>>> Screenshots don't show functionality.
>> No, but they do show me that the UI looks utterly horrid.
> 
> It does strike me as a little odd to criticise emacs for having an ugly UI... I
> realise that visual icing sells products, but you wouldn't complain that a
> command shell has an ugly UI. It's like not buying a car because you don't like
> the layout of the engine bay.

If you're going to spend hours of your life staring at something, 
wouldn't you like it to look nice?

I mean, if you're forced to use a console window to do something, then 
fair enough. But this is 2009. We have graphics systems capable of 
better. Why not make use of that fact?

>> Er, no... HOW DO YOU TYPE THAT? What buttons is it actually telling you
>> to press?
> 
> C = ctrl

So "C-u" actually means "Ctrl+U"?

>> About the most convincing justification I could find was "it has
>> millions of tiny features that together add up to something special". Of
>> course, you'd have to use it for 20 years to find out of that's actually
>> true or not...
> 
> Well, I've been using it at work for about 6 months, and while I've not really
> altered it from our default config I am starting to like it. It's main
> advantage as far as I can see is the degree to which it can be customised -
> basically, you can build your own text editor based on what commands/keystrokes
> you prefer to work with.

Well, I don't know. SciTE is open-source. If you want to, it's perfectly 
possible to download the source code and modify it. But let's face it, 
who the hell is going to do that? Nobody. Similarly, Emacs lets you 
change absolutely anything [with the not inconsiderable detail that you 
don't have to recompile anything]. But only once you've read and 
memorised the entire source tree. How feasible is that, really?

Post a reply to this message