The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding

[Falcolas]

On Jun 21, 2:10 pm, Kaldrenon <kaldre... at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think anyone can make the argument that any (past or current)
> graphics-based editor is as efficient when being used to its fullest
> as a text-based editor. It's basic math - it takes measurably more
> time to move a hand to the mouse, move/click the mouse, and more the
> hand back to the touch-typing position than it does to execute even a
> moderately complex series of keystrokes. Maybe not large amounts of
> time -per action-, but it doesn't take too long for it to add up if
> you spend a lot of time editing.
>
> Contrast the time saved by not having to reposition one's hands, the
> extensibility, and customization against the learning curve of an
> interface that doesn't exactly throw its controls at the user, and
> here's the conclusion I think results: graphical interfaces are -
> easier- to develop some proficiency with, but proficiency with emacs
> pays of far more in the long run.

I have to point out, that this makes the assumption that the most oft-
used commands in a GUI editor are not as easily accessed from the
keyboard as they are in a terminal editor.

I took a moment to look at the gui editor which has been made
available to me, and short of the "remove leading spaces" commands, I
do not need to remove my hands from the keyboard if I do not want to.

Your statement holds true if, and only if, a user does not take full
advantage of the keyboard commands. But if we're talking about
experienced users in both cases, then that's not an issue, is it?