Re: Great SWT Program

On Jan 2, 3:24 pm, b...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bent C Dalager) wrote:
Except nothing. It does require a mode switch. Period.

Now that you have conceded to remove the "crufty" descriptor

I have conceded nothing. Your text-mode mode switch with no visual cue
is, of course, crufty.

NO, YOU MISERABLE FUCKING LIAR, *YOU* DID! YOU CONCEDED THAT BOTH
TOOLS REQUIRED A MODE SWITCH INSTEAD OF ONLY MY TOOL.

[calls me a liar]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Well, I shall be sad to see you go. We've had a lot of fun together
here.

I don't respond well to threats.

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH YOU INFURIATING PIECE OF ***!

[lies and puts words in my mouth again]

Liar.

Editing the document isn't the most common case of course[snip]

Only in Bent-world does one primarily use a text editor for some other
purpose than editing text.

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Interesting - which other software than emacs do you know in which I
can [search quickly]

Most software in existence of course.

[calls me a liar]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

(The only important thing is speed; all else being equal, the
mechanics are irrelevant, though standards-compliance is nice to
have.)

Sorry. Wrong post. Typing systems discussion is --> THATaway. Here
we're discussing search in emacs vs. in other software, Bent.

[snip irrelevancies about typing systems]

Sorry. Wrong post. Typing systems discussion is --> THATaway. Here,
we're discussing search in emacs vs. search in other software.

Or were you trying to change the subject again?

[implied insult deleted]

I'll take that as a "yes".

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

YES, IT DOES!

[blitherings deleted]

Repeat 100 times: "Merely rearranging things does not change their
number when they're counted."

Of course you do.

Not at all.

Yes you do.

You have to exit i-search mode before you can
actually do something productive like actually type some text into the
document, after all.

This happens automatically, of course.

No, it does not. Exiting i-search mode requires a manual key press.
You've even said so yourself.

Whether you do the navigating first or after
exiting i-search mode doesn't change anything there; it just moves
that keypress around.

Or, indeed, as in the real world: eliminates it.

NO, IT DOES NOT. It's simple mathematics. How can you argue with it?
X, enter, right-arrow; X, right-arrow, enter. Both are three
keypresses. Try it yourself with larger numbers to see for yourself
that rearranging a set of items does not change the cardinality of
that set.

See above, idiot. Being able to navigate (other than by editing the
query) in i-search mode does not change anything of importance here;
the mode still has to be exited.

Navigating, of course, exits i-search.

Well now you're making a totally new claim, and contradicting an
earlier claim. In particular, your earlier claim that you can navigate
in i-search mode. If navigating exits i-search mode then clearly you
cannot navigate in i-search mode.

I grow tired of your constantly changing your claims. It's rude and
dishonest.

Of course, a mode spontaneously exiting in this manner is rather
crufty, too, if your new claim is the true one rather than your
original claim.

See above, you complete and utter retard! Can you not even count to
two, you miserable little twerp? Whether you search, then exit search
mode, then move around, or search, move around, then exit search mode
makes no difference. Addition is commutative and associative.

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

No, from YOUR claims, idiot.

I still stand by the great majority of my claims.

That's a laugh! You just made another major change in your claims not
five paragraphs ago!

[irrelevancies about X11 deleted][insult deleted][calls me a liar]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Oh ye of little faith. Have you forgotten, though, that people are
self-maximizing by nature?

But only in the short term.

NO. IN GENERAL.

They do whatever produces the best cost/
benefit payoff

There and then.

NO. IN GENERAL.

, with future payoffs (and costs) naturally depreciated
on a scale determined by (among other things) remaining life
expectancy.

People tend to grossly overestimate the value of immediate or
near-future gains and underestimate that of gains in the further
future.

If by that you mean they depreciate future gains or losses, then yes.
That is normal and correct.

In the vast majority of cases, these end up being highly
efficient choices

No, not at all

YES, THEY DO.

which is why, amongst other things, we have the
obesity epidemic in the richer parts of the world.

Irrelevant. People tend to perceive sugary foods to have a large
payout. Their behavior makes perfect sense in those terms, even if not
in some more "objective" frame of reference.

, due to the nature of competitive pressures and
Darwinian forces.

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Stop insulting me, you miserable jerk.

[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

You're in the wrong place again here. Typing systems are being
discussed --> THATaway. This post is for discussing search in emacs
vs. search in other applications.

And, of course, in that debate typing systems are entirely relevant.

NO. THEY ARE NOT. THEY ARE ORTHOGONAL.

I repeat: typing systems are irrelevant here.

[insult deleted]

See above.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

That debate is happening
in another part of this thread. Please confine it there.

[bull*** and insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Wrong! I have maintained the exact opposite from the beginning and,
unlike you, have done so quite consistently without ever wavering.

Not at all, you have frequently claimed that my claim covered large
parts of the human population.

I have *consistently* claimed that your claim covered large parts of
the human population, and that it is wrong.

Wrong. This post is about search in emacs vs. search in other
applications, or had you forgotten?

[insult deleted]

See above.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

You're being irrelevant again. We are discussing search in emacs vs.
search in other applications. The typing system discussion is
happening in a different part of this thread.

[insult deleted]

See above.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Please confine it there
and stop irrelevantly bringing it up randomly in other places.

[denies having brought it up here]

Ridiculous. A quick Google search puts the lie to this nonsense of
yours, Bent.

You're also being ridiculous, maintaining your claim that typing 2N
keys is more efficient than typing N keys (for positive N).

Ah, no, that is not my claim.

Yes, you did, about two of your posts before this one. Google will
once again reveal you to be a liar, Bent.

If I had a claim along those lines it
might be that typing 2N characters with an efficient typing system is
much much faster than typing N characters in an inefficient one.

Nice try at backpedaling. Of course I agree with that, and of course
it's not what you originally said.

If you
type very fast, the difference is clearly smaller, but it still
exists; 2N will be slower than N.

Not at all, no, since the two situations are fundamentally different.

Now you're again claiming that 2N < N for N > 0? How disappointing.

For one typist, 2N may take 2
seconds and N take 1; for another, maybe 2N takes 1 second and N takes
1/2 a second.

Not if that typist used an efficient typing system for the 2N and in
inefficient one for the N, no.

But that was not the case under discussion, retard.

We have two orthogonal things here:
a) a software task that can be done in one way with 2N keypresses and
in another with only N.
b) multiple typing systems with different efficiencies

Now, b) determines a user's cps, which we call X. N > 0 and X > 0.

And 2N/X > N/X, regardless of X, given that N and X are positive.

You are trapped in an inescapable web of logic. Best give up now.

The latter isn't as affected by N extra keystrokes. But
isn't *un*affected either. This is such basic, elementary mathematics
that it's sheer insanity for you to even suggest that it might be
wrong!

[insults deleted]

Well, *that* figures.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

To do so wouldn't insult just me -- it would insult just about
every thinking man all the way back to Aristotle and then some. And
trust me when I say that you wouldn't want to get on Aristotle's bad
side. :P

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

As for whether that certain typing system is faster than all other
comers, that's neither here nor there in this part of the thread, and
your claims in that regard are hotly disputed in the part of the
thread where that *is* relevant anyway.

They are not hotly disputed so much as they get covered in pointless
blather every time you comment on them :-)

Only because you respond to everything I write by "covering it in
pointless blather". :P

I'm glad you're beginning to realize the errors of your ways, Bent.

[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Sure they are, except in Bent-world where "efficient" means "awkward
and difficult to use" of course.

[insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Except that it isn't. Imagine you have a car that really streamlines
the process of changing the oil, and also needs this done every
frigging day. Then there's another car where changing the oil is a
somewhat awkward and involved procedure, but also only needs to be
done every forty thousand klicks. Which is better with respect to oil
changing?

[insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

even if you rarely wanted to use search, having a convenient interface for it
would /still/ be superior to having a bad one.

True. But not comparable to what was under discussion. That's like
comparing the second car above to a third one with easier oil-changing
but no more frequent oil-changing instead.

You have convinced yourself of this

BECAUSE IT IS TRUE!

[snip]

*sigh*

STOP WITH THE PSYCHOBABBLE AND OTHER NONSENSE, O
SUPER-DENSE ONE!

[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Only in Bent-world is fiddling about with a finicky search and typing
dozens of characters "more efficient" than a quick flick of the wrist
and one twitch of the index finger taking 1/10 the time or less.

It isn't, of course, a "quick flick of the wrist".

But of course it is, with a properly designed user interface optimized
for such use.

It involves moving
the hand away from the keyboard and to the mouse, then positioning the
mouse over the scroll bar handle, then moving it approximately where
you want it to go, then fine-tuning the position to exactly where you
want to be, then possibly clicking within the text to get the cursor
where you want it to be, then moving the hand back to the keyboard.

All of this takes less than a second for a proficient user and given a
well-designed GUI. Moreover, depending on the exact task, moving the
hand away/back to the keyboard may be unnecessary.

In all this time, someone with an efficient typing system could have
done the search several times over.

Ludicrous. That would require ideal (or contrived) conditions, and
might not be possible even then: a) a truly stellar typing speed,
upwards of 600cpm perhaps; b) a known unique short string right near
the target, e.g. three letters long but occurring nowhere else in the
document; and c) fairly close vertical alignment of the string and the
real destination position so as to not have forty of so left- or right-
arrows (or equivalent) needed to fine-tune after the search, only a
handful and a handful of up- or down-arrows (or equivalent).

In the case that you type 600cpm exactly and you type only a handful
of characters and you're already near the destination, but the
destination is a long way left or right, you got close in under 1
second but take another 2 or 3 to fine-tune it, even if you're quite
accurate at timing the key release after holding down left or right
arrow.

You get close in the time it takes me to get *there*, and then you
have to fiddle around some more.

In the ideal case that you don't have to fiddle around too much with
the search, first. AND have top-notch typing speed.

In the realistic case, you take from 3 to 10 times as long as I do.

Except that you don't. Nothing about emacs is "easy to use". :P

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

You might want to discuss that somewhere where someone that reads it
might actually care.

[calls me a liar]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

Good recollection for text wording and awful recollection for anything
and everything else, from spatial/geometry/location stuff to the topic
we were discussing and which topic is being discussed where, it seems.

Except, of course, the topic is text-based

Irrelevant. Unless you now propose the ludicrous claim that any "text-
based" topic is as good as any other so it doesn't matter what "text-
based" topic is discussed where. :P

[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

/My/ claim is that your own personal VanillaEmacs doesn't exist.

But that is, as I explained earlier, the most recent text-only emacs.

The VanillaEmacs that you keep describing has very little in common
with the "most recent text-only emacs".

No, the VanillaEmacs that YOU keep describing has very little in
common with the most recent text-only emacs.

I haven't described any VanillaEmacs at all -- almost every use of
that name has been by you.

It is true that the "vanilla emacs" I referenced earlier in this
thread (note: two separate words, no capitalization) is the most
recent text-only emacs, more or less by definition since I used the
phrase simply as a shorthand for the latter somewhat clunky phrase.
But you then brought up this VanillaEmacs of yours, with a confusingly
similar name, so I avoided using that shorthand any more -- using a
clunkier phrase is better than using one that will likely get confused
with something largely unrelated.

Which you just admitted DOES exist. So you're contradicting yourself
again.

[insult deleted]

Of course not, and none of the nasty things that you have said or
implied about me are at all true.

Of course not. Surely you don't now dispute that nothing can be
counted on to do in emacs what it normally does in modern
applications?

Of course things do in emacs what they do in modern applications.

That's one of the biggest whoppers I've seen from you yet, though not
THE biggest, which would be the really ludicrous whopper I debunked a
few hours ago.

Let's see what does not do in emacs what it does in modern
applications:
* Selections
* Clipboard
* Backspace
* Esc
* Enter
* CLI-analogous functionality
* Search
* Wildcard characters (? and *) *in* search
* ...

The list goes on and on and on! And on. And on and on and on and on...

Emacs /is/ a modern application

And NOW you've topped your earlier whopper. It is, of course, a
"modern application" in much the way a lovingly-restored and somewhat
modified 1953 Cadillac is a "modern car".

(I was referring to emacs, of course, although you have
conveniently quoted that phrase without keeping that bit of context.)

[insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

But actually you have an astonoshingly more inefficient toggle

I do not.

[falsely accuses me of dishonesty]

MY TOGGLE IS QUITE EFFICIENT.

NONE OF THE NASTY THINGS THAT YOU HAVE SAID OR IMPLIED ABOUT ME ARE AT
ALL TRUE.

- you
need to wave your hand around from the keyboard to the mouse and then
back to the keyboard again. /This/ is the true efficiency killer, of
course.

That is only inefficient if you use an inferior, inefficient typing
system, of course. (Back atcha!)

[insults deleted]

No, mine is "a typing system adapted to modern software". Sure, one
could not operate emacs efficiently with it. One could not operate
much of anything *other* than emacs efficiently with yours. I'll take
the one that fits better with the majority of the software in
widespread use, TYVM. It is the more efficient in practise.

And none of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
.

Quantcast