 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r wrote:
> Yes, yes, I know that no one cares about vim...
>
> :2y
> :4,$s/$/^R"^H/
>
> but I'm having fun with this.
OK. Who let the vi guy in the Emacs thread?
--
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Anyway, Windows is not Unix, if you port a program from another platform
> to Windows you should at least have to use the standard Windows GUI
> controls and keyboard shortcuts. One thing that is good about *most*
> Windows apps is that they all work the same way, Ctrl-C is copy, Ctrl-S
> is save, they all use the same Windows dialog boxes, that makes it
> *easy* to learn and use. Programs that deliberately don't conform to
> these standards are just shooting themselves in the foot because users
> won't like them.
Good. Now what exactly should be the standard Microsoft shortcuts for
the following features:
- go to the start of sentence
- go to the end of sentence
- go to the start of paragraph
- go to the end of paragraph
- select following sentence
- select previous sentence
- select following paragraph
- select previous paragraph
- go down into nested scope
- go up from nested scope
- go down into nested scope
...
Yeah, things quickly get out of control when there's so much friggin'
useful functionality and so few standard shortcuts...
> Look at how many people complain about the UI of Blender and what a
> steep learning curve it has. Do you think it would be as bad if the
> Windows version actually looked and behaved like a proper Windows
> application?
Funny. It's an OpenGL application with a single OpenGL custom
cross-platform graphical interface. Reminds you of anything? Yeah,
that's right! Most games also use custom interfaces on Windows. Yet,
somehow, I don't hear complains about lack of standardized BS.
> Pressing Space to get the context menu and right button to
> select, using some file open/save mechanism from the DOS ages, using
> Ctrl-W to save, WTF is that about? - it's a horrendous application
> running on Windows in terms of the UI.
Why should it use DOS mechanisms when it predates DOS?
The fact is that Blender and Emacs are platforms in themselves. This is
good because it right away requires the user to learn it and think in
the software own terms rather than try to pathetically use it as just
another underpowered notepad, eternally relying on copy-paste and Ctrl+S
-- the assembly of text editing -- without knowing any better.
Or the user can simply sigh, turn behind and continue using his lowly
tools. I don't think emacs has much to gain anyway from people which
are just fine in notepad derivatives.
> with no documentation. A text editor however, you expect to be able to
> type stuff, copy & paste, load save etc without having to read any
> documentation because there are OS standardised ways for that stuff for
> a reason.
Sure, you should know that when you enter the emacs OS. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> You can use rectangular editing to add space for that column. Then just
> change from insert mode to overwrite and add in the numbers.
> Alternatively, in a separate buffer, type in that column. Then use
> rectangular editing to copy that rectangle, and yank it into the text
> that you want.
Actually, was just reading today. Apparently (and I haven't tried
this), you can _limit_ editing to a rectangular selection (it'll act
like a buffer). So you insert a rectangle of blank space. And then
restrict editing to within that rectangle, and it's slightly easier.
--
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> mputer keyboards. Emacs is from that era and
> despite evolving through the years, still uses ancient terminology, like
> buffers instead of tabs.
That's a bit harsh. Frankly, the use of tabs in the sense that you mean
in actual _editors_ is quite recent in Windows (at least in my
experience). People used tabs when going through an Options
Configuration window for various software.
In most programs, having stuff in separate "buffers" was still referred
to as having them in separate "windows" (not physically, but virtually).
To switch, you'd go to the Windows menu, and select the one you wanted.
--
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Eh? No! You don't have to dig into source code for Emacs to
>>>> customize it. It comes with a Lisp interpreter for a reason!
>>>
>>> You do if you want to make it do something there isn't a setting for.
>>
>> Like a new garbage collector? Pretty much only the core elisp
>> interpreter and basic IO routines are in C, the rest of emacs is elisp.
>
> I doubt anybody ever needs to dig into the C code. But if you want a new
> Emacs feature that there isn't a setting for, you're going to need to
> dig through a few hundred miles of Lisp to figure out how and where to
> add it. That's what I'm trying to say.
And I'm not sure I agree. Again, it's not a simple task of assigning a
setting. You can customize by writing your own commands. While writing
your own commands, you make use of the ones Emacs provides (a _big_ list).
Take your example of inserting a new column in a lot of text with some
predefined quantity. Should be straightforward to write your own
function for.
Now if you want to write some syntax highlighting, code cleaning for an
obscure language that Emacs does not have a mode for (not at all
unlikely), then that can take quite a bit of coding (and you'd be best
off by looking at the source code of how Emacs handles a fairly simple
language). I bet it's still significantly less than you'd do if fiddling
with the SciTE source code.
If you meant to say that "one has to learn a lot before he can make
significant changes", then I'd agree. If you simply want custom
functions that do simple tasks (like the column one, etc), then I'd
disagree.
Emacs is not an editor you just pick up and become an expert in. That
can take years. The idea is that you use it as a normal editor, and
slowly learn new things as little needs arise. Hopefully the rest will
come naturally.
--
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I think that we have had "cut and paste" since at least the 1940's as it was a
> printing term used in Phototypesetting. You would literally cut the text off a
> page then paste it onto another page. I remember using hot wax for the pasting
> in the 70's.
True, but my point (somewhere in this thread) was that in the 70's it
may not have been common parlance in _computers._
--
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> I don't doubt that Emacs is incredibly powerful... But, it's not always
> the appropriate tool.
Well, I don't browse the web with it either.<G>
--
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> One could make similar sarcastic remarks about the population at large
> refusing to learn Haskell even though it is clearly and obviously the
> most powerful programming language ever devised.
Well, so long as you don't need any decent execution speed :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Good. Now what exactly should be the standard Microsoft shortcuts for the
> following features:
> - go to the start of sentence
> - go to the end of sentence
There aren't any because features like that are not common across
applications. Things like open, save, undo, close, copy, paste etc are very
common in all applications whether they are text editors, spreadsheets,
paint programs, 3D modellers, etc, so the keyboard short cuts are specified
in the MS style guides and you should follow them.
> Yeah, things quickly get out of control when there's so much friggin'
> useful functionality and so few standard shortcuts...
Why? If there isn't a standard for your particular command then you are free
to use something else (unless it is a reserved shortcut like Ctrl-S, but
assuming your app has save functionality this will be already used).
> Funny. It's an OpenGL application with a single OpenGL custom
> cross-platform graphical interface. Reminds you of anything?
Yeh, the nightmare of trying to use Unix apps at University where things
like Delete and Backspace did different things in different apps! I wonder
how many people use Blender on both Linux and Windows regularly, compared to
those that only use it on Windows?
>> Pressing Space to get the context menu and right button to select, using
>> some file open/save mechanism from the DOS ages, using Ctrl-W to save,
>> WTF is that about? - it's a horrendous application running on Windows in
>> terms of the UI.
>
> Why should it use DOS mechanisms when it predates DOS?
Dunno, it's beyond me why they use some crappy text based folder navigator
that takes 20 years to get to "My Documents", Windows has a standard open
file dialog that is orders of magnitudes better (it includes shortcuts to
common and recent folders, plus does the folder order the correct way ie
starting with Desktop and not a list of drives), why on Earth don't they use
that? It's like 2 lines of code to call it - just completely idiotic not to
use it.
> The fact is that Blender and Emacs are platforms in themselves. This is
> good because it right away requires the user to learn it and think in the
> software own terms rather than try to pathetically use it as just another
> underpowered notepad, eternally relying on copy-paste and Ctrl+S -- the
> assembly of text editing -- without knowing any better.
But if every app decided they were "platforms in themselves" you end up
never remembering how to use any program. Really what is the disadvantage
with Ctrl-S being save instead of Ctrl-W in Blender, apart from the fact
that "it's always been like that"? At least give the option to switch
between Standard Windows interface and traditional Blender.
> Or the user can simply sigh, turn behind and continue using his lowly
> tools.
Umm, I take it you've never used any commercial 3D software designed for
Windows? The first port of Pro/Engineer (commercial 3D CAD software) to
Windows was just like Blender is today, everyone complained and hated it
apart from a few die-hard supporters. Today Pro/E looks and acts like a
proper Windows application, getting far more approval and take-up from the
industry than the earlier versions that were widely criticised.
I guess the difference is that the Blender developers have no incentive to
sell more copies. If it was a commercial operation someone with
half-a-brain would demand that a default option for standard Windows
behaviour and dialogs be added, otherwise nobody is going to take it
seriously apart from the die-hard supporters.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> One could make similar sarcastic remarks about the population at large
>> refusing to learn Haskell even though it is clearly and obviously the
>> most powerful programming language ever devised.
>
> Well, so long as you don't need any decent execution speed :-)
Are speeds in the range of 2-5x slower than C/C++ acceptable? I
thinking it's as good a trade off as was going from assembly to C
several decades ago. Specially as seeing as whole lucrative businesses
have been built around scripting languages that are about 100 to 1000
times slower than C/C++.
Haskell GHC compiler is one of the top in the computer shootout game:
http://tinyurl.com/cg5v2j
It's currently faster even than OCaml, Ada and Java -server.
Also, g++ loses to Free Pascal when taking memory usage into
consideration. :)
though it's certainly strange seeing LuaJit *before* java -server and
python and ruby not much behind... OTOH, I peeked a few C++ codes and it
looked downright assembly.
Ah, nothing more fake than programming in assembly disguised in your fav
programming language... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
