[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: basic question: going back to dired

From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: basic question: going back to dired
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:03:00 +0200

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 15:56, Juanma <juanma_bellon> wrote:

> Well, maybe it's too "Unixy" (if I may), but then remove the "too" because
> I'm in Linux.

For software, being too ANYTHING is usually a drawback for new users
coming from the complementary set of ANYTHING...

> When I started
> learning┬╣ Emacs, I had to learn what is a buffer, and if the manual had been
> s/buffer/workspace/ all along, I would have had to learn what workspace
> means just the same. Same effort, and buffer is easier to pronounce.

The point is, "workspace" is used more often than "buffer" for the
same concept, so even if that is your experience, it is reasonable to
expect that it'll be different for many other people.

> ┬╣ you *have* to learn Emacs if you want to use it.

Agreed. But an Emacs newbie already has a lot to learn; terminology in
the docs (of Emacs or any other software) can help, or hinder.

> it's not
> "more like": it's literal translation.

I've been a translator long enough to know that there are always many
ways to translate even the simplest thing...

> I didn't wonder if you'd get the
> meaning; I wondered if the rest of readers would. That might mean I need to
> "get out" of my own self a little more.

No need to take it seriously, I was tongue-in-cheek.

> You may be right here, because partially the point is that some of us find
> the change proposal pointless and poorly justified.

I find the change proposal poorly justified, too. As for pointless, I
don't really know.

> Interface consistency is a plus, but not the only factor.

Of course.

> There is a
> trade-off, which is why we have such discussions. I don't find the whole
> discussion senseless, but I am definitely against this proposal.

We're in violent agreement here.

> That makes no sense, because those chords are not good, no matter how many
> people use them.

Well, although I wouldn't support changing the Emacs keybindings
wholesale in a million years, Xah Lee has a point about them not being
particularly good. Do you really think that C-x C-c is good and Alt-F4
is bad?

> After all, Emacs is all about improving, because you can customize it so
> heavily. If you like CUA, you can get it.

I do use CUA mode, though not for C-x etc. Selection with shift-keys
and visible region are very big pluses against the Emacs defaults,

> That is what makes Emacs, not an
> old piece, but a classic. Hence, it doesn't need to be modernized. It's good.

Thanks God (or the FSM) that's not true, or there would be no new features...

> You win (lexicographically) :-)

A win is a win is a win. :-)


reply via email to

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