[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr]
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr] |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Jan 2014 18:42:19 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Per Starbäck <address@hidden> writes:
> 2014/1/9 Drew Adams <address@hidden>
>
>> > Then you are talking about another problem than I am. Functionality (and
>> > attitudes) that turn away those people is indeed a problem for Emacs.
>>
>> Are you sure that turning away "those people" is a problem for Emacs?
>>
> Yes. Any attitude of "it should be hard to learn because the good
> people can learn things that are hard to learn" is just
> contraproductive.
It's more like "it's unavoidable to provide difficulties to learning
because it can do a lot, and when a lot is easily accessible, you'll
have stuff getting in your hair accidentally".
Musicians learn their instruments, craftsmen learn their tools.
Unfretted bowed string instruments remain a favorite even though the
possibilities for producing wrong notes or sounds that cannot in good
conscience even be called "tones" are staggering when compared to, say,
a piano. Attempts to cut down on variables the player can get wrong,
like the hurdy gurdy, did not really take off.
A programmer will spend most of his life interacting with an editor and
texts.
> Those are not comparable quotes at all. Richard wants Emacs to be
> easier to learn for beginners, and I doubt he would write something
> like your momma quote.
A carving knife with an exploding handle is not going to be popular.
But you won't be able to sell one with a blunt edge "for safety" either.
Within the variables, one wants to make things as simple as possible but
not simpler.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], (continued)
- Re: Apologia for bzr, Jose E. Marchesi, 2014/01/07
- Re: Apologia for bzr, Per Starbäck, 2014/01/09
- RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Drew Adams, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Per Starbäck, 2014/01/09
- RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Drew Adams, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Per Starbäck, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr],
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Tom, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], David Kastrup, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Davis Herring, 2014/01/10
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], David Kastrup, 2014/01/10
- RE: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Drew Adams, 2014/01/09
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Richard Stallman, 2014/01/10
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], Per Starbäck, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?) [was: Apologia for bzr], David Kastrup, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Glenn Morris, 2014/01/17
- Re: Emacs terminology (not again!?), Lennart Borgman, 2014/01/17