[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions
Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions
Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:01:17 +0200
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:30:48 +0200, Daniele Nicolodi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Daniele> I admit I just read a minimal part of the posts in the current
Daniele> about making Emacs simpler, or friendlier, or more "modern" (for a
Daniele> definition of modern very different to mine). However, I would
Daniele> express my doubts about the assumptions implicit in these
Daniele> These assumptions seem to be:
Daniele> 1. Emacs would be better if it had a larger user base or the Emacs
Daniele> would be better served by an Emacs that appeals to a larger user
Daniele> think that this can be true only as far as another assumption hold,
Daniele> namely that with a larger user base there would be more manpower
Daniele> on Emacs itself, thus Emacs will become better because more people
Daniele> hacking on it.
Daniele> I don't think there can be any correlation between the number of
Daniele> of Emacs and the number of hackers interesting in working on it.
Daniele> end goal is to make Emacs development more sustainable, an easier
Daniele> get there would be to modernize the development practices used to
Daniele> on Emacs itself. However, this is a much harder (social) problem
Youʼre falling into the "the 'modern' gitlab/github etc dev practices
are better" fallacy here. Theyʼre more *familiar* to certain people,
but I donʼt really like them, because too much of the interaction is
done with a browser (and Iʼm sure Iʼm not alone). See discussions on
this list about moving to such workflows whilst ensuring that email
can still be used.
Daniele> 2. Users are not drawn to try Emacs because what Emacs is and for
Daniele> reputation, but because they expect Emacs to be like other editors.
Daniele> I think that who chooses Emacs, does so because of what Emacs is
Daniele> what it has been in its long history, not because they expect
Daniele> different. If they expect something different, Emacs has an
Daniele> technical disadvantage compared to younger editors that are based
Daniele> different technologies and that do not want (need?) to keep
Daniele> compatibility if an incredibly long history.
Daniele> Probably there are better thing that can be done to make the
Daniele> of these users better than providing "simplified" Emacs
Daniele> because the users that choose Emacs don't want a simplified Emacs,
Daniele> want better ways to access the power of Emacs.
Daniele> Having "simplified" modes also poses the problem of allowing the
Daniele> to "graduate" from the simplified environment to the full blown
Daniele> haven't see this discussed.
I think "simplified" is not the goal here, but "more familiar". Unlike
development practices, I see no issue here with offering that kind of
experience by default, since I can turn it off easily. The
"graduation" problem exists, but thatʼs easily solved with
Daniele> 3. Emacs is perfect as it is, but the users do not understand it.
Daniele> I feel that a lot of the discussions are centered toward having
Daniele> simplify Emacs to make it more appealing to new users or to some
Daniele> specific classes of prospective users. Wouldn't it be more
Daniele> and wouldn't it be better for who already has invested in Emacs
Daniele> the current users) to discuss ways to make Emacs better for
Daniele> For example, GNU/Linux is the platform where Emacs should run best,
Daniele> however, as far as I know, there is currently no way to run Emacs
Daniele> Wayland compositor, and Wayland is the future of graphical
Daniele> GNU/Linux. Also, some of the complexity of hacking on Emacs, comes
Daniele> supporting a wide range of graphical toolkits. Wouldn't it be a
Daniele> worthwhile goal to support a graphical toolkit that works on
Daniele> and then make it the only one supported (at least on GNU/Linux) and
Daniele> redirect some hacking energy into making this solution a good
Daniele> for everyone (hacking on the toolkit itself if necessary)? This
Daniele> much more important to keep Emacs relevant in a few years from now
Daniele> a Emacs-simplified-mode.
Thereʼs an effort underway already to port emacs to 'pure' gtk, which
allows running directly on Wayland. See eg
Daniele> While the use of a specific graphical toolkit may seems a technical
Daniele> issue far from the current discussions, I would like to point out
Daniele> also this is mostly a "social" issue: removing support for other
Daniele> toolkits will affect those that for one reason or another prefer
Daniele> Motif Emacs.
There are people who are very attached to using the Lucid toolkit, and
they have valid reasons. Once the 'pure' gtk is in, thereʼs no reason
to remove Lucid support, but there'd also be no reason to enhance it.
- Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions, Daniele Nicolodi, 2020/09/17
- Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions,
Robert Pluim <=
- Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions, Daniele Nicolodi, 2020/09/17
- Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions, Arthur Miller, 2020/09/17
- Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions, Daniel Martín, 2020/09/17
- Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions, Caio Henrique, 2020/09/17
- Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions, Robert Pluim, 2020/09/17
- Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/09/17
- Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions, Mingde (Matthew) Zeng, 2020/09/17
- Re: Implicit assumptions in the latest discussions, Emanuel Berg, 2020/09/18