[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-dat
From: |
Andy Piper |
Subject: |
RE: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date) |
Date: |
Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:48:52 -0700 |
I think the issue is not so much that Emacs uses weird terminology but that
Emacs uses different terminology to a hundred other editors. Seems like
we're arguing for Esperanto rather than words that are actually in the
dictionary.
andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of Kyle Jones
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:27 PM
> To: Michael Toomim
> Cc: Miles Bader; Eli Zaretskii; address@hidden; address@hidden;
> address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more
> up-to-date)
>
>
> Michael Toomim writes:
> > Miles Bader wrote:
> > > "Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > >>As for buffers, I disagree that it's unused in the context used by
> > >>Emacs. I've seen several editors that do the same.
> > >
> > >
> > > And anyway, buffers are _not_ the same as `files' or `documents', and
> > > indeed, the name quite accurately describes what it does (and
> > > corresponds directly to the concept of a buffer you say
> you're used to
> > > doing OS work). Sometimes there's a one-to-one
> correspondence between
> > > buffers and files, but quite often there's not. Once a user learns
> > > about this, he can use this advantage.
> >
> > The term "buffer" means nothing to a new emacs user, even if
> > they thoroughly understand the dictionary definition of it.
> >
> > It would make much more sense to new users if they were just
> > called files or documents, since that's what they are to
> > newbies, and learning what a buffer is is a big hurdle one
> > has to jump over when learning emacs.
>
> It's a hurdle that one has to jump with any editor in which you
> edit a copy of a file and commit changes only by "saving" them.
> If people have trouble with this concept then this is just one of
> those things they will have to learn because editing a buffer is
> in fact what is happening. If you don't understand the buffer
> concept then you'll wonder why your edits don't take effect in
> the filesystem as soon as you type them. Is their anyone using
> computers today who doesn't understand the concept of an edit
> buffer, even if they don't know the term "buffer"? If not, then
> it's just a matter of them learning a new word. People who won't
> learn a new word display a breaktaking intellectual bankruptcy
> that's far beyond our ability to change.
>
> I know the pain of which you speak. Recently I've started learning
> how to use the Gimp and a lot of the terms (or the way the terms are
> used) are new to me. But that isn't surprising because I don't do
> digital image processing for a living. I don't expect the Gimp's
> authors to change their terminology to suit me, an ignoramus. What
> I want is that whatever terms they use be used consistently within
> the application so that time spent learning the terms isn't wasted.
>
> That's the goal we should strive for. We should use terminology
> that's familiar to normal practitioners of the art and we should
> use it consistently. This does not mean saying "lepidoptera"
> instead of "butterfly", this means saying "butterfly" instead of
> "bug".
>
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Eli Zaretskii, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Miles Bader, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Michael Toomim, 2002/04/20
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Kyle Jones, 2002/04/20
- RE: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date),
Andy Piper <=
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Alex Schroeder, 2002/04/21
- Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Stephen J. Turnbull, 2002/04/21
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Michael Toomim, 2002/04/20
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Eli Zaretskii, 2002/04/21
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/20
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Simon Josefsson, 2002/04/20
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Eli Zaretskii, 2002/04/20
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Hrvoje Niksic, 2002/04/20
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Terje Bless, 2002/04/20
Re: The minibuffer vs. Dialog Boxes (Re: Making XEmacs be more up-to-date), Hrvoje Niksic, 2002/04/20