4 ms·
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 w
by 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 agoThis 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 agoWhat I'd like to "condemn to obsolesence" is this tired narrative that insists that emacs needs to change to "get with the times." People were saying this when I starting using emacs in 2000, back when vi vs. emacs could still erupt into flame wars. I left text editors for a few years (buried in Eclipse) but came back recently for Haskell and Go, and the community is ON FIRE. So much good stuff now: Melpa, flycheck, magit. PS: "Meta" is fine. There's no standard "Alt" key anyway. On Mac, meta is often the "option" key but not always. It helps that Emacs has it's own term when switching between Windows, Mac, VNC of either, terminal, etc.
- asah 12y ago+1, fascinating to see emacs remain front page news 20+ years after I first started using it, and even more shocking, I'm still finding new features. Multiple-cursors looks amazing.