4 ms·

There's also http://emacs.sexy/ http://emacs.sexy/

by aarohmankad 12y ago

3ifbyw 12y ago
This feels strangely relevant: https://rms.sexy/ https://rms.sexy/
- kristopolous 12y ago
  https://rms.sexy/img/p1010270.jpg https://rms.sexy/img/p1010270.jpg is a great one.
joliv 12y ago
Ooh, and http://vim.sexy http://vim.sexy!
- lucb1e 12y ago
  It died. This still works for me: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://vim.sexy http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
smacktoward 12y ago
The "How to Learn Emacs" infographic that's linked a little ways down on that page includes a bit of attitude that drives me nuts: NOTE: The Emacs tutorial has lots of weird terms: "Meta key", "frame", "buffer". This is because Emacs started a LONG time ago. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it with practice. I have no idea why we make people jump through the hoops of learning archaic terminology, rather than evolving the software to use the terms people actually use today. The Meta key is called the "Meta key" because that's the label that was on the keyboards of the Lisp machines in the MIT AI lab when Emacs was first developed. It's been thirty-plus years since that key was found on anything close to a significant fraction of keyboards in use in the world. There's no evidence that it's ever going to make a roaring comeback, either. In other words, the Meta key, as a key, is dead and gone. It is literally as dead as disco! And yet the name persists, even though the way people have interacted with the "Meta key" for decades has been to press a key labeled something other than "Meta." So: why hang on to a dead word? It serves no practical purpose, and does active harm by confusing people new to the editor. But no, rather than update our terminology so it bears some resemblance to the world we actually live in, we hang on to it and tell newcomers that to learn Emacs they're just going to have to get used to pretending they're working on a space-cadet keyboard, because that's The Way It Has Always Been Done. Sigh.
- gaius 12y ago
  Because Escape Meta Alt Control Shift of course :-)
- rcthompson 12y ago
  Because the terminology is tied into the code in ways that would cause incompatibility with past code if changed. For example, emacs uses "frame" to mean what we now call a "window" and vice versa, and all the functions for interacting with windows and frames reflect this usage. If one just did a blanket search-and-replace swap of window and frame throughout the entire Emacs codebase and documentation, you would probably have a working Emacs, but all external packages and customization code that interact with windows or frames in any way would now be broken. You can't just update the documentation but leave the code as is, because then you have to start telling people ridiculous things like "switch windows with 'other-frame' and switch frames with 'other-window'", which isn't going to be any less confusing that what you started with. Elisp is a dynamic language, so you can't set up some sort of name-translation layer and use it for backward-compatibility with old code (that code could have a reference to an old name inside a quoted form, or even a string). And the window/frame term swap is only one of many such examples. So basically, you could make your own Emacs that uses modern terminology and is completely incompatible with all existing 3rd-party elisp code, and then you could try to convince people to switch to it. But would having two equivalent but fundamentally incompatible Emacs/elisp variants be beneficial to Emacs as a whole? I doubt it.
  - oblio 12y ago
    This might sound a bit harsh - so basically condemning Emacs to obsolescence. Emacs has a lot of hurdles in front of it: niche extension language, huge volume of customization before it becomes usable for your average Notepad++/Sublime user, etc., why add confusing documentation and naming on top of it? The cost is huge, but IMO it is worth paying. It is a one time cost (refactoring, updating the documentation and many/most extensions) which could open Emacs to a much larger audience.
    - spopejoy 12y ago
pyre 12y ago
I personally like the emacs.sexy icon better than the current one (Emacs 24.4 on OSX). I actually liked the older icon better than the current one too.

There's also http://emacs.sexy/ http://emacs.sexy/

3ifbyw 12y ago

This feels strangely relevant: https://rms.sexy/ https://rms.sexy/

kristopolous 12y ago
https://rms.sexy/img/p1010270.jpg https://rms.sexy/img/p1010270.jpg is a great one.

joliv 12y ago

Ooh, and http://vim.sexy http://vim.sexy!

lucb1e 12y ago
It died. This still works for me: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://vim.sexy http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

smacktoward 12y ago

The "How to Learn Emacs" infographic that's linked a little ways down on that page includes a bit of attitude that drives me nuts: NOTE: The Emacs tutorial has lots of weird terms: "Meta key", "frame", "buffer". This is because Emacs started a LONG time ago. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it with practice. I have no idea why we make people jump through the hoops of learning archaic terminology, rather than evolving the software to use the terms people actually use today. The Meta key is called the "Meta key" because that's the label that was on the keyboards of the Lisp machines in the MIT AI lab when Emacs was first developed. It's been thirty-plus years since that key was found on anything close to a significant fraction of keyboards in use in the world. There's no evidence that it's ever going to make a roaring comeback, either. In other words, the Meta key, as a key, is dead and gone. It is literally as dead as disco! And yet the name persists, even though the way people have interacted with the "Meta key" for decades has been to press a key labeled something other than "Meta." So: why hang on to a dead word? It serves no practical purpose, and does active harm by confusing people new to the editor. But no, rather than update our terminology so it bears some resemblance to the world we actually live in, we hang on to it and tell newcomers that to learn Emacs they're just going to have to get used to pretending they're working on a space-cadet keyboard, because that's The Way It Has Always Been Done. Sigh.

gaius 12y ago
Because Escape Meta Alt Control Shift of course :-)
rcthompson 12y ago
Because the terminology is tied into the code in ways that would cause incompatibility with past code if changed. For example, emacs uses "frame" to mean what we now call a "window" and vice versa, and all the functions for interacting with windows and frames reflect this usage. If one just did a blanket search-and-replace swap of window and frame throughout the entire Emacs codebase and documentation, you would probably have a working Emacs, but all external packages and customization code that interact with windows or frames in any way would now be broken. You can't just update the documentation but leave the code as is, because then you have to start telling people ridiculous things like "switch windows with 'other-frame' and switch frames with 'other-window'", which isn't going to be any less confusing that what you started with. Elisp is a dynamic language, so you can't set up some sort of name-translation layer and use it for backward-compatibility with old code (that code could have a reference to an old name inside a quoted form, or even a string). And the window/frame term swap is only one of many such examples. So basically, you could make your own Emacs that uses modern terminology and is completely incompatible with all existing 3rd-party elisp code, and then you could try to convince people to switch to it. But would having two equivalent but fundamentally incompatible Emacs/elisp variants be beneficial to Emacs as a whole? I doubt it.
- oblio 12y ago
  This might sound a bit harsh - so basically condemning Emacs to obsolescence. Emacs has a lot of hurdles in front of it: niche extension language, huge volume of customization before it becomes usable for your average Notepad++/Sublime user, etc., why add confusing documentation and naming on top of it? The cost is huge, but IMO it is worth paying. It is a one time cost (refactoring, updating the documentation and many/most extensions) which could open Emacs to a much larger audience.
  - spopejoy 12y ago

pyre 12y ago

I personally like the emacs.sexy icon better than the current one (Emacs 24.4 on OSX). I actually liked the older icon better than the current one too.