshots looks like many of the popular editors
with light background.  I do not know what Windows 95 (calling Windows
a win is a loss), but I'm quite sure that it doesn't look like that.

Have you used Emacs in its default setting in the past years?

   There is not science here. Just a matter of preferences and
   subjectivity. But looking around popular applications, you will find
   that there is a pattern among the years.

You seem to have an experience with several other editors, which is
why I'm asking you specifically about the specific differences.  I
cannot possibly go through all editors to figure which one you think
is modern in our view, and telling me to "just look around" without
even having the slightest clue where isn't very helpful.

I'm simply trying to figure out what some of those subjective
differences are, but you're telling me to figure it out by myself.
Stefan too seemed interested in understanding what "modern" (be it in
your view, or otherwise) meant.

Let me try to reiterate again, could you point out a handful of
differences in colors and/or fonts (to keep it simple) between Emacs
and some other editor (one is fine, several would be interesting too
but I understand that can be taxing) that you find more modern than in

   >   Just adding an * to the filename in modeline (and or tab when using
   >   them) or changing the color is easier to understand. Than
   >   -UUU:----F1
   >How is that different from today?  ** signifies that the buffer is
   I maaany ways. Not for pleasure that's the first thing all the distros
   change that, powerline became popular and so on.

I do not understand what you are saying here.  You said that "adding
an * to the filename" would solve an issue -- that is already done
_today_ (and for decades in Emacs).  

   >New users don't have to understand it from the start though, it is
   >something one can come to understand with using Emacs.  If you hover
   >with the mouse over each item, it will describe what each thing means,
   >and you can change each thing accordingly.

   New users are used to know if the document has changes at least. And in
   the applications they use: filename* by default.

And in Emacs we do it in a similar fashion.  I've seen that some put
"modified" in the title bar, some show it differently -- indeed, I
think every single editor I can think of does it differently.

   Lock back in this same thread there was a long discussion about
   that. The supporters of light colors brought some articles about
   astigmatism and so on, while the others bring different ones.

Yes, and there too it was asked about the background to this research
-- and it too was underwhelming.

   >Only that a general acceptance that people have a preference for
   >something; and Emacs already has means for switching to dark/light
   >backgrounds -- maybe this could be made easier to switch, for example
   >a dark/light-toggle-mode that switches between the default dark and
   >light coloring scheme.

   This is actually what is being discussed. Any way just look at the
   popular downloaded emacs themes the so called "distros", and the
   actual "top" editors. Sourceforge is also kind of "old" as users
   prefer github (which is actually working in a dark mode
   too). Understand that I never said we should set dark themes by
   default; I just replied what young developers consider "old".

I know plenty of developers in their twenties that think that dark
backgrounds are "old terminal backgrounds".  That is why I am asking
for actual research, and not just your or my experience.  Downloads
are not statistics.  

With source forges I meant in general, not Sourceforge specifically.

And by your own accord, since some are only now working on dark-mode
themes, it cannot have been such an important thing for them.  Doesn't
this somewhat contradict the claim that this is the preference by the
majority of people?

   It is missing only in gvim and emacs in my experience.

I don't use that many programs, but don't forget xterm.

   So maybe 30 years ago it wasn't standard but today it is.

Dare say that none of those programs existed 30 years ago, but you are
confusing the behaviour of individual programs with the general
behaviour of the system which I was refering to, and a historical
context where the defaults where chosen.

reply via email to

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