The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding

[Twisted]

On Jun 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Uhl <eadmun... at NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Twisted <twisted... at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Of course, if emacs let you keep THREE windows open and visible at the
> > same time, instead of being limited to one or a horizontally split two
> > ... and a cramped 80x10 or so each, at that ...
>
> I have two frames open right now: one 80x70, the other around 180x70
> (characters, not pixels).  One isn't split at all; the other is split
> into four windows, horizontally and vertically.

Then you're obviously not using the One True Emacs I am criticizing,
which is a console app. If we're not talking about the same piece of
software (and the one the fanatics evangelize about) then this is
pointless.

> emacs has continued doing its own thing, mostly because that thing is
> better.  The CUA standards (there exists an emacs package if you really
> want them) are broken and lame--I and most other don't wish to cripple
> our text editor of choice.

"CUA standards"? I'm sorry, I don't speak Botswanan. If you mean
Windows standards like for cut, copy, and paste, "broken and lame" is
obviously in the eye in the beholder, and something 97% of computer
users are used to is the defacto standard, so it's the other 3% that
are "broken and lame". ;)

> When you start emacs in a text console, you see this:
>
>   Welcome to GNU Emacs, one component of the GNU/Linux operating system.
>
>   Type C-l to begin editing.
>
>   Get help           C-h  (Hold down CTRL and press h)
>   Emacs manual       C-h r
>   Emacs tutorial     C-h t           Undo changes     C-x u

Really? That is not what I recall seeing. Are you talking about emacs-
the-text-mode-editor, or emacs-the-hybrid-somethingorother-when-you-
happen-to-run-it-from-the-command-prompt-on-unix? Because I've been
discussing the former.

>   Buy manuals        C-h C-m

How crass.

First I've seen anything open source/"free" software that makes sales
pitches at you. Mostly I've only seen that with closed-source Windows
"free"ware loaded with adware, and with shareware that nags you to
register or otherwise spend money with its author. And with actual
paid products, particularly those from Intuit which act as Intuit's
front-line salesmen by trying to constantly upsell you and sell stuff
to your friends and relatives. Er, thanks but no thanks. (I don't
personally spend a dime on any Intuit products. I unfortunately know
people who do. One version of some accounting software of theirs even
spammed all of a user's email contacts, by God. Where are those
Russian spammer-targeting hitmen when you need them?)

>   Activate menubar   F10  or  ESC `  or   M-`

Definitely not the stock text-mode emacs I've had my runins with in
the past, but some kind of hybrid or offshoot, then.

> Clicking within the document's window isn't obvious?!?

Clicking within the document's window is obvious but doesn't work,
unless you're using something other than vanilla emacs at least. It
did of course work in MS-DOS Edit, later versions.

> No, we're discussing emacs, a text editor which runs in both a GUI and a
> text console.  Which can display images.  It's cool like that.

No, we're discussing ... oh, nevermind. It looks like there are
several utterly different pieces of software that have one thing in
common - the name "emacs". Anyone can dodge or seem to rebut a
criticism of one of them by describing how another of them isn't like
that. :P

> > At least Windows 3.1 had most apps have the same keys for the vast
> > majority of commands, and those were the right keys. Emacs has all the
> > applications have the vast majority of their commands use the same
> > WRONG keys.
>
> Neither is right nor wrong; you're just used to one.  The emacs keys are
> certainly more flexible and powerful, though.  Some might consider them
> right for that reason.

The Windows keys are familiar to 97% of the population. Some might
consider them right for that reason.

This is also a change from your earlier position that they were, and I
quote, "broken and lame", assuming you mean the same stock Windoze
keybindings you meant with the cryptic term "CUA standards".

> > Search is usually ctrl+f, type something, hit enter in my experience.
>
> Unless you want regexp search.  And if you want to find again it can be
> interesting.

I rarely want regexp search, and if I want it I can use Notetab, a
notepad replacement with tabbed MDI and yes, regexp search. A few tabs
and a space keypress to turn it on after ctrl+f.

As for "find again" hitting enter additional times is the usual
method, in Notetab, Notepad, and elsewhere.

> > And I can use any text editor I want to edit HTML.
>
> You could use Notepad no doubt; you could also use a Turing machine.  I
> prefer to use a useful tool.

Painting it as a choice between Notepad and emacs is the fallacy of
false dichotomy. There's Notetab (useful, but non-free) and lots of
(sometimes free) other text editors (for Windows and for other
platforms).

Some specialize in HTML editing the way Eclipse's built-in editor
specializes in Java editing (and with plugins, can be made to
specialize in, say, C instead).

> No, as I've said over and over and over again, emacs is not what you
> think it is.  It has a GUI; it has colours; it can display images; it
> can use the native widget set.  It can even be configured to use native
> keybindings, although that way lies madness.

One thing I agree on regarding emacs is the phrase "that way lies
madness". I'm amending that belief to include participating in Usenet
discussions about emacs, as well as actually trying to use emacs.
Given that everyone seems to mean a distinct piece of software by the
term "emacs" it's a wonder anything coherent can be said about "emacs"
at all. Actually, the one constant to emerge in all of this is C-h
being associated with accessing the help in all of these various
emacses. And we all know that that results in backspace doing
surprising things for a text editor. :P

> Hah!  Dude, I don't use Windows--I've better things to do with my life.

Xemacs then, or whatever they're calling the bolted-on-an-X-GUI-and-
the-rivet-job-shows-from-1000-paces version these days.