 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> Ubuntu doesn't
>> come default with Emacs installed and I guess neither do other
>> user-geared distros.
>
> If I remember correctly, OpenSUSE doesn't install emacs by default
> either (unless you select it in the installation options).
>
> Not that it matters, as it's trivial to install afterwards with a
> couple of mouse clicks.
Yes. Or from the command-line via ssh. I remember when I was an emacs
nut and asked my boss to install emacs on a client server before I could
do some job there... :P
A while after I realized there was a hell of a lot more in vi than
simple, dumb line-oriented commands geared at systems admins...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis escreveu:
> Yes. Or from the command-line via ssh. I remember when I was an emacs
> nut and asked my boss to install emacs on a client server before I could
> do some job there... :P
>
> A while after I realized there was a hell of a lot more in vi than
> simple, dumb line-oriented commands geared at systems admins...
hahaha, just had a good laugh now remembering that occasion: it was a
job to be done remotely in some PHP code in the client, not programming
related, just settings. Job done, all is well. Next day I get to
workplace and my boss is walking around in circles, talking at the
cellphone, typing at a remote terminal, cursing like mad, not
understanding at all why everything stopped working at the client.
Turns out I thought it'd be a good idea, good programming practice, not
to allow globals. So I turned off register_globals or something at
php.ini. :P I then realized it could have something to do with it and
briefly mentioned it to him.
good irresponsible times... :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:40:55 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:40:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> So what is it that Emacs does
>>> that's so awesom? What can it do that Notepad can't?
>>
>> emacs is a religion. Notepad isn't.
>
> Yes, emacs can move mountains. ;)
LOL.
vi can as well, but with lower memory usage. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:29:05 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> That's actually still only true for vi (not even vim).
Actually, many distros include vim instead of vi.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> A while after I realized there was a hell of a lot more in vi than
> simple, dumb line-oriented commands geared at systems admins...
I'm so accustomed to doing things in the "windows-style" text editing
way (which the emacs option pc-selection-mode mostly provides) and which
only works on X (not on the terminal for the simple reason that the VT
terminal protocol does not support all the necessary key combinations)
that it's difficult to do anything with an editor which only works on
the terminal and thus cannot be configured for those special key
combinations.
Of course when emacs is run on a terminal (rather than X), pc-selection-mode
will obviously not work (because of the terminal limitations) but I can
still use it more or less fluently.
Never having used vi, it's just almost impossible to use for anything.
I once was forced to use it because there just was no other text editor
in that system and I just had to edit a file, and it was next to impossible.
vi doesn't work like a regular text editor, ie. you start it with a file,
edit the file (by moving the cursor and writing text), then exit the file
(which offers you the option of saving the file). Even pico is easier to
use on the first time.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:36:29 -0400, Warp wrote:
> vi doesn't work like a regular text editor, ie. you start it with a
> file, edit the file (by moving the cursor and writing text), then exit
> the file (which offers you the option of saving the file)
Huh? That's exactly how I use vi.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> OK. Who let the vi guy in the Emacs thread?
Oops. I stepped out for a minute, but it seems they took over for me. That was
a close one.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Never having used vi, it's just almost impossible to use for anything.
> I once was forced to use it because there just was no other text editor
> in that system and I just had to edit a file, and it was next to impossible.
> vi doesn't work like a regular text editor, ie. you start it with a file,
> edit the file (by moving the cursor and writing text), then exit the file
> (which offers you the option of saving the file). Even pico is easier to
> use on the first time.
Oh, I see you're pulling an Andrew: you don't care to learn the
emacs/vi way, so you bash it.
I was a pretty advanced emacs user and thought exactly the way you just
described: it felt like a very alien line-oriented simplistic tool fit
only for the needs of configuration file editing.
That was until I went out of my way to discover why so many people
seemed to enjoy it just as much as emacs and -- just wait for it! --
_actually sat down to learn it_. Then I realized it was just as enjoyed
as emacs because it's about as powerful in its own way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For most software programmers not writing device drivers, more than yes.
> :)
Or games, or simulation software, or any software where calculations need to
be performed in real-time, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Windows is far more used than Linux and thus it is expected that most
> Blender users are also Windows users.
So why not use the normal Windows GUI in the Windows port?
> "2 lines" of platform-specific C code that will likely require in turn
> another hundreds of lines of specific wrappers and type declarations just
> to call those "2 lines". dired mode is only suffering for people who do
> not take their time to learn how to properly use it.
Most people don't have time to learn all the quirky features of every single
program, that's why OS standards exist for common operations like "show
context menu", "save", "select" etc.
> I remember vim very well because I carry it along with me everywhere I go.
But if you used Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Paint Shop Pro, Blender, Emacs,
POV, Visual Studio, some other 3D software etc all regularly and they all
used different keyboard shortcuts and UIs, would you remember them all and
be able to work very efficiently? I know I certainly wouldn't be able to.
MS wrote the app style guide for a reason.
>> 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"?
>
> The disadvantage is that it began that way and people learned it that way
> and if they change now people will complain. Legacy software is always
> like that.
I said *apart* from "it's always been like that" (that can be fixed by a
simple "legacy mode" option). I guess not then.
> Never heard of it. Niche tools can indeed do better by going
> platform-specific.
No, it is still available for 4 or 5 platforms IIRC (including Linux and
Solaris) so I guess they managed somehow.
> I realize now you didn't comment on my comparation with games and their
> specific interfaces.
It was a silly comparison, for a start your comment was wrong, if you read
any amount of game reviews you'll see people compain about UIs all the time,
just the other night I was reading some reviews on Amazon for GTA4 and it
was full of UI complaints. Games that run in the desktop environment (like
minesweeper, poker clients etc) all use the standard Windows UI anyway.
Some of those that run full-screen provide a separate config app that does
use the Windows UI to change all the settings. Those that don't can be
annoying at times if badly designed - what's your point? My point is just
use the Windows GUI and standards, everyone knows how to use it and it's
easier for you as a programmer - you can't go wrong.
> And lazy people who wish to use it if only it didn't take some learning.
Clever people realise there's no need for it to take as much learning as it
currently does, and then search for alternatives.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escreveu:
>> Windows is far more used than Linux and thus it is expected that most
>> Blender users are also Windows users.
>
> So why not use the normal Windows GUI in the Windows port?
Because the OpenGL interface works on both, unmodified.
>> just to call those "2 lines". dired mode is only suffering for people
>> who do not take their time to learn how to properly use it.
>
> Most people don't have time to learn all the quirky features of every
> single program, that's why OS standards exist for common operations like
> "show context menu", "save", "select" etc.
OS standards change from OS to OS.
> But if you used Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Paint Shop Pro, Blender, Emacs,
> POV, Visual Studio, some other 3D software etc all regularly and they
> all used different keyboard shortcuts and UIs, would you remember them
> all and be able to work very efficiently?
Seemingly, yes. I'm a regular user of Firefox, Thunderbird, Blender,
Gimp, vim, Excel, Delphi and MS SQL Analizer. All of them have many
special quirks and having just 3 or 4 common keyboard shortcuts shared
among them doesn't help that much.
> My point is just use the Windows GUI and standards,
> everyone knows how to use it and it's easier for you as a programmer -
> you can't go wrong.
Not when you want it to be cross-platform and you don't have enough
resources to please specific platform audiences.
> Clever people realise there's no need for it to take as much learning as
> it currently does, and then search for alternatives.
Clever people realize not having 3 or 4 common keyboard shortcuts is a
lame excuse for not learning the other 80 or so specific features and
shortcuts a software might provide.
In the case of text editors, the only true viable alternative to emacs
is vim.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Nothing more fake than claiming a language is about as fast as C, when
> in fact it's *compiled as C*, in the first place.
Nah. Being a high-level language that compiles down to C that's as fast as
one might have written manually in C is pretty impressive.
Being *slower* than "native" C while compiling down to C is easy. Being as
fast as C when compiling down to C is tough. Being faster than C is (I'd
say) impossible if you actually have C as an intermediate language.
Otherwise, SQL is nothing more than fancy assembly language.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> So in your opinion people who have been using emacs in a unix system
> for 20 years have no right to use the same software in the exact same
> way in Windows?
My favorite is how emacs brings up the help screen when you hit backspace.
I'm pretty sure the defined meaning of backspace predates emacs. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Being *slower* than "native" C while compiling down to C is easy. Being
> as fast as C when compiling down to C is tough. Being faster than C is
> (I'd say) impossible if you actually have C as an intermediate language.
Look up Stalin Scheme. A heavily agressive optimizing compiler for
Scheme that quite a few times generates C code that beats hand written C
code. If you look at the C source it outputs, you'll be shocked by how
badly it treats C as truly portable assembly. Lots of structs and loop
unrolls. Worthy of the name.
It is very slow to compile as it's a whole program compiler performing
many analyses and type inferencing. It's meant as the very last step in
the development cycle, after all iterative developing, testing and bug
fixing was done and is ready to go production. Think about that, truly
being able to program in a confortable language without ever thinking on
how to make the compiler happy and getting top-notch fast code without
any tweaks...
OTOH, it doesn't support such niceties of Scheme such as a full-numeric
tower, full-continuations or define-syntax.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> My favorite is how emacs brings up the help screen when you hit
> backspace. I'm pretty sure the defined meaning of backspace predates
> emacs. :-)
I may be a little rusty at emacs but I don't really remember that.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Look up Stalin Scheme. A heavily agressive optimizing compiler for
> Scheme that quite a few times generates C code that beats hand written C
> code. If you look at the C source it outputs, you'll be shocked by how
> badly it treats C as truly portable assembly. Lots of structs and loop
> unrolls. Worthy of the name.
Sure. It generates code you wouldn't dream of spending the time to generate
by hand. But it's still not going to be faster than the best C that can be
written for that platform. (That's kind of a "duh, no kidding" statement,
sure.)
Contrast with something that generates machine code natively, which might
output code that your C compiler would never output, for example.
If your front-end outputs C, you're never going to out-perform the C code it
generates. If your C compiler can't take advantage of the GPU to do math or
can't hook into interrupt vectors directly or ..., then your language isn't
going to do better.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> My favorite is how emacs brings up the help screen when you hit
>> backspace. I'm pretty sure the defined meaning of backspace predates
>> emacs. :-)
>
> I may be a little rusty at emacs but I don't really remember that.
Backspace is C-h, yes? C-h is "help". Gets me every time.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> As for kill and yank, do realize that Emacs is old. I'm not sure cut
> and paste was common editor parlance in those days.
Of course it was. "Cut and paste" is the term left over from before
computers, remember? :-) It's how you composed a newspaper before digital
ever existed.
I suspect it's more because there were way too many mnemonic keys needed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> By the way... what kind of keyboard actually has a Meta key?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-cadet_keyboard
A lot of the keyboards that had multiple character sets (like APL keyboards)
had meta keys too. Sun SPARCstations had meta keys.
Wasn't that uncommon before IBM keyboards took over.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (I'm pretty sure I recall seeing shell scripts that generate edlin
> scripts that do useful stuff. Notepad would be useless here.)
http://nerds-central.blogspot.com/2007/01/using-vbscript-to-paste-text-into.html
Not that I'm seriously suggesting the technique, mind...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If I need to edit a file remotely through SSH, emacs will do the job
> (regardless of which OS I'm using, because emacs will be running on the
> remote computer), notepad won't.
That's why they invented RDP and VNC.
Altho in this case, I usually prefer VI, because it's lower bandwidth and
you can work effectively with very delayed feedback.
Maybe emacs is the same, but I find I can't easily drive emacs without
feedback after most command keystrokes, while it's easy to (for example)
find a string in vi without all the incremental stuff.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Never having used vi, it's just almost impossible to use for anything.
The commands are definitely unintuitive. The modal interface is hard to
understand if you don't know about it.
> I once was forced to use it because there just was no other text editor
> in that system and I just had to edit a file, and it was next to impossible.
It ain't notepad. :-)
> vi doesn't work like a regular text editor, ie. you start it with a file,
> edit the file (by moving the cursor and writing text), then exit the file
> (which offers you the option of saving the file).
This is actually how it works, except that inserting text is a command
rather than the default mode.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Altho in this case, I usually prefer VI, because it's lower bandwidth and
> you can work effectively with very delayed feedback.
Along with gnu screen, it makes a pretty powerful combo for ssh work. If you
leave things running at work and if you really feel like it, you can reattach
from anywhere and pick up where you left off.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:17:58 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Never having used vi, it's just almost impossible to use for
>> anything.
>
> The commands are definitely unintuitive. The modal interface is hard to
> understand if you don't know about it.
I find vi to be completely intuitive.
:/s/find/replace/g = globally replace "find" with "replace"
:q
Quit
:q!
Forced quit
:w
Write
:w!
Forced write
Etc....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:13:40 -0400, triple_r wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Altho in this case, I usually prefer VI, because it's lower bandwidth
>> and you can work effectively with very delayed feedback.
>
> Along with gnu screen, it makes a pretty powerful combo for ssh work.
> If you leave things running at work and if you really feel like it, you
> can reattach from anywhere and pick up where you left off.
>
> - Ricky
Screen is one of my favourite CLI tools. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:17:58 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Never having used vi, it's just almost impossible to use for
>>> anything.
>> The commands are definitely unintuitive. The modal interface is hard to
>> understand if you don't know about it.
>
> I find vi to be completely intuitive.
>
> :/s/find/replace/g = globally replace "find" with "replace"
>
> :q
>
> Quit
>
> :q!
>
> Forced quit
>
> :w
>
> Write
>
> :w!
>
> Forced write
completely intuitive for a seasoned ed user. ;)
You know what is not intuitive either? A Boeing user interface. Yet,
it'll get you farther and faster than your intuitive bicycle. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:23:46 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> Forced write
>
> completely intuitive for a seasoned ed user. ;)
Intuitive once you've learned it. ;-)
> You know what is not intuitive either? A Boeing user interface. Yet,
> it'll get you farther and faster than your intuitive bicycle. :)
True, but sometimes a bicycle is all you need, you don't need a 747 to
take you to the corner market. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Darren New escreveu:
> >> My favorite is how emacs brings up the help screen when you hit
> >> backspace. I'm pretty sure the defined meaning of backspace predates
> >> emacs. :-)
> >
> > I may be a little rusty at emacs but I don't really remember that.
> Backspace is C-h, yes? C-h is "help". Gets me every time.
That depends on your console settings, actually.
If you run emacs on X, the backspace key will be bound to the backspace
keycode and it will be distinct from C-h.
When I run emacs on Konsole (with DISPLAY disabled), the backspace key
is bound to the 'del' keycode rather than C-h.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > vi doesn't work like a regular text editor, ie. you start it with a file,
> > edit the file (by moving the cursor and writing text), then exit the file
> > (which offers you the option of saving the file).
> This is actually how it works, except that inserting text is a command
> rather than the default mode.
Both you and Jim are *deliberately* "misunderstanding" what I'm saying
above.
No, it's *not* how it works.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I find vi to be completely intuitive.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
Intuitive means that its basic operations can be used by someone who
has never used the program before.
Intuitive does not mean that you find it easy to use after having years
of experience.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:41:03 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I find vi to be completely intuitive.
>
> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
I believe I do have a pretty solid grasp of the English language, Warp.
We've had this discussion before.
> Intuitive means that its basic operations can be used by someone who
> has never used the program before.
>
> Intuitive does not mean that you find it easy to use after having
> years
> of experience.
--- snip ---
intuitive (___________), a. (and n.)
[ad. med.L. intuit_v-us, f. intuitus intuition; cf. F. intuitif, -ive.]
A. adj.
† 1. a. Beholding, seeing. Obs.
† b. Of sight or vision: That consists in direct and immediate looking
upon an object, and sees it as it is. Obs.
† 2. Said esp. of the kind of ‘vision’ or immediate perception ascribed
to angelic and spiritual beings. (See intuition 4.) Obs. (or merged in 3).
3. a. Of knowledge or mental perception: That consists in immediate
apprehension, without the intervention of any reasoning process.
b. Of a truth: Apprehended immediately or by intuition.
c. Of any faculty or gift: Not acquired by learning; innate.
4. Of the mind or reason, or a mental act or process: That acts by
intuition or immediate apprehension; opposed to discursive.
5. Of persons: Possessing intuition.
6. Of or pertaining to the school of moral philosophy that holds the
first principles of ethics to be apprehended immediately or by intuition.
7. Obvious to the senses; directly visible. rare.
B. n. One who works by intuition.
--- snip ---
Now, when I use vi, I don't have to think about the specific commands to
save a file, exit the editor, insert new text, etc. ie, 3.a., "immediate
apprehension, without the intervention of any reasoning process."
Knowing that pressing ":" is arguably a learned thing, but "w" for write,
"q" for quit, "i" to insert text, "a" to add text - that is pretty
intuitive.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:39:37 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim are *deliberately*
Don't you *dare* tell me that I'm deliberately misunderstanding you. You
have no idea what my *deliberate* processes are.
If there is a misunderstanding, it is not deliberate on my part. We
don't seem to be using words in the same way is all.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:39:37 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Jim are *deliberately*
> Don't you *dare* tell me that I'm deliberately misunderstanding you. You
> have no idea what my *deliberate* processes are.
Fine, you are not doing it deliberately. You are misunderstanding what
I wrote because you are stupid?
Is that better?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-4-2009 11:10, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:39:37 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>>> Jim are *deliberately*
>
>> Don't you *dare* tell me that I'm deliberately misunderstanding you. You
>> have no idea what my *deliberate* processes are.
>
> Fine, you are not doing it deliberately. You are misunderstanding what
> I wrote because you are stupid?
>
> Is that better?
>
Before continuing this fight. Please remember Jim is a native speaker
and you are not. Which means that he may have a better knowledge of what
words actually mean in English but also that he may be forgetting that
that is not the language we are speaking here. The language here is that
ugly derivative known as international English/global English or
whatever you want to call it. By definition nobody is a native speaker
of that.
Apart from the language issue there is also that issue of you not being
able to read his mind. My estimate is that there is no way you can win
that argument.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Before continuing this fight. Please remember Jim is a native speaker
> and you are not. Which means that he may have a better knowledge of what
> words actually mean in English but also that he may be forgetting that
> that is not the language we are speaking here. The language here is that
> ugly derivative known as international English/global English or
> whatever you want to call it. By definition nobody is a native speaker
> of that.
> Apart from the language issue there is also that issue of you not being
> able to read his mind. My estimate is that there is no way you can win
> that argument.
I tried to explain myself as well as I could (about why vi is different
from regular text editors) and I really think that everybody does understand
what I mean. He (as well as Darren) deliberately chose to ignore what I was
saying and instead chose to nitpick about why "that's exactly what you do
with vi as well", completely ignoring the differences I was talking about.
Well, that's fine, but when he gets all cocky and presumptuous and starts
yelling things like "don't you dare to tell me *blaa blaa*" it goes a bit
too far.
Thus I asked him if he would have preferred that I call him stupid,
rather than assuming that he was just nitpicking on purpose. Fine by me
either way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2009 04:41:03 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I find vi to be completely intuitive.
>
> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
>
You, Warp, don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
It does not mean instinctive.
> Intuitive means that its basic operations can be used by someone who
>has never used the program before.
>
That is "instinctive".
> Intuitive does not mean that you find it easy to use after having years
>of experience.
True.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> Thus I asked him if he would have preferred that I call him stupid,
>rather than assuming that he was just nitpicking on purpose. Fine by me
>either way.
You did not, you called him stupid. It doesn't mater if you used a question mark
at the end of your sentence or not.
Andrel is wrong, we are not speaking "International" English. Americans will
always speak American English and the English will speak "standard" English or
the Queen's English. Each country that has its own variation of English will
naturally speak and write it. I speak and write Stephen's English and I often
have a hard time communicating.
Sae nae mair fechtin
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2009 04:41:03 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> I find vi to be completely intuitive.
> >
> > You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
> >
> You, Warp, don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
> It does not mean instinctive.
I have never heard to word "instinctive" being used in the context of
computer program user interfaces. I have heard the word "intuitive" used
a lot, and the meaning has always been approximately "a first-time user
(who may or may not be fluent with computers in general) can more or less
easily start using the program from the visual clues only, without having
to read tutorials or help text".
In the specific case of text editors I would consider "intuitive" if
you can use the basic functionalities of a text editor program you are
using for the first time if you have ever used any other common text
editors, and other programs in that system in general.
You say that "intuitive" does not mean that, and that "instinctive" is
the more correct word. Do you have any actual concrete reference to this?
Some actual examples where "intuitive" is *not* being used in the way I
described above, and instead "instinctive" is?
Theoretical nitpicking about semantics is one thing, practical language
as used by the majority is another.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >
> > Thus I asked him if he would have preferred that I call him stupid,
> >rather than assuming that he was just nitpicking on purpose. Fine by me
> >either way.
> You did not, you called him stupid. It doesn't mater if you used a question mark
> at the end of your sentence or not.
It doesn't matter? So now you decide what I wanted to express with what
I wrote?
No, I didn't call him stupid. I asked him if he would have preferred me
to call him stupid instead of assuming he was nitpicking on purpose.
If you deliberately want to interpret it in a different way, then I suppose
there's nothing I can do about it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2009 06:54:52 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Thus I asked him if he would have preferred that I call him stupid,
>> >rather than assuming that he was just nitpicking on purpose. Fine by me
>> >either way.
>
>> You did not, you called him stupid. It doesn't mater if you used a question mark
>> at the end of your sentence or not.
>
> It doesn't matter? So now you decide what I wanted to express with what
>I wrote?
>
No, no, no, no!
I decided nothing I'm telling you what a native English speaker would take from
what you wrote. I would not presume to tell you what you think. Your command of
the English language is fantastic, so good in fact that I generally forget that
it is a foreign language for you. But as Andrel has pointed out on several
occasions, to avoid confusion and offence we should use International English.
Personally I don't think that will happen especially with the Brits. (We Scots
get offended when the Southern English say that they can't understand us and
want subtitles on Scottish TV programmes.)
> No, I didn't call him stupid. I asked him if he would have preferred me
>to call him stupid instead of assuming he was nitpicking on purpose.
Even so that is still offensive it is as good as calling him stupid. As a lesson
in culture, there are many places in the UK where if you said that to a male. It
would be a prelude to a physical fight. Trust me on this it is not a good thing
to say.
There are a few places where a woman would "glass" you too. (NB no smileys)
>If you deliberately want to interpret it in a different way, then I suppose
>there's nothing I can do about it.
Now you are presuming to know that I think but maybe if you read my reply
without prejudice you will see that I am trying to be helpful.
XXX
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2009 06:52:35 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2009 04:41:03 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> >Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> I find vi to be completely intuitive.
>> >
>> > You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
>> >
>
>> You, Warp, don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "intuitive".
>> It does not mean instinctive.
>
> I have never heard to word "instinctive" being used in the context of
>computer program user interfaces.
Neither have I.
>I have heard the word "intuitive" used
>a lot, and the meaning has always been approximately "a first-time user
>(who may or may not be fluent with computers in general) can more or less
>easily start using the program from the visual clues only, without having
>to read tutorials or help text".
>
Yes I agree but you said:
On 18 Apr 2009 04:41:03 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Intuitive means that its basic operations can be used by someone who
>has never used the program before.
And that would be instintive IMO.
> In the specific case of text editors I would consider "intuitive" if
>you can use the basic functionalities of a text editor program you are
>using for the first time if you have ever used any other common text
>editors, and other programs in that system in general.
>
So would I.
> You say that "intuitive" does not mean that, and that "instinctive" is
>the more correct word. Do you have any actual concrete reference to this?
>Some actual examples where "intuitive" is *not* being used in the way I
>described above, and instead "instinctive" is?
>
> Theoretical nitpicking about semantics is one thing, practical language
>as used by the majority is another.
There is a difference IMO between common speech and technical speech. When
talking about computer systems you (not you Warp but you, everyone) should be
careful with the terminology you use. I agree what you meant was described as
intuitive but what you said is described as instinctive. As far as I know we,
the human race, have no instinct relating to computers but with a little
experience and learning we can have intuition.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> As for kill and yank, do realize that Emacs is old. I'm not sure cut
>> and paste was common editor parlance in those days.
>
> Of course it was. "Cut and paste" is the term left over from before
> computers, remember? :-) It's how you composed a newspaper before
> digital ever existed.
AARRGGHH!!!
When I said editor parlance, I meant computer editor parlance. I _know_
"hardcore" editors used it before computers.
I thought I had put the word computer in there. Must have been too sleepy.
According to Wikipedia:
"Apple Computer widely popularized the computer-based cut-and-paste
paradigm through the Lisa (1981) and Macintosh (1984) operating systems
and applications"
Somehow I'm sure the concept existed before, since emacs had it.
Perhaps they meant that Apple popularized the terminology?
--
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> No, I didn't call him stupid. I asked him if he would have preferred me
> to call him stupid instead of assuming he was nitpicking on purpose.
False dichotomy.
--
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-4-2009 12:30, Stephen wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2009 06:18:09 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> Thus I asked him if he would have preferred that I call him stupid,
>> rather than assuming that he was just nitpicking on purpose. Fine by me
>> either way.
>
> You did not, you called him stupid. It doesn't mater if you used a question mark
> at the end of your sentence or not.
>
> Andrel is wrong, we are not speaking "International" English. Americans will
> always speak American English and the English will speak "standard" English or
> the Queen's English.
I disagree. You may speak the Queen's English at home or at work, just
as I do speak Dutch at home. Here in this newsgroup we all speak
International English. No matter if your first language is another
variant of English or not that is for everyone of us the second or third
language.
> Each country that has its own variation of English will
> naturally speak and write it. I speak and write Stephen's English and I often
> have a hard time communicating.
> Sae nae mair fechtin
Does that translate to: So no more fighting?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-4-2009 16:56, Stephen wrote:
>
> There are a few places where a woman would "glass" you too. (NB no smileys)
WTH is to 'glass'. Please stick to expressions that belong to
International English. ;) (NB with a smiley)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:23:46 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> You know what is not intuitive either? A Boeing user interface. Yet,
>> it'll get you farther and faster than your intuitive bicycle. :)
>
> True, but sometimes a bicycle is all you need, you don't need a 747 to
> take you to the corner market. ;-)
Yeah, it was a poor analogy because it's not two ways: once learned the
basics, vi is excellent as a bike as well! Just ask any *nix sysadmin. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> as I do speak Dutch at home. Here in this newsgroup we all speak
> International English. No matter if your first language is another
> variant of English or not that is for everyone of us the second or third
> language.
I agree! International English is teh shizznit! :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:08:39 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>On 18-4-2009 16:56, Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> There are a few places where a woman would "glass" you too. (NB no smileys)
>
>WTH is to 'glass'. Please stick to expressions that belong to
>International English. ;) (NB with a smiley)
Richt Jimmy ;)
"To glass" someone (NB noun used as a verb) is to move your beer glass at high
velocity in the direction of your subjects face. Possibly asking "does your
mother sew? Well get her to stitch this. You bampot <optional>."
Remember, you can take the boy out of Govan but you can't take Govan out of the
boy. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:05:51 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>I disagree. You may speak the Queen's English at home or at work, just
>as I do speak Dutch at home. Here in this newsgroup we all speak
>International English. No matter if your first language is another
>variant of English or not that is for everyone of us the second or third
>language.
>
Of course you disagree but make it work. :P
>> Each country that has its own variation of English will
>> naturally speak and write it. I speak and write Stephen's English and I often
>> have a hard time communicating.
>> Sae nae mair fechtin
>
>Does that translate to: So no more fighting?
Aye/Yes
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-4-2009 18:20, Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:08:39 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> On 18-4-2009 16:56, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> There are a few places where a woman would "glass" you too. (NB no smileys)
>> WTH is to 'glass'. Please stick to expressions that belong to
>> International English. ;) (NB with a smiley)
>
> Richt Jimmy ;)
> "To glass" someone (NB noun used as a verb) is to move your beer glass at high
> velocity in the direction of your subjects face. Possibly asking "does your
> mother sew? Well get her to stitch this. You bampot <optional>."
>
> Remember, you can take the boy out of Govan but you can't take Govan out of the
> boy. :)
What is a bampot and who is this Govan you are speaking of? Oh, nevermind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
