 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>> I look at the text, not the window furniture. (I don't care much for
>> the M$
>> window furniture anyway, but I definitely appear to be in a minority
>> there ;-))
>
> OK. But it would be nice if the text itself was crisp and readable, no?
Anti-aliasing means blur. No AA means crisp. ;)
Anyway, if you go "emacs -nw" on a console, you may entirely drop the
ancient GUI and use it on the console, which may pretty well mean having
the AA fonts from your terminal setting, like in gnome-console.
>>> 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?
XEmacs took that route of embracing GUIs and their lifestyle. It means
there's tons of buttons and tons of menus inside menus without end.
GUIs work when you have limited software like notepad. When you have
tons of features like Emacs and IDEs, all those buttons begin to get in
the way. Ever looked into Eclipse?
>> Because it's not relevant? Most people who would benefit from using
>> something
>> like emacs probably don't give a monkeys about how it looks.
>
> Funny, each time I set up SciTE, the first thing I do is change *all*
> the fonts to monospace, and then fiddle with the sizing so it's
> appropriate for the resolution of monitor I'm using (and how far away
> I'm sat). And then I turn on the line numbering. And line wrapping. (The
> kind where it shows you where the wrapped lines are, not the kind where
> it actually inserts newline characters.)
>
> Being stuck with one ugly terminal font would just annoy me.
>
>> In any case, I think
>> a black background and fixed-width text is much more suitable for
>> programming
>> than a wysiwyg word processor.
>
> No sensible person programs with a word processor. It's the wrong tool.
Yet I've seen coworkers typing SQL in Word. Yes, it's insane and
depressing.
> But there are studies that show that black-on-white is easier to read
> than white-on-black, and I'd prefer to be able to change it.
I enjoy cyan-on-black more. :)
>
>>>> C = ctrl
>>> So "C-u" actually means "Ctrl+U"?
>>
>> Aye. Again, I think it's just an old notation.
>
> OK, fair enough.
>
> By the way... what kind of keyboard actually has a Meta key?
In modern PC keyboards it binds to Alt.
For historical reasons, Meta is maintained despite being a key only
existing in ancient computer keyboards. Emacs is from that era and
despite evolving through the years, still uses ancient terminology, like
buffers instead of tabs.
Anyway, without Meta, the emacs command M-x would lose it's meaning. ;)
> Emacs is a Lisp interpretter running a text editor application written
> in Lisp. If you just want to change some setting, you can probably get
> away with adjusting a variable. But if you want to alter something there
> isn't a setting for... you need to modify the source code.
Which is in Lisp. Not only variables, you can add hooks too. :)
> seems Warp has done this.) The similarity is that, like SciTE, it'll
> take you hours to figure out which secret hidden setting changes the
> thing that's annoying you. (Or even whether there *is* a setting to
> change a particular behaviour...)
Small baby steps on the manual over a few months can do wonders. Over
the years and you get a new Emacs guru. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escreveu:
> Invisible wrote:
>>
>> Actually, it appears that kill = cut and yank = paste. (WTF?)
>>
>
> Yeah, that's pretty screwy terminology. Why not use terminology like
> delete, copy and insert?
Because it's geeky software in the same humorous way of nerdy MIT
tradition, where puns acronyms abound. Why have boring enterprise-ready
names?
> Interestingly, Visual Studio has Emacs emulation. I don't know how far
> it goes, though. But, I suppose if you're used to doing things the Emacs
> way it could be very useful.
Yes, a very good thing when you're trying to bring C++ die-hards over to
your product. I used it a bit and realized they provided even cyclic
buffers. Funny thing is that they don't seem to have that functionality
available by default.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen escreveu:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:08:50 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> at least that makes sense ... even if the terms cut and paste didn't
>> exist back then.
>
> 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.
whoa! You're... an experienced man. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
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.
Sooo... what was the justification for Yank and Kill? Just confusing
terms to keep the neophytes away, then?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>
> Not really. A mouse usually has only 3 buttons (2 if you're unlucky).
> And I doubt any menu system can hold all the commands that exist in
> Emacs. Besides - harder to code macros if you have to do everything
> using menus and mice.
>
Or one button if you're really unlucky.
Isn't this what scripting engines are for, though? Many programs have
hundreds of commands, not all are accessible by the keyboard or menu
system or mouse clicks.
I don't doubt that Emacs is incredibly powerful... But, it's not always
the appropriate tool.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:36:40 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>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.
>
>Sooo... what was the justification for Yank and Kill? Just confusing
>terms to keep the neophytes away, then?
I don't know but Goggle says
http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/packages/html/calc_17.html
I'm not and never have been a programmer. Every line's a struggle :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:37:57 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>Stephen escreveu:
>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:08:50 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> at least that makes sense ... even if the terms cut and paste didn't
>>> exist back then.
>>
>> 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.
>
>whoa! You're... an experienced man. :)
I'll sell you some :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Actually, I've often wondered what such things as ^M are supposed to mean.
>
> You have clearly never used any unix.
...and? :-}
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I don't think Andrew bothers with that stuff. He's just having some
> bashing fun and when it's over he'll turn back to his underpowered
> editor and lose hours upon hours of his life doing something by hand
> that exist as a few key presses in either emacs or vim. Of course
> losing 30 minutes of his life to actually learn the precious basics of a
> powerful editor is not worth it.
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. Not that such remarks
are going to change anybody's minds...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
