[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr]
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr] |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:24:08 -0800 (PST) |
> Arbitrary roadblocks can be removed, though.
I said as much:
Gratuitous differences in terminology for identical things
are something else. But (a) that is rare (the Emacs thingies
are not really the same), and (b) even then it is not
important to toe the line. Especially if the things are
identical, it is easy to learn new terms for them.
IOW, the truly arbitrary differences are rare and not a problem.
Learning Emacs is hard, but not because of them.
> For example, yank is not a superior term to paste, so paste could be
> used instead. One unnecessary difference less. And it is only one
> example, there are others.
>
> Emacs provides enough material to learn without these arbitrary
> (legacy) differences, so these should be eliminated where possible.
To repeat (you might want to read the thread):
Examples of exceptional things that are identical in Emacs,
or nearly so, are "cut" and "paste" operations. And as
others have already said, it is enough to point out the
Emacs terminology and the correspondences (when there are
close correspondences and not just faux amis) - which we
already do, AFAIK.
We already make clear in the menus and doc that "yank" means
something very similar to "paste".
And (to repeat, again) far more importantly: this is NOT a
point of "confusion" for newbies.
Initial ignorance, yes. But the slightest contact with the
Emacs docs or google or a quick Q & A has always been enough to
let newbies know what "yank" means. I have never seen anyone
become "confused" after they were introduced to the term "yank".
This is simply a non-problem. But it gets rehashed here every
so often.
NOT because newbies say they are confused and don't get it.
But only because some well meaning soles here get the bright
idea that this must be confusing to new arrivals and that if
this important obstacle were removed then Emacs would have a
brighter future.
This essentially short-sells newbies, and touches on demagogy.
_You_ learned "yank". Did you stay up at night in turmoil,
trying to grasp its meaning? No. Don't you think that other
newbies are just as bright as you were? Please, think about it.
- Re: Apologia for bzr, (continued)
- Re: Apologia for bzr, Per Starbäck, 2014/01/09
- RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Drew Adams, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Per Starbäck, 2014/01/09
- RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Drew Adams, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Per Starbäck, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], David Kastrup, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Tom, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], David Kastrup, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Davis Herring, 2014/01/10
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], David Kastrup, 2014/01/10
- RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr],
Drew Adams <=
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Richard Stallman, 2014/01/10
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Per Starbäck, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], David Kastrup, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Glenn Morris, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Lennart Borgman, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Daniel Colascione, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Lennart Borgman, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Daniel Colascione, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/18
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Daniel Colascione, 2014/01/18