Re: Great SWT Program
- From: twerpinator@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:46:44 -0000
On Nov 7, 6:30 am, b...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bent C Dalager) wrote:
I don't remember any useful status bar information in emacs.
Mine currently says
--1-:**-F1 .article.6075 (Fundamental)--L23--Top---
That resembles the sort of thing I remember seeing. Needless to say,
if you haven't learned Swahili* it's incomprehensible.
* Or something of the sort, anyway.
Also needless to say, Notepad's (and even Word's) is much closer to
self-explanatory and neither requires weeks of intensive training to
interpret.
Sometimes
it showed something cryptic, like "M-x:",
That would be the [proceeds to speak in tongues]
Oh, how lovely. You'd think that after a few superficial differences
in terminology or some such, there'd quickly prove to be deep
similarities with every other user interface ever designed by man.
Instead, what you find is that trying to explain one odd thing leads
to three unfamiliar and strange bits of terminology, each of which is
defined in terms of five more, and each of those, seven more ...
The status bar above tells me I'm in Fundamental mode. If I put emacs into c++-mode, it becomes
something like:
--1-:**-F1 .article.6075 (C++ Abbrev)--L35-- 7%--
Amazing! Now it's exactly as cryptic as it was before! (Aside from
"Abbrev", anyway, which is obviously the obligatory recursively self-
referential in-joke that no gnu software would be complete without.)
That's because you must use C-g to back out of things.
That, in turn, is because the developers must have been smoking crack
when they devised the key bindings.
Thus the argument boils down to your claiming, purely subjectively,
that current GUI apps are "not good enough" in some sense, and being
unable to furnish any reasonable argument or evidence to support your
claim.
There is therefore no point in your continuing it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ." :-)
Oh, come off it. The most you've managed is to furnish something
vaguely resembling evidence that *you personally* find GUIs to be
inadequate in some way. This fails to say much about the rest of the
human species, particularly when you are clearly highly unusual in
several respects. For example an ordinary human being is strongly
visually oriented, with sound second and other senses distant thirds,
fourths, and fifths. Anyone who feels more at home feeling their way
around something like emacs instead of using a normal UI is probably
sound or even tactile oriented instead for some odd reason. Words and
bumping into stuff trump vision for them.
It does not, however, include "general text editing", except perhaps
for certain memorization savants. It mainly includes "navigating a
text file in a GUI-less environment while possessing a prodigious
ability to exactly memorize large volumes of ASCII character
sequences", which is quite narrow.
That doesn't sound like an editor I would like to use.
He says, while apparently composing his post with it.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: Wildemar Wildenburger
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: Bent C Dalager
- Re: Great SWT Program
- References:
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: bbound
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: Bent C Dalager
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: bbound
- Re: Great SWT Program
- From: Bent C Dalager
- Re: Great SWT Program
- Prev by Date: Re: Why are women too dumb to program a computer???
- Next by Date: Re: finalize() overhead
- Previous by thread: Re: Great SWT Program
- Next by thread: Re: Great SWT Program
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|