Re: Fiddling with the menus

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 01:05:35 -0400
> Cc: address@hidden
> 
> > The game items seem a bit silly.
> 
> Maybe, but it costs just one entry.

Yes, and what's wrong with some humor and play, for a change?  Why
should Emacs be so dead serious?

> > The “Find Emacs Packages” item has rather confusing name. After using
> > Emacs 8 hours a day for 10 years, i pulled it today for the first
> > time

Shame on Xah.

> > Looking at the result, it does not seems very useful. For
> > example, clicking on OOP shows a bunch of modes that really have
> > little to do with Object Oriented Programing. Perhaps it should go
> > into the “Search Documentation” sub-menu.

There's nothing magic here: the keywords assigned to each package is a
human's job; Finder just puts all of them into a database and
trivially searches that.  Patches are welcome for adding more keywords
and (more importantly) to re-index existing packages so that the
search is more useful.

> > The “Emacs Psychotherapist” is the forefront of AI research in the
> > 1960s. (It is a implementation of ELIZA) Having it in 1980s is way
> > cool. Having it in 1990s in a text editor is a novelty. Today, as
> > a demo of elisp power or as a fun program, it's rather stupid.
> 
> I'd call it silly, and silliness is a quality.

Indeed.  It's entertainment, and sometimes it could make a difference
when you need to relax after a lot of work.  People who live inside
Emacs should not need to go out to look for entertainment.

> > The items in “More Manuals” sub-menu, can all be gone except the “All
> > Other Manuals (Info)” and the the “Lookup Subject in all manuals...”
> > (info-apropos).

On a typical GNU system, "All Other Manuals" will lead to a
humongously long list of available manuals.  Heck, even on my Windows
box there are over 50 items in that list!  So what's wrong with having
a few of them that are related to Emacs easily reachable without
having to wade through a long list?  Can you say "usability"?