 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/4/2011 9:44, Darren New wrote:
> That wasn't the question, tho. The question the video asked is "can your
> text editor do this" and then showed embedding a spreadsheet into a text
> document and regenerating HTML from that.
BTW, let's see how usable it is when that embedded spreadsheet has 1800 rows
in it, like the last time I embedded a spreadsheet into a text document
(namely, my tax paperwork last year). Let's see how responsive it is at
keeping everything nicely aligned. IME, emacs is powerful but the macros
are rarely optimized for processing large blobs of text.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 9:22, Warp wrote:
> > Can you do it in a text terminal through ssh?
> Why the hell would I do that?
Ah, the magic words. The always trusty answer when you can't do something.
A simple "no" would have sufficed, you know.
> > Can
> > you run it on Windows, Linux, MacOS X, BSD, Solaris, and basically any
> > Unix-style OS in existence? Can you get that software for free?
> That wasn't the question, tho. The question the video asked is "can your
> text editor do this"
The video might have asked that question, not me. I was just giving an
example of why emacs has been traditionally deemed as a very powerful text
editor in the unix world.
> and then showed embedding a spreadsheet into a text
> document and regenerating HTML from that. And the answer is "yes, my text
> editor can do that." I mean, come on, they're showing off that they can put
> columns in a text file that adjust to the width of the text in the column?
> Yes, indeed, my text editor can do that.
Are you sure you don't mean "my spreadsheet software, embedded in my
word processor, can do that" instead of "my text editor can do that"?
Not exactly the same thing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> BTW, let's see how usable it is when that embedded spreadsheet has 1800 rows
> in it, like the last time I embedded a spreadsheet into a text document
> (namely, my tax paperwork last year). Let's see how responsive it is at
> keeping everything nicely aligned. IME, emacs is powerful but the macros
> are rarely optimized for processing large blobs of text.
That reminds me of all the people who complain how the Gimp can't do this
and the Gimp can't do that, always comparing it to PhotoShop.
The thing is, the rare occasion I need to do some image editing, I'd
rather use the *free* software rather than pay big bucks for the pro
software which might be really superb, but costs a kidney and runs only
on Windows. The free alternative might not have even a fraction of the
features, but at least it's free and available for my system of choice.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2011 18:36, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 9:28, andrel wrote:
>> If this is about color, it might indeed have been added later. What I am
>> using now does support it.
>
> Neither color nor images were supported by TeX in 1991 when I used it
> for my thesis.
images were when I did mine in 1996. pretty sure we also used them a few
years before that.
>> there was a sort of generalized output format (or input format for the
>> printing device, depending on your POV).
>
> Well, more like only supported when there was a post-processor to put
> the images into the empty spots TeX left for them, and only supported
> when color printers were common. :-)
I haven't studied how they did it.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/4/2011 9:57, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> On 8/4/2011 9:22, Warp wrote:
>>> Can you do it in a text terminal through ssh?
>
>> Why the hell would I do that?
>
> Ah, the magic words. The always trusty answer when you can't do something.
>
> A simple "no" would have sufficed, you know.
No, I'm serious. Why would I want to do that? Why wouldn't I just access the
file remotely, instead of accessing the program remotely.
I can access it through an encrypted WIMP link (either VNC over ssh, or
RDP), and I can access it through an encrypted file system link, so the
ability to access it over a VDU just doesn't come into play, really.
Asking "can you access this powerful visual editor thru a serial port" is a
silly question that shows just how little advantage the editor has over
others. If I wanted to edit a spread sheet and generate HTML from it, I
wouldn't feel the need to use a VT100 to do it. I'd copy the file locally,
make the changes, and copy the changes back. Or I'd host the file remotely
and I'd run the software locally. Or I'd use an encrypted channel to access
the software remotely if that's the only place it was installed. I don't
find using VT100 escape codes to edit spreadsheets in modern times a
credible reason for calling an editor powerful any more than I'd say "hey,
can your handset work on a crossbar-5 switch that doesn't support
touchtone?" a credible reason for picking a particular phone over others.
Hence the "wtf" kind of response. :-) I'd say the same thing if you said
"yes, but can your text editor then serve up those pages like a web server?"
While the answer for emacs is "yes", the answer for any normal person would
be "why wouldn't I use a web server for that?"
> The video might have asked that question, not me. I was just giving an
> example of why emacs has been traditionally deemed as a very powerful text
> editor in the unix world.
OK. You said "it's things like this", then pointed out a video showing off
the customizability of emacs. VIM can do the same thing. TECO can do the
same thing. PMate can do the same thing. Word can do the same thing (even
without being customized). (And yes, all of those editors ran on all the
popular OSes of their day except Word, and most were free.) Lots and lots of
editors can be customized these days.
If you want to argue over editors that can run in a VT100 emulator (and,
honestly, probably not on an actual VT100), then sure, there's a niche
market for that.
But any computer beefy enough to run Emacs is going to be beefy enough to
run a windowing system that lets you use an editor that's easier to use.
> Are you sure you don't mean "my spreadsheet software, embedded in my
> word processor, can do that" instead of "my text editor can do that"?
> Not exactly the same thing.
Are you sure you don't mean "me elisp interpreter, embedded in my text
editor, can do that"?
If I didn't have the ability to embed spreadsheets in Word automatically,
then yes, I'd write a VBA or .NET macro to do that. Probably with a lot less
code than it took to do it in elisp, given that tables are already built
into Word. :-)
Embedding one program inside another has been around since Win3.1. It's a
fundamental building block of the system. That's why Office is sold as a
group. Excluding that (and its benefits) would be as nonsensical as asking
if emacs can run without a file system underlying it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Can you do it in a text terminal through ssh?
>
>> Why the hell would I do that?
>
> Ah, the magic words. The always trusty answer when you can't do something.
>
> A simple "no" would have sufficed, you know.
Can I run it removely? Yes.
Can I run it remotely using 40-year old technology? No.
Would I want to? No.
>> and then showed embedding a spreadsheet into a text
>> document and regenerating HTML from that. And the answer is "yes, my text
>> editor can do that." I mean, come on, they're showing off that they can put
>> columns in a text file that adjust to the width of the text in the column?
>> Yes, indeed, my text editor can do that.
>
> Are you sure you don't mean "my spreadsheet software, embedded in my
> word processor, can do that" instead of "my text editor can do that"?
> Not exactly the same thing.
One of the things they claim is so great about Emacs is that you can
hook it up to external programs (grep, ls, diff, make, etc.)
Under Windows, it's way harder to do this via the CLI, but also way
easier for the tiny number of systems that support stuff like COM.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/4/2011 10:01, Warp wrote:
> That reminds me of all the people who complain how the Gimp can't do this
> and the Gimp can't do that, always comparing it to PhotoShop.
Except that's an actual, real example from my actual, real life. Once a
year, I wind up with about 2000 rows of spreadsheet in a text document for
the internal revenue service. :-)
NFW would I try to use emacs to lay out a spreadsheet to generate a 90-page
report that has to fit properly the pre-printed forms the government
expects. That's just not a text-editor thing.
I understand what you're saying. But I think a large number of people who
(for example) say people are stupid for paying for something like Office are
the people who don't use it in situations where it's worth paying for. They
say things like "why would I need a 90-page-long table with totals under
some columns embedded in the middle of some other text document, especially
a table where some third party is going to control the width of the columns
and the layout of the text?"
> The thing is, the rare occasion I need to do some image editing, I'd
> rather use the *free* software rather than pay big bucks for the pro
> software which might be really superb, but costs a kidney and runs only
> on Windows. The free alternative might not have even a fraction of the
> features, but at least it's free and available for my system of choice.
Well, sure. You're not the target market. Every pro I've talked to who has
tried Gimp says not only is it very limited, it's not organized in a way
that matches the way one works on professional-size documents and layout.
Sort of the way Andrew is complaining about Ctl-S vs ctl-x ctl-s not being
intuitive or needing more keystrokes for the common case.
Imagine if you took Blender, and arranged the options in the windows at the
bottom based on where in the code you implemented them, rather than putting
all the texture stuff in one place and all the animation stuff in another
place and all the modeling stuff in a third place. I might not find that
distressing, but any professional used to some expensive package like Maya
would say "who the heck designed this?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/4/2011 10:16, andrel wrote:
> images were when I did mine in 1996. pretty sure we also used them a few
> years before that.
The only support for images was "leave a spot for an image this big here."
Then you could plug stuff in later in the processing chain that would
actually insert the image. Maybe. Sometimes. Not infrequent to spend two
or three days just getting the 200-page copy printed out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/4/2011 10:25, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Under Windows, it's way harder to do this via the CLI, but also way easier
> for the tiny number of systems that support stuff like COM.
Almost everything on Windows supports COM. COM has been around since Win3.
I'm not sure why you think it's a tiny number, except for the programs
actually ported poorly from Unix, or the programs ported from Unix where
people say "why would you ever want to automate this with a *standard*
scripting language?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/4/2011 10:17, Darren New wrote:
> OK. You said "it's things like this", then pointed out a video showing off
> the customizability of emacs. VIM can do the same thing. TECO can do the
> same thing. PMate can do the same thing.
I *will* grant you that elisp is easy to understand and write than any other
of those macro systems, which is why it gets shown off, but they're all
turing complete. :-)
The scripting languages in Windows tend to be pretty good, even better than
elisp, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
