4 ms·

> You need to learn to open a file, edit it, move around and exit and the edit/view mode. Everybody learns how to do it. At first it sucks but you can learn thi

> You need to learn to open a file, edit it, move around and exit and the edit/view mode. Everybody learns how to do it. At first it sucks but you can learn this in 5 min. > Nothing too hard, and yes, do use the direction keys, it's not the 70s anymore. All of that applies to emacs too. What's the difference? > Usability problems are never the fault of the user. That's contrary to the old saying: a bad workman always blames his tools.

jholman 8y ago
> That's contrary to the old saying: a bad workman always blames his tools That is not what that means. If GP had said "I cannot write good code in Emacs", that'd be a poor craftsman blaming their tools. But saying "this tool is not as effective as this other tool" is a thing that good craftsmen do. (I'm not addressing the original claim, just meta-meta-critiquing your meta-critique).
raverbashing 8y ago
> All of that applies to emacs too. What's the difference? It's in the post > That's contrary to the old saying: a bad workman always blames his tools. It doesn't go contrary. Some tools are bad, some don't. That's why I choose the tool that doesn't get in the way and don't blame me for not joining their cult: vim
close04 8y ago
Usability is always and without a doubt the responsibility of the designer. The old saying might be valid for tools that are meant for complex tasks. Expert level tools where doing the job a certain way is more important than doing it intuitively. In reality that saying is mostly used as an excuse for a tool that could be more effective but isn't. If something as basic as a text editor is so unintuitive it is not the user's fault. There's always the option of providing better examples or documentation, or a more intuitive "control scheme" which allows users to toggle between "old" and "new". The fact that some tools choose to do it "the hard way" is almost entirely rooted in tradition and reluctance to do it another way. Not because it's better.

jholman 8y ago

> That's contrary to the old saying: a bad workman always blames his tools That is not what that means. If GP had said "I cannot write good code in Emacs", that'd be a poor craftsman blaming their tools. But saying "this tool is not as effective as this other tool" is a thing that good craftsmen do. (I'm not addressing the original claim, just meta-meta-critiquing your meta-critique).

raverbashing 8y ago

> All of that applies to emacs too. What's the difference? It's in the post > That's contrary to the old saying: a bad workman always blames his tools. It doesn't go contrary. Some tools are bad, some don't. That's why I choose the tool that doesn't get in the way and don't blame me for not joining their cult: vim

close04 8y ago

Usability is always and without a doubt the responsibility of the designer. The old saying might be valid for tools that are meant for complex tasks. Expert level tools where doing the job a certain way is more important than doing it intuitively. In reality that saying is mostly used as an excuse for a tool that could be more effective but isn't. If something as basic as a text editor is so unintuitive it is not the user's fault. There's always the option of providing better examples or documentation, or a more intuitive "control scheme" which allows users to toggle between "old" and "new". The fact that some tools choose to do it "the hard way" is almost entirely rooted in tradition and reluctance to do it another way. Not because it's better.