The Modernization of Emacs: technically superior

[Xah Lee]

Here are some Frequently Asked Questions about The Modernization of
Emacs.

They are slightly lengthy, so i've separated each item per post. The
whole article can be found at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
------------

Q: Emacs's ways are technically superior. It should not change.

A: Emac's user interface, when compared to modern software
application's user interface, is complex and unusual, however, there's
no basis whatsoever of it being actually a superior design with
regards to any sensible metrics. (in fact, much of emacs's user
interface are due to historical reasons. That is, how computers are in
1980s.)

For example, let's consider emacs's system of keyboard shortcuts. For
a keyboard shortcut system, we might judge its quality based on
several aspects. Here are some examples of consideration:

    * Is it easy to learn? (is it familiar to most people?)
    * Is it easy to type? (is most frequently used commands easy to
type?)
    * Is it easy to remember?
    * Are more frequently used commands have the easier-to-type
shortcuts that less frequently used commands?
    * Are most frequently used commands all have a keyboard shortcut?
    * Can the shortcut system somehow be consistent and extensible to
cover other user defined shortcuts?

Emacs's keyboard shortcuts system, somewhat satisfies the last aspect,
but do very bad with respect to all the others. Emacs keyboard
shortcuts are perhaps one of the most difficult to learn among
software, and is also one of the most difficult to remember. The worst
aspect of emacs's keyboard shortcuts, is that it is ergonomically
painful. (Many emacs-using programer celebrities have injured their
hands with emacs. (e.g. Richard Stallman, Jamie Zawinski), and emacs's
Cntl-x keyboard and Meta-x combinations are most cited as the major
turn-off to potential users among programers)

Computer keyboard is a hardware interface, and the mapping of commands
to the key press combinations can be considered from a Operation
Research point of view. The keyboard hardware itself can be designed
with consideration of ergonomics (that's why we have split and curved
keyboards), but consideration of what functions to map to what key
presses is also non-trivial if the software has large number of
functions or if the software is mission critical. Think of it this
way, consider a airplane cockpit, filled with knobs, dials, buttons,
and switches. Now, if your job is to map the airplane control
functions to these switches, what are the things to consider for a
optimal map?

If we take careful consideration on creating a keyboard shortcut
system for emacs, it is actually easy to create a system that are
purely superior in some technical sense than the ad-hoc Emacs's ways.

Aside from keyboard shortcuts system, Emacs's other user interfaces
are also questionable. For example, one major aspect of emacs
operation is that it uses a single window for multiple purposes and
files. Emacs is this way not because of a design decision, but rather
due to historical reasons. Computer resources in the 1980s are very
limited. When emacs is around, graphical system of showing “windows”
is not practically available, and the emacs's method of using the
screen (the textual-based-monitor) for presenting multiple tasks
(“buffers”) is actually a very advanced user interface design not
available in software of that era. When graphical systems becomes
practical in the 1990s, drawing a window takes a lot memory, and
opening multiple windows is slow and inpractical.

Modern software interface (say, post 2000) usually uses one window per
file (or task), and or show a tab if multiple task is to be
represented in a single window. However, in general, emacs doesn't
provide the tabs visual clue and still remained its old way of using a
single window for all files and tasks as its standard operation. As
far as user interface design is considered per se with respect to
today's computing standards, the emacs's way is inferior because it is
less intuitive. Arguably, emacs's operation methods may be more
efficient for expert users. 20 years ago, efficiency for expert users
may out weight the ease of use for majority of average users. But in
today computing era, computers are standard tools in every household,
efficiency and ease of use for general users is as important for
professional users. Even for professional users, it is openly
questionable that emacs's ways of operation induced by its default
user interface allows faster or more efficient operation than a user
interface based on modern software conventions.

  Xah
  xah at xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/