Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #2776 > unrolled thread

Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-13 17:33 +0000
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2014-05-13 19:47 +0200
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-13 18:02 +0000
      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-13 18:22 +0000
        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-13 20:31 +0000
        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-14 14:12 +0200
          Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-14 14:05 +0000
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-05-13 19:47 +0100
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-13 21:39 +0100
      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-13 22:31 +0100
        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-13 23:26 +0100
          Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-13 20:22 -0400
            Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 10:44 +0000
              Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-14 09:59 -0400
            Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-14 12:24 +0100
              Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-14 10:14 -0400
          Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-14 02:08 +0100
            Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-14 10:24 +0100
              Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-14 13:01 +0300
                Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 10:47 +0000
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-14 15:39 +0300
                    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 18:51 +0000
                      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-14 22:40 +0300
                        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 20:15 +0000
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-14 14:01 +0000
                    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 18:53 +0000
                      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-15 11:39 +0000
              Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-14 14:11 +0100
                Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-14 15:16 +0100
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-14 10:46 -0400
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-15 13:37 +0100
                    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-15 22:42 +0100
                      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-15 23:14 +0100
                        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-05-16 04:00 -0300
                          Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-16 10:46 +0100
              Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-14 10:17 -0400
                Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-05-14 16:55 -0300
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-15 00:07 +0300
                    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-05-16 03:46 -0300
                  Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> - 2014-05-15 08:03 +0200
          Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-05-15 11:41 -0500
            Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@hushmail.com> - 2014-05-15 13:44 -0500
            Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-15 21:59 +0000
      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-14 14:21 +0200
        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-14 14:00 +0000
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-05-13 21:33 +0000
      Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-14 10:02 +0000
        Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-14 10:20 +0000
    Re: Slate covers emacs vs. vim, 40 years later Christian Brandt <brandtc@psi5.com> - 2014-05-15 09:32 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#2804

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>:

> I wouldn't worry. Streater's arrogance is such that he only sees two
> ways of doing something; his way and the wrong way.

Care to justify your tone, which looks like cyberbullying to a neutral
observer?


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2819

On 2014-05-14, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>:
>
>> I wouldn't worry. Streater's arrogance is such that he only sees two
>> ways of doing something; his way and the wrong way.
>
> Care to justify your tone,

No.


-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 61st day of Discord in the YOLD 3180
“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime;
 the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out
                 automatically and without pity.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2821

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>:

> On 2014-05-14, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> Care to justify your tone,
>
> No.
> [...]
> “Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital
> crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is
> carried out automatically and without pity.”

You have sentenced yourself to my killfile.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2823

On 2014-05-14, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>:
>
>> On 2014-05-14, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>> Care to justify your tone,
>>
>> No.
>> [...]
>> “Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital
>> crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is
>> carried out automatically and without pity.”
>
> You have sentenced yourself to my killfile.

Yawn. Imagine my indifference.


-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 61st day of Discord in the YOLD 3180
“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime;
 the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out
                 automatically and without pity.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2810

On 14 May 2014 10:47:22 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> I wouldn't worry. Streater's arrogance is such that he only sees two
> ways of doing something; his way and the wrong way.


What's up with all the personal attacks today, "Huge"?  You seem to
have overdosed on grumpy pills.  No need to indulge in this sort of
stuff on comp.misc; we're all here to have fun.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2820

On 2014-05-14, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 14 May 2014 10:47:22 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> I wouldn't worry. Streater's arrogance is such that he only sees two
>> ways of doing something; his way and the wrong way.
>
>
> What's up with all the personal attacks today, "Huge"?  

IME, Streater's a twat. An arrogant, ignorant, aggressive twat, at that.

BTW, Huge is the name I've been known by for some decades. No need for
the quotation marks.


-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 61st day of Discord in the YOLD 3180
“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime;
 the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out
                 automatically and without pity.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2831

On 2014-05-14, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> BTW, Huge is the name I've been known by for some decades. No need for
> the quotation marks.

Henceforth, I shall call you *plonk*.  

Streater might be misinformed - a simple Google search for emacs images
will come up with dozens of pics of emacs running either on that old,
ugly widget set or the newer, GTK2 look.  But he provides more value to
the discussion here than you do, and I'll take arrogance over asshattery
any day of the week.

Later, plonk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2805

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> In article
> <0.bdba31149921122e329c.20140514020829BST.87mweldv5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <0.2a988d974a1a530074a9.20140513223107BST.8761l9fjs4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
>> > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <20140513173343.a026a54b.rsw@therandymon.com>, RS Wood
>> >> > <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> [Crossposted!  Follow-up set to comp.misc]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Slate is covering "the oldest rivalry in computing" and describing it
>> >> >> in layman's terms, which is pretty fun to read.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's really quite simples:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) emacs -> poubelle
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) Use a GUI text editor of your choice
>> >>
>> >> What makes an editor qualify as having a GUI?  This is a genuine
>> >> question -- I really want to know what you feel is needed.  Being an
>> >> emacs fan, it seems to me that it has a GUI (at least as I use it) but
>> >> maybe it lacks some key attribute of GUI-hood.
>> >
>> > (I may have posted this before so apols if so)
>>
>> Not that I recall, so that's fine.  Was it intended to answer my
>> question because if it was, I missed how?
>
> :-)
>
> My assumption (which may be wrong these days) is that emacs is intended
> for use on a VT100 or equivalent

Ah, right.  That's not a valid assumption.

> (that was certainly the case at the
> time I was referring to),

But that was in the story you told as a non-answer to my question.
Surely your "use a GUI text editor" was intended to be *current* advice,
and my "does emacs fail to have a GUI?" should surely be taken to mean
now, when your advice might be followed?

<snip>
> Under these conditions, I would consider Notepad et al as having a GUI,
> and emacs as not having one.

That's true, but there was also a time when emacs had a UI and Notepad
et al did not even exist.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2813

In article
<0.2f23ca92f2b1e1216591.20140514141107BST.8761l8ec9g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
> 
> > In article
> > <0.bdba31149921122e329c.20140514020829BST.87mweldv5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
> > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > In article
> >> > <0.2a988d974a1a530074a9.20140513223107BST.8761l9fjs4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
> >> > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article <20140513173343.a026a54b.rsw@therandymon.com>, RS Wood
> >> >> > <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> [Crossposted!  Follow-up set to comp.misc]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Slate is covering "the oldest rivalry in computing" and describing it
> >> >> >> in layman's terms, which is pretty fun to read.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's really quite simples:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1) emacs -> poubelle
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2) Use a GUI text editor of your choice
> >> >>
> >> >> What makes an editor qualify as having a GUI?  This is a genuine
> >> >> question -- I really want to know what you feel is needed.  Being an
> >> >> emacs fan, it seems to me that it has a GUI (at least as I use it) but
> >> >> maybe it lacks some key attribute of GUI-hood.
> >> >
> >> > (I may have posted this before so apols if so)
> >>
> >> Not that I recall, so that's fine.  Was it intended to answer my
> >> question because if it was, I missed how?
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > My assumption (which may be wrong these days) is that emacs is intended
> > for use on a VT100 or equivalent
> 
> Ah, right.  That's not a valid assumption.

Then my argument might fail.

> > (that was certainly the case at the
> > time I was referring to),
> 
> But that was in the story you told as a non-answer to my question.
> Surely your "use a GUI text editor" was intended to be *current* advice,
> and my "does emacs fail to have a GUI?" should surely be taken to mean
> now, when your advice might be followed?

In the time since the epoch of the story, I've not had emacs presented
as a GUI app usable with (as I believe I already mentioned) GUI
characteristics such as mouse, drag/drop, etc etc. 

Lessee now: <navigates to /usr/bin, double-clicks on the emacs icon>.
Yes, that opens - in a Terminal window - an application that is driving
the window as a vt100. So, not a GUI in my book.

Equally, I don't regard vim as having a GUI.

> <snip>
> > Under these conditions, I would consider Notepad et al as having a GUI,
> > and emacs as not having one.
> 
> That's true, but there was also a time when emacs had a UI and Notepad
> et al did not even exist.

At which point I was using Xedit. And prior to that I used Wylbur,
prior to that (at CERN) Orion and Focus, prior to that, punched cards,
and prior to that, paper tape (the editing of which was a right
bugger).

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2815

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> In article
> <0.2f23ca92f2b1e1216591.20140514141107BST.8761l8ec9g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <0.bdba31149921122e329c.20140514020829BST.87mweldv5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
>> > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <0.2a988d974a1a530074a9.20140513223107BST.8761l9fjs4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
>> >> > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article <20140513173343.a026a54b.rsw@therandymon.com>, RS Wood
>> >> >> > <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> [Crossposted!  Follow-up set to comp.misc]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Slate is covering "the oldest rivalry in computing" and describing it
>> >> >> >> in layman's terms, which is pretty fun to read.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's really quite simples:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1) emacs -> poubelle
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2) Use a GUI text editor of your choice
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What makes an editor qualify as having a GUI?  This is a genuine
>> >> >> question -- I really want to know what you feel is needed.  Being an
>> >> >> emacs fan, it seems to me that it has a GUI (at least as I use it) but
>> >> >> maybe it lacks some key attribute of GUI-hood.
>> >> >
>> >> > (I may have posted this before so apols if so)
>> >>
>> >> Not that I recall, so that's fine.  Was it intended to answer my
>> >> question because if it was, I missed how?
>> >
>> > :-)
>> >
>> > My assumption (which may be wrong these days) is that emacs is intended
>> > for use on a VT100 or equivalent
>>
>> Ah, right.  That's not a valid assumption.
>
> Then my argument might fail.
>
>> > (that was certainly the case at the
>> > time I was referring to),
>>
>> But that was in the story you told as a non-answer to my question.
>> Surely your "use a GUI text editor" was intended to be *current* advice,
>> and my "does emacs fail to have a GUI?" should surely be taken to mean
>> now, when your advice might be followed?
>
> In the time since the epoch of the story, I've not had emacs presented
> as a GUI app usable with (as I believe I already mentioned) GUI
> characteristics such as mouse, drag/drop, etc etc. 
>
> Lessee now: <navigates to /usr/bin, double-clicks on the emacs icon>.
> Yes, that opens - in a Terminal window - an application that is driving
> the window as a vt100. So, not a GUI in my book.

Without knowing a lot of details, hard to tell what your issue is.
No menu bar?  Cygwin?  $DISPLAY not exported?

> Equally, I don't regard vim as having a GUI.

gvim.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2833

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
<snip>
> In the time since the epoch of the story, I've not had emacs presented
> as a GUI app usable with (as I believe I already mentioned) GUI
> characteristics such as mouse, drag/drop, etc etc. 

That's the kind of thing I wanted!  It wasn't a trick question.  I would
prefer more than an unexplained "drag/drop" and "etc etc" but I get the
feeling you are not that interested in pinning down what you consider to
be "GUI enough".  But that's fine -- it was an innocent question!

The reason I am interested is that my emacs here (GNU Emacs on Ubuntu)
has what I consider to be a very comfortable intersection of keyboard
interface and GUI features, so I wondered what you feel is needed for
something to have "GUI".  I thought, maybe, it would even be a topic for
wider discussion...

> Lessee now: <navigates to /usr/bin, double-clicks on the emacs icon>.
> Yes, that opens - in a Terminal window - an application that is driving
> the window as a vt100. So, not a GUI in my book.

There is no one thing called emacs, and even when considering one
program, it can usually be run in various ways (that's often an
advantage of course).

> Equally, I don't regard vim as having a GUI.

I would not be prepared to say.  I've used various versions of vi over
the years but not recently, and I would not want to say what it lacks
(now) without knowing more.

An analogy occurs to me.  I don't like sci-fi, and every time I tell
someone this they say I've not read the right book or author -- I don't
know sci-fi at it's best.  In the past, I used to read whatever was
recommended, but I've stopped doing that know.  I now know there are
things that are integral to the genre that I don't get along with, and
not simply that I've not seen this or that aspect of the genre properly
represented.

>> <snip>
>> > Under these conditions, I would consider Notepad et al as having a GUI,
>> > and emacs as not having one.
>>
>> That's true, but there was also a time when emacs had a UI and Notepad
>> et al did not even exist.
>
> At which point I was using Xedit. And prior to that I used Wylbur,
> prior to that (at CERN) Orion and Focus, prior to that, punched cards,
> and prior to that, paper tape (the editing of which was a right
> bugger).

Er, OK.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2845

In article
<0.495f3c00a5a9fa18fa57.20140515133707BST.87d2ffb4lo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
> <snip>
> > In the time since the epoch of the story, I've not had emacs presented
> > as a GUI app usable with (as I believe I already mentioned) GUI
> > characteristics such as mouse, drag/drop, etc etc. 
> 
> That's the kind of thing I wanted!  It wasn't a trick question.  I would
> prefer more than an unexplained "drag/drop" and "etc etc" but I get the
> feeling you are not that interested in pinning down what you consider to
> be "GUI enough".  But that's fine -- it was an innocent question!

To avoid talking at cross-purposes, I feel a need to define a character
display as one where it's possible to place a character at any one of
the 24 x 80 character positions (or, more generally, any one of the
nrows x ncols positions). This allows one to create programs such as
vi.

Then you have a bit-mapped display, needed to run such things as MS
Word.

I consider that a GUI app will need a bit-mapped display. Doubtless you
can simulate menus (f'rinstance) on a character display, but then you
are back to needing to know how (in that app) to drive that interface.

I've now had a look at the Wikipedia article on emacs. There appears to
be a version of emacs that runs on a bit-mapped display without being
in an emulated character display window, but AFAICT what it does is
split its window up into a number of panes, each of which does give you
a separate emulated character display. Is this broadly speaking
correct?

> The reason I am interested is that my emacs here (GNU Emacs on Ubuntu)
> has what I consider to be a very comfortable intersection of keyboard
> interface and GUI features, so I wondered what you feel is needed for
> something to have "GUI".  I thought, maybe, it would even be a topic for
> wider discussion...

As I hinted, I view editing text as something that shouldn't require
much learning, certainly not a set of keyboard commands in order to do
anything at all. For vi, for instance, there is a Nutshell book that is
127 pages long. That doesn't mean I won't use vi, simply that I'll
avoid it for the most part. My trusty Ultrix cheat card for vi will
cover anything I'm likely to need to do.

Apart from an instance of Win7 running in a VM, I don't actually use
Notepad; I use TextWrangler which has a deal more features, not the
least of which is that I can keep all 120 or so source files for my app
open at once, and should I need to restart then TW will automatically
restore the status quo ante. It's also not worried about different
line-endings.

Now TW, then, is a program that has "GUI". Nothing to learn if you've
ever used any other Mac program. Just explore the menus.

> An analogy occurs to me.  I don't like sci-fi, and every time I tell
> someone this they say I've not read the right book or author -- I don't
> know sci-fi at it's best.  In the past, I used to read whatever was
> recommended, but I've stopped doing that know.  I now know there are
> things that are integral to the genre that I don't get along with, and
> not simply that I've not seen this or that aspect of the genre properly
> represented.

That's a very good analogy.

-- 
"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a
friend.... if you have one." - GB Shaw to Churchill "Cannot possibly
attend first night, will attend second...  if there is one." - Winston
Churchill, in response.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2847

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> In article
> <0.495f3c00a5a9fa18fa57.20140515133707BST.87d2ffb4lo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>> <snip>
>> > In the time since the epoch of the story, I've not had emacs presented
>> > as a GUI app usable with (as I believe I already mentioned) GUI
>> > characteristics such as mouse, drag/drop, etc etc. 
>>
>> That's the kind of thing I wanted!  It wasn't a trick question.  I would
>> prefer more than an unexplained "drag/drop" and "etc etc" but I get the
>> feeling you are not that interested in pinning down what you consider to
>> be "GUI enough".  But that's fine -- it was an innocent question!
>
> To avoid talking at cross-purposes, I feel a need to define a character
> display as one where it's possible to place a character at any one of
> the 24 x 80 character positions (or, more generally, any one of the
> nrows x ncols positions). This allows one to create programs such as
> vi.
>
> Then you have a bit-mapped display, needed to run such things as MS
> Word.
>
> I consider that a GUI app will need a bit-mapped display. Doubtless you
> can simulate menus (f'rinstance) on a character display, but then you
> are back to needing to know how (in that app) to drive that interface.
>
> I've now had a look at the Wikipedia article on emacs. There appears to
> be a version of emacs that runs on a bit-mapped display without being
> in an emulated character display window, but AFAICT what it does is
> split its window up into a number of panes, each of which does give you
> a separate emulated character display. Is this broadly speaking
> correct?

No, I don't think that's what's happening.  Every text editor emulates a
text display at some level -- it's editing text after all.  The main way
in which emacs looks odd is that it uses the current font size as a unit
of measure.  When you split a window it will be sized (by default) in
terms of lines and/or columns.

Also, it can work with rectangular blocks of text, which don't mix well
with proportionally spaced fonts.  It's fine if you want to see your
text as a wrapped linear stream (as, I think, would be the case in
Notepad) but for programming, blocks can be very useful so most people
use a fixed-width which makes it look non-GUI.

>> The reason I am interested is that my emacs here (GNU Emacs on Ubuntu)
>> has what I consider to be a very comfortable intersection of keyboard
>> interface and GUI features, so I wondered what you feel is needed for
>> something to have "GUI".  I thought, maybe, it would even be a topic for
>> wider discussion...
>
> As I hinted, I view editing text as something that shouldn't require
> much learning, certainly not a set of keyboard commands in order to do
> anything at all. For vi, for instance, there is a Nutshell book that is
> 127 pages long. That doesn't mean I won't use vi, simply that I'll
> avoid it for the most part. My trusty Ultrix cheat card for vi will
> cover anything I'm likely to need to do.
>
> Apart from an instance of Win7 running in a VM, I don't actually use
> Notepad; I use TextWrangler which has a deal more features, not the
> least of which is that I can keep all 120 or so source files for my app
> open at once, and should I need to restart then TW will automatically
> restore the status quo ante. It's also not worried about different
> line-endings.
>
> Now TW, then, is a program that has "GUI". Nothing to learn if you've
> ever used any other Mac program. Just explore the menus.

I can't comment on the "discoverability" because I have forgotten what
it was like to come across emacs for the first time, but you can
certainly explore the menus in emacs and you will learn a lot.

On load it usually shows a page with hyperlinks to various help texts as
well as liks to get you stared -- open a file and so on.  Again, I don't
know how useful these are for a beginner.

By these absolute criteria, some emacs installs meets your criteria.  If
they are a matter of degree (what proportion of typical uses are
bamboozled) you'd need data I don't have.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2855

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:

> I can't comment on the "discoverability" because I have forgotten what
> it was like to come across emacs for the first time, but you can
> certainly explore the menus in emacs and you will learn a lot.
> 
> On load it usually shows a page with hyperlinks to various help texts as
> well as liks to get you stared -- open a file and so on.  Again, I don't
> know how useful these are for a beginner.

When I came first to (GNU) Emacs, I was  CP/M Wordstar whiz. Heh.

And I hated Emacs. But somebody was letting me play with (for 1989)
very advanced hardware and software. So I did a really old-school
thing: I bought a hardcopy manual and read it cover to cover. In less
than a year I was an Emacs fan. Even ran it on the "very advanced
hardware" from my CP/M machine at home 1000 miles away over dialup,
including writing a termcap entry for the Osborne 1. :-o

And I hated the on-line/on-board Emacs help. I found it utterly
confusing to the novice. It's gotten better but it's still a head
exploder for the novice IMNSHO.

So I empathize with any experience of rocky start.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2857

On 2014-05-16 08:00, Mike Spencer wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> 
>> I can't comment on the "discoverability" because I have forgotten what
>> it was like to come across emacs for the first time, but you can
>> certainly explore the menus in emacs and you will learn a lot.
>>
>> On load it usually shows a page with hyperlinks to various help texts as
>> well as liks to get you stared -- open a file and so on.  Again, I don't
>> know how useful these are for a beginner.
> 
> When I came first to (GNU) Emacs, I was  CP/M Wordstar whiz. Heh.
> 
> And I hated Emacs. But somebody was letting me play with (for 1989)
> very advanced hardware and software. So I did a really old-school
> thing: I bought a hardcopy manual and read it cover to cover. In less
> than a year I was an Emacs fan. Even ran it on the "very advanced
> hardware" from my CP/M machine at home 1000 miles away over dialup,
> including writing a termcap entry for the Osborne 1. :-o
> 
> And I hated the on-line/on-board Emacs help. I found it utterly
> confusing to the novice. It's gotten better but it's still a head
> exploder for the novice IMNSHO.
> 
> So I empathize with any experience of rocky start.

My first encounter was with a Sinclair QL port of MicroEmacs around
1989, it was much more powerful than any other text editor available for
that platform. There was no on-line help, but I printed the manual
(using a dot matrix printer, naturally) which became one of my most read
manuals. When a few years later I tried various Linuxen, finding the
full-on Emacs was a pleasure, though I had to use mostly Windoze for
several years. Finding a decent port of Emacs for Windoze probably
delayed my move back to Linux by at least a year, such was the
functionality it brought to Windoze.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2814

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:

> In article
> <0.bdba31149921122e329c.20140514020829BST.87mweldv5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <0.2a988d974a1a530074a9.20140513223107BST.8761l9fjs4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
>> > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <20140513173343.a026a54b.rsw@therandymon.com>, RS Wood
>> >> > <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> [Crossposted!  Follow-up set to comp.misc]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Slate is covering "the oldest rivalry in computing" and describing it
>> >> >> in layman's terms, which is pretty fun to read.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's really quite simples:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) emacs -> poubelle
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) Use a GUI text editor of your choice
>> >>
>> >> What makes an editor qualify as having a GUI?  This is a genuine
>> >> question -- I really want to know what you feel is needed.  Being an
>> >> emacs fan, it seems to me that it has a GUI (at least as I use it) but
>> >> maybe it lacks some key attribute of GUI-hood.
>> >
>> > (I may have posted this before so apols if so)
>>
>> Not that I recall, so that's fine.  Was it intended to answer my
>> question because if it was, I missed how?
>
> :-)
>
> My assumption (which may be wrong these days) is that emacs is intended
> for use on a VT100 or equivalent (that was certainly the case at the
> time I was referring to), and not on a bit-mapped display with a mouse,
> such as is the case with Notepad and equivalent.
>
> Under these conditions, I would consider Notepad et al as having a GUI,
> and emacs as not having one.

And you are wrong these days.  All the Menubar/Tool bar/help bubbles are
there plus images inside buffers along with text.  Emacs is more GUI
than Notepad will ever be.  Best part, you can hide all that crap.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2822

despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) writes:

> And you are wrong these days.  All the Menubar/Tool bar/help bubbles are
> there plus images inside buffers along with text.  Emacs is more GUI
> than Notepad will ever be.  Best part, you can hide all that crap.

I do news, mail, much shell and nearly all text in Emacs, have done so
for over 20 years.  Presently using V. 20.7 both inside an xterm and
as a stand-alone X app with twm.  I'd move to a newer version if I
could "hide *all* that crap".

I've managed to turn off menu bars, scroll bars and, with
global-font-lock-mode, nearly all the horrible hash of colorization.

How do I:

    + turn off or control the colorization of shell-mode prompt,

    + turn off or control colorization in the minibuffer and

    + make the specialness of the prompt in shell-mode go away so that
      C-a takes cursor to the real beginning of the line instead of
      just to the end of the prompt?

I've become accustomed to using various colors of Emacsen/xterms for
local-user, local-root, remote-login-user, remote-login-root
etc. setting colors explicitly from long command lines aliased
to simple mnemonics. But the colors selected by Emacs (where I have
been unable to turn them off) are often unreadable.

I have an elementary grasp of lisp, can more or less find my way around,
but get quickly and easily lost in the mare's nest of elisp.

Email okay of you actually know how to do this and have the patience
to tell me. Or, of course, here on .misc.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada
mspenbellscer@tallwhistlesships.ca (Remove bells and whistles)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2825

Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:

> How do I:
>
>     + turn off or control the colorization of shell-mode prompt,

<URL: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EnablingFontLock>

>     + turn off or control colorization in the minibuffer and

M-x list-faces-display

Hit ENTER on minibuffer-prompt to customize it.

>     + make the specialness of the prompt in shell-mode go away so that
>       C-a takes cursor to the real beginning of the line instead of
>       just to the end of the prompt?

(global-set-key "\1" (lambda () (interactive) (move-to-column 0)))
(global-set-key [C-a] (lambda () (interactive) (move-to-column 0)))


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2854

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> writes:

> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>:
> 
>> How do I:
>>
>>     + turn off or control the colorization of shell-mode prompt,
> 
> <URL: http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EnablingFontLock>
> 
>>     + turn off or control colorization in the minibuffer and
> 
> M-x list-faces-display
> 
> Hit ENTER on minibuffer-prompt to customize it.
> 
>>     + make the specialness of the prompt in shell-mode go away so that
>>       C-a takes cursor to the real beginning of the line instead of
>>       just to the end of the prompt?
> 
> (global-set-key "\1" (lambda () (interactive) (move-to-column 0)))
> (global-set-key [C-a] (lambda () (interactive) (move-to-column 0)))

That last one works, TYVM. Customization via list-faces-display
doesn't work as expected in 22.2.1 but I now have a starting point for
more elisp hacking, tnx. And I found how to make the excessive
highlighting in isearch go away on my own. Shell minibuffer still a
problem.

In another post Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr> wrote:

dw> http://bzg.fr/emacs-strip-tease.html
dw> https://github.com/joostkremers/writeroom-mode

Maybe.  That'll take some messing around to sort out what I want from
what the author wants.

dw> About colors sometimes getting in your way, you might want to try
dw> a full theme to get a better experience. One of the most
dw> well-known ones is Solarized (but there are others):
dw> http://ethanschoonover.com/solarized

Gak! A quick look suggests that's a way to choose *which* horrible
garish colors you'd like to have.  I appreciate the functionality of
code highlighting when hacking masses of C or Perl or whatever and
would use use some carefully customized but idiosyncratic form thereof
were I doing that.  But I'm not and garish colors and highlighting
drive me crazy.

Tnx for the pointers.

(And pace vim users. No hostility here.  I even use vim gladly when
Emacs isn't available.)


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2827

* Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> in comp.misc:
> I've managed to turn off menu bars, scroll bars and, with
> global-font-lock-mode, nearly all the horrible hash of colorization.

You might be interested in these, to get a minimmalistic feeling with
Emacs:

http://bzg.fr/emacs-strip-tease.html
https://github.com/joostkremers/writeroom-mode

About colors sometimes getting in your way, you might want to try a full
theme to get a better experience. One of the most well-known ones is
Solarized (but there are others):
http://ethanschoonover.com/solarized

-- 
DW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web