4 ms·
In the most general sense, “Document” is a better name, because more people understand what a document is than understand what a “buffer” is.
by randomsearch 4y ago
In the most general sense, “Document” is a better name, because more people understand what a document is than understand what a “buffer” is.
- mattkrause 4y agoMaybe not for emacs? You can have buffers that are views of many different things: directories, shells, REPLs, email boxes, etc. People might not know what a buffer is, but I think they'd be surprised to see those "in" a document, which might be worse.
- carl-erwin 4y ago"Document" can be puzzling when working on a directory. A "buffer" is a transition zone the user can work/interact with (and sync to it's source if any)
- astrobe_ 4y agoDesigns these days try to hide the distinction between volatile memory ("RAM") and mass storage ("disk"), so buffers can only be more and more an alien concept for common users, if not a design defect. However, I think it doesn't really matters, because people who choose to use Emacs (or Vim) - even among developers - are much more likely to be aware of those "low level" details or understand and adapt easily. So how they are named doesn't matters more than the odd "frame" term Emacs uses instead of "Windows".
- chimprich 4y agoWhat happens if you open two buffers to view two parts of the same document (easy in Emacs, not possible in lots of editors)? If you switch focus or close one, what are you manipulating? Not the document. You could choose a different name (view?) but it's a different abstraction compared to a "document".
- trelane 4y agoDid you mean two windows in the same buffer? Or did you mean opening the same file in two buffers, each attached to its own window?