3 ms·

The fact that Emacsen developers started to create text-manipulation terminology earlier is laudable. But it doesn't make Emacsen terms better. From purely prag

The fact that Emacsen developers started to create text-manipulation terminology earlier is laudable. But it doesn't make Emacsen terms better. From purely pragmatic perspective we have almost a separate language which brings additional barrier for entry, while adding no particular value. I really feel like we stick to sunk-cost fallacy here.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
I fear I may be wasting my time replying, but I'm going to try and understand where you're coming from rather than answer your question about Emacs. Your complaint comes across very much like moaning that strawberries are not the same as cherries. Quite true, and that is exactly why it's a good thing; I would prefer to have a world with strawberries and cherries. Emacs is different from (e.g.) Visual Studio and that's a good thing. Your complaint seems to be that you want Emacs to resemble something else, okay, and after the terminology matches do you want the key bindings to match as well,? And then what do you want? How close in the end, do you want them to look and behave? And if you want them very close, then just use what you're familiar with already and don't worry about us Emacs users. ISTM you are trying to turn Emacs into visual studio, if not then please make it clear what precisely you want other than injecting phrases like "barrier to entry". Please be specific. The biggest barrier to entry for you is yourself; the fact that you're not prepared to try something different. So please tell me, what exactly do you want Emacs to end up looking like, if not a clone of Visual Studio?
- brokenkebaby 3y ago
  I'm not sure if your answer is for my comment, or you posted it to the wrong thread. If it's the former, could you clarify what part of my comment you answering?
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    You're talking about terminology being a barrier to entry. Terminology is trivial but suppose we changed it (yank -> paste, kill -> cut etc). Now you'll not be happy with the key bindings (C-y to paste, C-k to cut) and want them to be replaced with the Windows/Mac standard – right? Because developing new muscle-memory for a different style of working is a lot heavier than just learning new terms for existing things. Having done that you'll want all the other key bindings changed surely? And I can see it progressing from their – Emacs regular expressions don't behave quite like visual studio IIRC, for example. Search and replace is pretty weird if you're not used to it. Rectangular selection is very different in Emacs from visual studio. etc. If you change Emacs you lose a lot of what makes it Emacs, and good. So if I'm not misrepresenting you, and apologies if I am, I don't see your demands for change stopping until Emacs resembles, perhaps, visual studio, in which case why not just use visual studio? I hope that makes sense.
    - brokenkebaby 3y ago
      Now, it's clearer what you mean. But still doesn't not make much sense, sorry! You apparently see something which I didn't say, and refute something which I didn't say with impressive energy. No, making docs using common terms of today won't make you wish to turn Emacs to Visual Studio, or whatever other IDE you don't like. There are Emacs tutorials written in languages other than English where standard terminology for that particular language used. You know, you would not invent a separate word just to mirror idiosyncrasy of Emacs slang present in English. Trust me, there are no signs that after reading them somebody got obsessed with turning Emacs into Visual Studio.
      - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        Then you destroy any remaining trace of a link between the key binding and the action. You can imagine the conversation "control p to go up? Control y to paste? v to go down – perhaps that's v for vertically down or something? Who designed this crap anyway". Maybe it would work but I'm not feeling optimistic :-)
        brokenkebaby 3y ago
        Emacs is a programmable environment constructor, ain't it? Significant share of users prefer evil-mode, and use "p in command mode", not c-y. There are people who have custom keyboards (and even pedals) and their bindings often tuned to that fact. So "control y" is not more sacred than the leftmost pedal, and link is ephemeral anyway.
        _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        I think the mnemonic link matters for beginners, but let's say I agree with you. By calling the link ephemeral haven't you just undermined your own argument that the terminology is a barrier?
        brokenkebaby 3y ago
        Of course I haven't as I made zero claim about mnemonics. We're talking about readability i.e. cognitive burden which by definition increases with amount of unknown words, or words with unexpected contextual meanings

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

I fear I may be wasting my time replying, but I'm going to try and understand where you're coming from rather than answer your question about Emacs. Your complaint comes across very much like moaning that strawberries are not the same as cherries. Quite true, and that is exactly why it's a good thing; I would prefer to have a world with strawberries and cherries. Emacs is different from (e.g.) Visual Studio and that's a good thing. Your complaint seems to be that you want Emacs to resemble something else, okay, and after the terminology matches do you want the key bindings to match as well,? And then what do you want? How close in the end, do you want them to look and behave? And if you want them very close, then just use what you're familiar with already and don't worry about us Emacs users. ISTM you are trying to turn Emacs into visual studio, if not then please make it clear what precisely you want other than injecting phrases like "barrier to entry". Please be specific. The biggest barrier to entry for you is yourself; the fact that you're not prepared to try something different. So please tell me, what exactly do you want Emacs to end up looking like, if not a clone of Visual Studio?

brokenkebaby 3y ago
I'm not sure if your answer is for my comment, or you posted it to the wrong thread. If it's the former, could you clarify what part of my comment you answering?
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  You're talking about terminology being a barrier to entry. Terminology is trivial but suppose we changed it (yank -> paste, kill -> cut etc). Now you'll not be happy with the key bindings (C-y to paste, C-k to cut) and want them to be replaced with the Windows/Mac standard – right? Because developing new muscle-memory for a different style of working is a lot heavier than just learning new terms for existing things. Having done that you'll want all the other key bindings changed surely? And I can see it progressing from their – Emacs regular expressions don't behave quite like visual studio IIRC, for example. Search and replace is pretty weird if you're not used to it. Rectangular selection is very different in Emacs from visual studio. etc. If you change Emacs you lose a lot of what makes it Emacs, and good. So if I'm not misrepresenting you, and apologies if I am, I don't see your demands for change stopping until Emacs resembles, perhaps, visual studio, in which case why not just use visual studio? I hope that makes sense.
  - brokenkebaby 3y ago
    Now, it's clearer what you mean. But still doesn't not make much sense, sorry! You apparently see something which I didn't say, and refute something which I didn't say with impressive energy. No, making docs using common terms of today won't make you wish to turn Emacs to Visual Studio, or whatever other IDE you don't like. There are Emacs tutorials written in languages other than English where standard terminology for that particular language used. You know, you would not invent a separate word just to mirror idiosyncrasy of Emacs slang present in English. Trust me, there are no signs that after reading them somebody got obsessed with turning Emacs into Visual Studio.
    - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      Then you destroy any remaining trace of a link between the key binding and the action. You can imagine the conversation "control p to go up? Control y to paste? v to go down – perhaps that's v for vertically down or something? Who designed this crap anyway". Maybe it would work but I'm not feeling optimistic :-)
      - brokenkebaby 3y ago
        Emacs is a programmable environment constructor, ain't it? Significant share of users prefer evil-mode, and use "p in command mode", not c-y. There are people who have custom keyboards (and even pedals) and their bindings often tuned to that fact. So "control y" is not more sacred than the leftmost pedal, and link is ephemeral anyway.
        _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        I think the mnemonic link matters for beginners, but let's say I agree with you. By calling the link ephemeral haven't you just undermined your own argument that the terminology is a barrier?
        brokenkebaby 3y ago
        Of course I haven't as I made zero claim about mnemonics. We're talking about readability i.e. cognitive burden which by definition increases with amount of unknown words, or words with unexpected contextual meanings