RE: Deprecate _emacs on Windows

[Drew Adams]

> > Google "warning".  Enjoy.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not convinced. Words mean what people use them to mean.

Precisely.  And words mostly mean what most people use them to mean most of the
time.

Google "warning definition".  English-language dictionaries base definitions on
_usage_ (more so than dictionaries in some other languages).  And web
dictionaries probably do so even more.

So go ahead, see how people actually _use_ "warning"; I invite you.  Google
"warning definition".  But you will say I'm patronizing you by presuming that
Google might teach you something about this...

> > ad hominem, ad hominem.  Sticks and stones...
> 
> My comment wasn't an argument ad hominem;

Yes, that part of your post was ad hominem.  But it was not an _argument_ at
all.  It was nothing but name-calling.  I am not patronizing you just because I
give arguments about a growing tendency to overuse of so-called "warnings".  I
gave reasons why this has been happening.

You can argue with my reasoning or evidence, but please don't stoop to
name-calling.  It's not about me.  And my point is not about you.  I couldn't
care less who is behind this change.

You spoke up saying that my argument about American corporate avoidance of
lawsuits was invalid or irrelevant because you are in Spain.  I argued that this
tendency has extended beyond the American shore.  Counter the argument if you
want, but don't call me patronizing because you don't like the argument or its
implications.

Now you can say that it doesn't really matter _why_ there is this watering down
of the effect and meaning of a word such as "WARNING".  In general that's true,
but it can help to see that there is such a tendency.

If you think (if one thinks) it's normal to be warning people about such minor
things then I'm guessing it could help to know that this watering down is
something relatively new.  And more importantly (because who really cares what
how "warning" might be evolving?), when you overuse and misuse the word this way
it ceases to have the effect it is intended to have when you really need it.

> > It's not about you, Juanma - and it's not about me.  It's about the
> > pseudo-warning message, regardless of who is behind that initiative.
> 
> Oh, yes, it is a bit about you, as you're the one royaly pissed by the
> warning...

That I disagree with issuing the warning message doesn't make this about me.
Unless you take the view that whenever someone disagrees with you it's about
him.

> on behalf of some semi-mythical users that you somehow
> stand to protect. You know, that great contingent of / Emacs 24+ /
> Windows / users / having an _emacs init file /.

I don't speak for other users, nor do I claim to.  But I do want Emacs to be the
best it can be for users in general.  I speak up when the doc or the UI is not
as good as it could be.  I point to specific problems, as I see them.  That does
not mean I'm pretending to speak on behalf of all Emacs users.  I speak for
myself, caring about Emacs's interface with users.

And it doesn't really matter to my point whether there are lots or few users
impacted by this particular message.  My message is about the message; more
precisely, it is about this kind of pseudo-warning message.

> > The message is not warning about anything.  It's simply 
> > telling a user that `_emacs' is deprecated.  That's not a warning.
> > There is no danger.
> 
> Of course there is a danger. The danger of the user upgrading to a new
> Emacs and failing to understand why their _emacs suddenly stopped
> working[1].

Danger of failing to understand.  Hm.  By that logic anything we communicate to
users, to help them understand anything at all, should take the form of a
warning message.  After all, there's always the "danger" that they
misunderstand.

The question is, what is the _danger in misunderstanding_ this deprecation or
being ignorant of it?  Do you catch pneumonia?  Does your data melt down?  Just
what is the danger?  Please stop playing with words ("danger of failing to
understand", indeed), and come out with it: just what danger are we warning
users about here?

> In fact, if we don't warn about it, some users will be
> caught unawares.

And then what?  The _danger_ is?  And please don't repeat that the "danger" is
that they will be caught unaware.

> > We don't need to tell users this at Emacs startup - it's 
> > not a big deal that `_emacs' is being deprecated.  Users are
> > often frightened by "**WARNING**" - and that's part of its effect.
> > But there is no call for frightening users here.
> 
> They shouldn't be frightened.

Some will be.  That's the effect that "WARNING" and "DANGER!" have, at least on
some people.  That's part of their impact.

> They should be warned.

About what?

So far, you've indicated only that they should be helpfully _informed_ about
this deprecation.  I have explicitly agreed that they should.  The place to do
that is in the NEWS file, and possibly also in the manual.