The Modernization of Emacs

[Xah Lee]

[this post is a excerpt from
The Modernization of Emacs, Xah Lee, 2006-04 at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
]

The Modernization of Emacs

----------------------------------------
THE PROBLEM

Emacs is a great editor. It is perhaps the most powerful and most
versatile text editor. And, besides text editing, it also serves as a
email application, newsgroup application, ftp application, irc
application, web browser, shell interface, file management
application, programable calculator, calendar and personal info
management application, lisp language system, among other things.
These seemingly wild functionalities are employed in production daily
by a significant number of programers around the world. Some calls
emacs as a Operating System as a joke. (Technically it does not
qualify because a OS implies management of hardware.).

If emacs is such a great and powerful text editor why almost nobody
knows about it? Vast majority of people who need to write will be more
than happy to use editors other than emacs. Ask a Microsoft Windows
user. She'll be more than happy to use Microsoft Word↗. If he doesn't
have MS Word, he'll use NotePad↗ or WordPad↗. If he is a programer,
most will be more than happy to use any of other graphical editors on
the Windows platform or any of the Integrated development
environment↗. Same is true on other operating systems, and new editors
spring up here and there even though they don't have as much power or
flexibility as emacs. For example, there are NEdit, JEdit, Eclipse,
Xcode↗ , or the various associated with languages or third party
language software, such as Visual Basic or Borland C++.

Many reasons can be made out of this. For example, emacs is not
bundled on popular operating systems such as Windows or Mac, which are
used by some 99% of computer users worldwide. Windows and Mac both
have simple text editors bundled that will satisfy majority of
computer users, which are non-professional computer users. (NotePad
and WordPad on Windows, TextEdit↗ on Mac) For the few professional
computer users, a majority will need a easy to use, yet powerful
editor that also does styled text, formatting, and sundry light
publishing needs such as table layout, simple line graphics drawing,
embedded images, math formulas. They will choose and adopt Microsoft
Word for their needs. The tiny percentage that might be interested in
emacs, are programers. Even among professional programers, a majority
shy away from emacs.

A major difficulty among programers who do not use or like emacs, is
that emacs's user interface is rather esoteric, involving arcane
terminologies and keystrokes. This is in sharp contrast to the
thousands of software applications used today, where their User
Interface are similar and familiar to today's computer users.

----------------------------------------
THE COMMON USER INTERFACE

The following is a excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Common User
Access↗:

CUA was a detailed specification and set strict rules about how
applications should look and function. Its aim was in part to bring
about harmony between MS-DOS applications, which until then had
implemented totally different user interfaces.

Examples:

* In WordPerfect, the command to open a file was [F7], [3].

* In Lotus 1-2-3, a file was opened with [/] (to open the menus),
[W] (for Workspace), [R] (for Retrieve).

* In Microsoft Word, a file was opened with [Esc] (to open the
menus), [T] (for Transfer), [L] (for Load).

* In WordStar, it was [Ctrl]+[K]+[O].

* In Emacs, a file was opened with [Ctrl]+[x] followed by [Ctrl]+
[f] (for find-file).

Some programs used [Esc] to cancel an action, some used it to complete
one; WordPerfect used it to repeat a character. Some programs used
[End] to go to the end of a line, some used it to complete filling in
a form. [F1] was often help but in WordPerfect that was [F3]. [Ins]
sometimes toggled between overtype and inserting characters, but some
programs used it for “pasteâ€.

Thus, every program had to be learned individually and its complete
user interface memorized. It was a sign of expertise to have learned
the UIs of dozens of applications, since a novice user facing a new
program would find their existing knowledge of a similar application
absolutely no use whatsoever.

----------------------------------------
SIMPLE CHANGES

In the following, i describe some critical changes that are also very
easy to fix in emacs. If emacs officially adopt these changes, i think
it will make a lot people, at least programers, like emacs and choose
emacs as their text editor.

* Change the keyboard shortcut of Copy & Paste to ctrl-c and ctrl-
v as to be the same with all modern applications.

* Change the undo behavior so that there is a Undo and Redo, as
the same with all modern applications.

* Get rid of the *scratch* buffer.

* Change the terminology of “kill†to “cutâ€, and “yank†to
“pasteâ€.

* Change the terminology of Meta key to Alt.

* Make longlines-mode the default editor behavior for any file.

Things emacs should do now, even though it eventually will do.

* When opening a HTML document, automatically provide highlighting
of HTML, CSS, and Javascript codes. Similarly for other multi-language
files such as PHP, JSP, et al. This behavior must be automatic without
requiring user to customize emacs.

Possible Documentation Change Proposals

* Reduce the use of the word “buffer†in the emacs documentation.
Call it “opened file†or “unsaved documentâ€.

* Switch the terminology of Window and Frame so it is more
standard. That is, Emacs's “Window†should be called Panes or Frames.
While Emacs's “Frame†should be termed Window.

* Change the terminology of keybinding to “keyboard shortcut†in
emacs documentation. Use the term keybinding or binding only in a
technical context, such as in elisp documentation.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[Thomas F. Burdick]

For the love of dogs, Xah, try to keep up. Aquamacs is an Emacs
distribution that, which not there yet, is at least half way between
"classic" Emacs and a modern Mac UI. You sound ridiculous, like if
you were complaining about Windows not being really graphical, based
on experience with Windows-386 in the era when 95 was already around.

[this post is a excerpt from
The Modernization of Emacs, Xah Lee, 2006-04 athttp://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
]

The Modernization of Emacs

----------------------------------------
THE PROBLEM

Emacs is a great editor. It is perhaps the most powerful and most
versatile text editor. And, besides text editing, it also serves as a
email application, newsgroup application, ftp application, irc
application, web browser, shell interface, file management
application, programable calculator, calendar and personal info
management application, lisp language system, among other things.
These seemingly wild functionalities are employed in production daily
by a significant number of programers around the world. Some calls
emacs as a Operating System as a joke. (Technically it does not
qualify because a OS implies management of hardware.).

If emacs is such a great and powerful text editor why almost nobody
knows about it? Vast majority of people who need to write will be more
than happy to use editors other than emacs. Ask a Microsoft Windows
user. She'll be more than happy to use Microsoft Word↗. If he doesn't
have MS Word, he'll use NotePad↗ or WordPad↗. If he is a programer,
most will be more than happy to use any of other graphical editors on
the Windows platform or any of the Integrated development
environment↗. Same is true on other operating systems, and new editors
spring up here and there even though they don't have as much power or
flexibility as emacs. For example, there are NEdit, JEdit, Eclipse,
Xcode↗ , or the various associated with languages or third party
language software, such as Visual Basic or Borland C++.

Many reasons can be made out of this. For example, emacs is not
bundled on popular operating systems such as Windows or Mac, which are
used by some 99% of computer users worldwide. Windows and Mac both
have simple text editors bundled that will satisfy majority of
computer users, which are non-professional computer users. (NotePad
and WordPad on Windows, TextEdit↗ on Mac) For the few professional
computer users, a majority will need a easy to use, yet powerful
editor that also does styled text, formatting, and sundry light
publishing needs such as table layout, simple line graphics drawing,
embedded images, math formulas. They will choose and adopt Microsoft
Word for their needs. The tiny percentage that might be interested in
emacs, are programers. Even among professional programers, a majority
shy away from emacs.

A major difficulty among programers who do not use or like emacs, is
that emacs's user interface is rather esoteric, involving arcane
terminologies and keystrokes. This is in sharp contrast to the
thousands of software applications used today, where their User
Interface are similar and familiar to today's computer users.

----------------------------------------
THE COMMON USER INTERFACE

The following is a excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Common User
Access↗:

CUA was a detailed specification and set strict rules about how
applications should look and function. Its aim was in part to bring
about harmony between MS-DOS applications, which until then had
implemented totally different user interfaces.

Examples:

    * In WordPerfect, the command to open a file was [F7], [3].

    * In Lotus 1-2-3, a file was opened with [/] (to open the menus),
[W] (for Workspace), [R] (for Retrieve).

    * In Microsoft Word, a file was opened with [Esc] (to open the
menus), [T] (for Transfer), [L] (for Load).

    * In WordStar, it was [Ctrl]+[K]+[O].

    * In Emacs, a file was opened with [Ctrl]+[x] followed by [Ctrl]+
[f] (for find-file).

Some programs used [Esc] to cancel an action, some used it to complete
one; WordPerfect used it to repeat a character. Some programs used
[End] to go to the end of a line, some used it to complete filling in
a form. [F1] was often help but in WordPerfect that was [F3]. [Ins]
sometimes toggled between overtype and inserting characters, but some
programs used it for “pasteâ€.

Thus, every program had to be learned individually and its complete
user interface memorized. It was a sign of expertise to have learned
the UIs of dozens of applications, since a novice user facing a new
program would find their existing knowledge of a similar application
absolutely no use whatsoever.

----------------------------------------
SIMPLE CHANGES

In the following, i describe some critical changes that are also very
easy to fix in emacs. If emacs officially adopt these changes, i think
it will make a lot people, at least programers, like emacs and choose
emacs as their text editor.

    * Change the keyboard shortcut of Copy & Paste to ctrl-c and ctrl-
v as to be the same with all modern applications.

    * Change the undo behavior so that there is a Undo and Redo, as
the same with all modern applications.

    * Get rid of the *scratch* buffer.

    * Change the terminology of “kill†to “cutâ€, and “yank†to
“pasteâ€.

    * Change the terminology of Meta key to Alt.

    * Make longlines-mode the default editor behavior for any file.

Things emacs should do now, even though it eventually will do.

    * When opening a HTML document, automatically provide highlighting
of HTML, CSS, and Javascript codes. Similarly for other multi-language
files such as PHP, JSP, et al. This behavior must be automatic without
requiring user to customize emacs.

Possible Documentation Change Proposals

    * Reduce the use of the word “buffer†in the emacs documentation.
Call it “opened file†or “unsaved documentâ€.

    * Switch the terminology of Window and Frame so it is more
standard. That is, Emacs's “Window†should be called Panes or Frames.
While Emacs's “Frame†should be termed Window.

    * Change the terminology of keybinding to “keyboard shortcut†in
emacs documentation. Use the term keybinding or binding only in a
technical context, such as in elisp documentation.

  Xah
  (e-mail address removed)
∑http://xahlee.org/

 

[Twisted]

[snip]

Whoa. Xah posted something I agree with wholeheartedly. Imagine that.

 

[Philipp Leitner]

Ever came to your mind that there are people (programmers and others)
who will not use emacs for their day-to-day work simply because they
have tools that suit them better for the work they have to do (Eclipse
for me, as an example)?

Except from that: I personally don't feel that your rantings are
interesting enough to qualify for a 4 groups X-post ... this sort of
article goes well into a blog, but not so much on programmers
newsgroups (which are used for Q&A imho).

 

[George Sakkis]

Ever came to your mind that there are people (programmers and others)
who will not use emacs for their day-to-day work simply because they
have tools that suit them better for the work they have to do (Eclipse
for me, as an example)?

Except from that: I personally don't feel that your rantings are
interesting enough to qualify for a 4 groups X-post ... this sort of
article goes well into a blog, but not so much on programmers
newsgroups (which are used for Q&A imho).

You must be new here. Xah is a well-known self-important troll,
crossposting his mostly off-topic and/or controversial ramblings and
showing off his ignorance in a provocative condescending manner. Don't
waste resources by replying, he rarely follows up anyway.

 

[cmr.Pent]

In the following, i describe some critical changes that are also very
easy to fix in emacs. If emacs officially adopt these changes, i think
it will make a lot people, at least programers, like emacs and choose
emacs as their text editor.

* Change the keyboard shortcut of Copy & Paste to ctrl-c and ctrl-
v as to be the same with all modern applications.

There is a CUA-mode.

* Get rid of the *scratch* buffer.

I agree that it should be off by default. I hope that only a minority
of emacs users are emacs developers ;-)

* Change the terminology of "kill" to "cut", and "yank" to
"paste".

In my emacs 21 in menu it says just that.

* Change the terminology of Meta key to Alt.

I guess emacs is not for PC only...

* Make longlines-mode the default editor behavior for any file.

This is doubtful, but I agree that all modes (LaTeX etc) should at
least work correctly with longlines mode.

* When opening a HTML document, automatically provide highlighting
of HTML, CSS, and Javascript codes. Similarly for other multi-language
files such as PHP, JSP, et al. This behavior must be automatic without
requiring user to customize emacs.

For me it opens R files with proper highlighting out-of-the-box -_-;

* Reduce the use of the word "buffer" in the emacs documentation.
Call it "opened file" or "unsaved document".

As far as I understand the concept of buffer is much much wider than
of "unsaved document" or "file". Should we call dired buffer as
"unsaved document"?

 

[alexandru.lz]

As far as I understand the concept of buffer is much much wider than
of "unsaved document" or "file". Should we call dired buffer as
"unsaved document"?

It is much wider, which is why it was used in the first place.

Considering most of Xah's article, I think an animated paperclip
(maybe in ASCII art) should be the top priority for emacs developers.
This would be an important step in modernizing emacs.

Leaving this aside, I'm also taking a wild guess that some *nices (not
just Linux distros, but also *BSD, Solaris etc.) could well provide a
binary package of emacs compiled with its GTK UI, besides those
they're already providing (nox and the ugly one for X). It's a fair
assumption to consider that not anyone has GTK, but it's common enough
to provide an alternative to that stumpy Xlib-based (I think :-\) UI
that's default in just about every binary package around. It's not
just that it looks ugly, it's also somewhat awkward at times.

 

[Joel J. Adamson]

----------------------------------------
SIMPLE CHANGES

In the following, i describe some critical changes that are also very
easy to fix in emacs. If emacs officially adopt these changes, i think
it will make a lot people, at least programers, like emacs and choose
emacs as their text editor.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it aims to make Emacs
appeal to people -- I think it is rather the other way around.
Certain people appeal to Emacs: certain kinds of people like Emacs
and the way it is set up, and they change it to suit their needs.

Among your changes, I found none that made sense to me, a person who
used Unix before Windows became widely used. For people like me, who
always preferred Unix, changes like changing "buffer" to "opened file"
seem inefficient and unnecessary.

Sorry -- this totally falls flat. It won't make Emacs more widely
used. The only thing that will make Emacs more widely used is making
people aware of it; as soon as I became aware of Emacs (from reading
Wikipedia, ironically), I began using it and I knew I was stuck with
it. It's not even important for the survival of Emacs that it be more
widely used -- it was never important in the last thirty years of its
history, why should it be important now that Microsoft Word is so
widely used?

Joel

--
Joel J. Adamson
Biostatistician
Pediatric Psychopharmacology Research Unit
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 643-1432
(303) 880-3109

 

[Hal Vaughan]

The problem with this line of thinking is that it aims to make Emacs
appeal to people -- I think it is rather the other way around.
Certain people appeal to Emacs: certain kinds of people like Emacs
and the way it is set up, and they change it to suit their needs.

I worked for years as a special ed teacher and I learned that people have
different learning styles. It's not just learning, but it's perceiving and
working as well. Some people will always do better with a command line and
some will always do better with a GUI with point-and-click. That doesn't
mean one is smarter than the other or one is a true geek and one isn't.
It's just the way our brains are wired.

Emacs appeals to the type of personality that is often a hard core
programmer. It works for those that want to customize everything and have
full control over their environment AND do well with a command line rather
than a more visual and graphic environment. For those, emacs is probably
the best program for them.

Some people prefer to drive a Miata and some prefer a Dodge Ram. One isn't
better than the other, they're just different. Trying to make a Dodge Ram
look like a convertible so Miata lovers will want to use it is a waste.
It'll never be a Miata and the more people try to make it adaptable so it
can be one, the more they ruin what's special about it.

The more emacs is adapted for the non-technical, the more it'll lose what
makes it special and a good fit for programmers.

Among your changes, I found none that made sense to me, a person who
used Unix before Windows became widely used. For people like me, who
always preferred Unix, changes like changing "buffer" to "opened file"
seem inefficient and unnecessary.

It seems to me that is the kind of person emacs is written for. What will
it gain if a large number of non-technical people start using it in
a "non-emacs" mode?

Sorry -- this totally falls flat. It won't make Emacs more widely
used. The only thing that will make Emacs more widely used is making
people aware of it; as soon as I became aware of Emacs (from reading
Wikipedia, ironically), I began using it and I knew I was stuck with
it. It's not even important for the survival of Emacs that it be more
widely used -- it was never important in the last thirty years of its
history, why should it be important now that Microsoft Word is so
widely used?

Let those who need Word use it. To try to change emacs into something it
isn't is ignoring what makes it special.

Hal

 

[Galen Boyer]

The problem with this line of thinking is that it aims to make Emacs
appeal to people -- I think it is rather the other way around.
Certain people appeal to Emacs: certain kinds of people like Emacs
and the way it is set up, and they change it to suit their needs.

Emacs will always be for people who like to be able to constantly fiddle
with their environments which continues to increase the efficiency with
which they perform their tasks, increasing the # of tasks they can
perform and therefore increasing the # of peers it would take to equal
the amount of work they alone perform. Most other environments will be
for those just trying to perform their tasks and staying even with the
average proficiency chart.

 

[Harry George]

Emacs will always be for people who like to be able to constantly fiddle
with their environments which continues to increase the efficiency with
which they perform their tasks, increasing the # of tasks they can
perform and therefore increasing the # of peers it would take to equal
the amount of work they alone perform. Most other environments will be
for those just trying to perform their tasks and staying even with the
average proficiency chart.

"constantly fiddle"

I've used emacs since the 1980's. I've used it for text, xml, html
markups, programming in many languages, and natural languages. In a
few cases I've "fiddled" with the environment. I've even written a
"mode". But it has never been "constantly". One does the setup, and
then uses it day after day, year after year... until you have a new
need, in which case you re-tune your settings and then go back to
work.

"trying to perform their tasks...average proficiency"

Aye, there's the rub. As Fred Brooks and others repeatedly point out,
there is little room in programming for average proficiency.

I don't mind folks using any editor they want, as long as they are
proficient. In those cases, I have no problem doing Extreme
Programming with them -- code a bit, save, the other guy codes a bit.
But when someone uses vi and then forgets how to do block moves, or
uses eclipse and bogs down the session, or uses MS Notepad and can't
enforce language-specific indents, I get frustrated.

 

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

Long count = 12.19.14.7.8; tzolkin = 7 Lamat; haab = 16 Zotz.
GB> Most other environments will be for those just trying to perform
GB> their tasks and staying even with the average proficiency chart.

Alleluja, brother!

(just unleashed the power of the True One Editor surprising the rest
of the workgroup)

--
/\ ___
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____
//--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamico
\/ e coltivatore diretto di Software

A Cesare avrei detto di scrivermi a (e-mail address removed)

 

[David Kastrup]

I don't mind folks using any editor they want, as long as they are
proficient. In those cases, I have no problem doing Extreme
Programming with them -- code a bit, save, the other guy codes a
bit. But when someone uses vi and then forgets how to do block
moves, or uses eclipse and bogs down the session, or uses MS Notepad
and can't enforce language-specific indents, I get frustrated.

My favorite killing offence is /* vi:set ts=4: */.

 

[Matthias Buelow]

My favorite killing offence is /* vi:set ts=4: */.

This is apparently the default setting in many of the so-called "IDE"s
today.. I think it's another unwelcome poison gift from the ignorant
M$FT world (I suspect some primitive Windoze IDE which couldn't
differentiate between TAB and indent probably offered the programmer
changing the tabwidth as the only method for changing indentation, and
then this method got stuck...)

F'up to comp.emacs.

 

[Xah Lee]

Here are some Frequently Asked Questions about The Modernization of
Emacs.

They are slightly lengthy, so i've separated each item per post. The
whole article can be found at

http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
------------

Q: The Terminology “buffer†and “keybinding†is good as they are.

A: The terminology “buffer†or “keybindingâ€, are technical terms
having to do with software programing. The term “keybinding†refers to
the association of a keystroke with a command in a technical, software
application programing context. That is to say, a programer “bind†a
keystroke to a command in a software application. The term “bufferâ€
refers to a abstract, temporary area for storing data, in the context
of programing or computer science.

These terms are irrelevant to the users of a software application.

As a user of a text editor, he works with files. The terms “opened
file†or “untitled file†are more appropriate than “bufferâ€. Since
emacs is also used for many things beside reading files or writing to
files, for example, file management, ftp/sftp, shell, email, irc etc.,
the proper term can be “panelâ€, “windowâ€, or “work areaâ€.

And, the term “keyboard shortcut†refers to typing of a key-
combination to activate a command. It is also more appropriate than
“binding†or “keybindingâ€.

Although concepts like “buffer†and “keybinding†are seemingly
interchangeable with “panel†or “keyboard shortcutâ€, but their
contexts set them apart. This is why in all modern software
application's user documentations, terms like “buffer†or “keybindingâ€
are not to be seen but “windows, panes, and keyboard shortcutsâ€.

The reason emacs uses the technical terminologies throughout is
because when emacs started in the 1970s, there really isn't any other
text editors or even software applications. And, Emacs users consists
of solely computer scientists and programers, and there are not many.

Changes in society are always resisted by old timers, but it is also a
main element behind progress. This terminology issue may seem trivial,
but its importance lies in making emacs palpable to the vast number of
people who ever need to use a computer to write.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[Xah Lee]

Here are some Frequently Asked Questions about The Modernization of
Emacs.

They are slightly lengthy, so i've separated each item per post. The
whole article can be found at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
------------

Q: Why should emacs want to be popular and why should emacs change to
conform the majority? We don't want emacs to be popular. We want
people to adopt emacs, not emacs adopting people.

A: This attitude has plagued unix and computer geekers for decades. In
the early 1990s (DOS and unix), tech geekers would sneer at graphical
menus and mouse, with hordes of reasons how pure text interface, the
command line, and or keyboard operations are sufficient and superior
than graphical user interface or using a mouse. This seems ridiculous
today, but such online forum messages are common.

The reason for these type of attitude, is almost never a sensible
alternative view about the topic in discussion, but a show of machismo
and superiority complex. (perhaps more than 95% of online computing
forum users are males, and majority of them are aged under 25.) The
person who utters such opinion, made sure in the way he writes that he
is a expert in the “more difficult to use†method or tools and would
prefer things not to be “dumbed downâ€.

It is silly to retort “Why should emacs want to be popular?â€. It is
like asking “why do you want to live longer?†when someone is picky
about healthy food, or “why should you want to look beautiful?†when
someone dresses up. We want to improve software, not taking the
attitude of “we are more complex and unique and superior and we want
to keep dummies outâ€.

In software design, occasionally we are tied down with a design
decision, such that it has a popular vs elegant aspect. For example,
suppose we are designing a set of keyboard shortcuts for emacs and we
are faced the question of whether to keep the copy/paste/undo/open etc
with the conventional C/V/Z/O etc keystrokes. Or, we can choose to
sacrifice user's familiarity of conventions but obtain a keyboard
shortcut set that is in some way more consistent, extensible, or
otherwise technically better.

If a design decision comes down to a pure popularity vs elegance and
everything else equal, then the decision might be based on our
philosophical dispositions or the software creator's ultimate goal.
However, it is not proper to pigeon-hole design issues into popularity
vs elegance.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[Xah Lee]

Here are some Frequently Asked Questions about The Modernization of
Emacs.

They are slightly lengthy, so i've separated each item per post. The
whole article can be found at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
------------

Q: Emacs's ways are technically superior. It should not change.

A: Emac's user interface, when compared to modern software
application's user interface, is complex and unusual, however, there's
no basis whatsoever of it being actually a superior design with
regards to any sensible metrics. (in fact, much of emacs's user
interface are due to historical reasons. That is, how computers are in
1980s.)

For example, let's consider emacs's system of keyboard shortcuts. For
a keyboard shortcut system, we might judge its quality based on
several aspects. Here are some examples of consideration:

* Is it easy to learn? (is it familiar to most people?)
* Is it easy to type? (is most frequently used commands easy to
type?)
* Is it easy to remember?
* Are more frequently used commands have the easier-to-type
shortcuts that less frequently used commands?
* Are most frequently used commands all have a keyboard shortcut?
* Can the shortcut system somehow be consistent and extensible to
cover other user defined shortcuts?

Emacs's keyboard shortcuts system, somewhat satisfies the last aspect,
but do very bad with respect to all the others. Emacs keyboard
shortcuts are perhaps one of the most difficult to learn among
software, and is also one of the most difficult to remember. The worst
aspect of emacs's keyboard shortcuts, is that it is ergonomically
painful. (Many emacs-using programer celebrities have injured their
hands with emacs. (e.g. Richard Stallman, Jamie Zawinski), and emacs's
Cntl-x keyboard and Meta-x combinations are most cited as the major
turn-off to potential users among programers)

Computer keyboard is a hardware interface, and the mapping of commands
to the key press combinations can be considered from a Operation
Research point of view. The keyboard hardware itself can be designed
with consideration of ergonomics (that's why we have split and curved
keyboards), but consideration of what functions to map to what key
presses is also non-trivial if the software has large number of
functions or if the software is mission critical. Think of it this
way, consider a airplane cockpit, filled with knobs, dials, buttons,
and switches. Now, if your job is to map the airplane control
functions to these switches, what are the things to consider for a
optimal map?

If we take careful consideration on creating a keyboard shortcut
system for emacs, it is actually easy to create a system that are
purely superior in some technical sense than the ad-hoc Emacs's ways.

Aside from keyboard shortcuts system, Emacs's other user interfaces
are also questionable. For example, one major aspect of emacs
operation is that it uses a single window for multiple purposes and
files. Emacs is this way not because of a design decision, but rather
due to historical reasons. Computer resources in the 1980s are very
limited. When emacs is around, graphical system of showing “windowsâ€
is not practically available, and the emacs's method of using the
screen (the textual-based-monitor) for presenting multiple tasks
(“buffersâ€) is actually a very advanced user interface design not
available in software of that era. When graphical systems becomes
practical in the 1990s, drawing a window takes a lot memory, and
opening multiple windows is slow and inpractical.

Modern software interface (say, post 2000) usually uses one window per
file (or task), and or show a tab if multiple task is to be
represented in a single window. However, in general, emacs doesn't
provide the tabs visual clue and still remained its old way of using a
single window for all files and tasks as its standard operation. As
far as user interface design is considered per se with respect to
today's computing standards, the emacs's way is inferior because it is
less intuitive. Arguably, emacs's operation methods may be more
efficient for expert users. 20 years ago, efficiency for expert users
may out weight the ease of use for majority of average users. But in
today computing era, computers are standard tools in every household,
efficiency and ease of use for general users is as important for
professional users. Even for professional users, it is openly
questionable that emacs's ways of operation induced by its default
user interface allows faster or more efficient operation than a user
interface based on modern software conventions.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[Xah Lee]

Here are some Frequently Asked Questions about The Modernization of
Emacs.

They are slightly lengthy, so i've separated each item per post. The
whole article can be found at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
------------

Q: Aquamacs already does what you want.

A: Aquamacs is a emacs variant based on emacs, for Apple's Macintosh
computers, created in about 2004 by David Reitter. Aquamacs modifies
emacs so that its user interface follows modern (Mac OS X)
conventions. For example, copy, paste, undo shortcuts are cmd-c, cmd-
v, cmd-z. Open file is cmd-o, saving is cmd-s. Close window is cmd-w.
There is a redo command by default, with shortcut cmd-shift-z. By
following a modern user interface, almost all points mentioned in this
article are fixed in Aquamacs. For more info, see: Wikipedia Aquamacs↗
and Aquamac's home page at: Aquamacs.org ↗

As a emacs variant, it does help in spreading the idea that emacs user
interface should be modernized. However, a third-party variant
software is irrelevant to the modernization issue.

For example, suppose Microsoft Word remained with its DOS era command
line interface, for example, file is opened with [Esc] (to open the
menus), [T] (for Transfer), [L] (for Load). Suppose Microsoft hired a
third party to release a variant called MS AquaWord. This would not
help Microsoft Word the software itself, and is likely to complicate
the issue around Microsoft Word.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[Joel J. Adamson]

Here are some Frequently Asked Questions about The Modernization of
Emacs.

They are slightly lengthy, so i've separated each item per post. The
whole article can be found at

http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
------------

Q: The Terminology “buffer†and “keybinding†is good as they are.

A: The terminology “buffer†or “keybindingâ€, are technical terms
having to do with software programing. The term “keybinding†refers to
the association of a keystroke with a command in a technical, software
application programing context. That is to say, a programer “bind†a
keystroke to a command in a software application. The term “bufferâ€
refers to a abstract, temporary area for storing data, in the context
of programing or computer science.

These terms are irrelevant to the users of a software application.

Bologna.

Every computer user should see himself as a programmer.

Changes in society are always resisted by old timers, but it is also a
main element behind progress. This terminology issue may seem trivial,
but its importance lies in making emacs palpable to the vast number of
people who ever need to use a computer to write.

I'm a young-timer.

Joel

--
Joel J. Adamson
Biostatistician
Pediatric Psychopharmacology Research Unit
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 643-1432
(303) 880-3109

A webpage of interest:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sylvester-response.html

 

[John Nagle]

GB> Most other environments will be for those just trying to perform
GB> their tasks and staying even with the average proficiency chart.

Oh, please. The "I'm so l33t" thing.

I used EMACS back in the LISP era, but really, that approach
is mostly of historical interest at this late date.

John Nagle