|
From: | Lennart Borgman |
Subject: | Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr] |
Date: | Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:03:26 +0100 |
Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> > Emacs is never going to be as easy to learn as simpleThat's a red herring. What people are looking for are not editors that
>> > editors, because ease of learning is not its priority.
>
> There could be a setup of Emacs that is as easy as any editor to
> learn.
are easy to learn, but editors that can be used without learning
anything at all.
> I guess that we are really discussing is if there is an advantage ofThe future of Emacs depends on people with an attention span and
> such a setup. In the light of that there was a whole new editor
> (gedit) created I think there could have been a better route. Emacs
> could probably have provided everything that gedit gives.
>
> I also guess it would have been less work. And there would have been a
> larger community using and working on Emacs.
perseverence sufficient for extending it. Those are the people who are
most likely to be annoyed at the inconsistency of concepts and
operations of things like the full CUA mode (the one which uses
heuristics to decide whether to use C-x and C-c in the Emacs or the CUA
sense).
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |