[29334] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 578 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Mon Jun 25 21:14:28 2007
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Mon, 25 Jun 2007 Volume: 11 Number: 578
Today's topics:
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and <twisted0n3@gmail.com>
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and <twisted0n3@gmail.com>
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and <dak@gnu.org>
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and <jackt123@gmail.com>
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and <jackt123@gmail.com>
Re: why we need perl6 if we have parrort? <savagebeaste@yahoo.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:38:29 -0000
From: Twisted <twisted0n3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
Message-Id: <1182811109.258156.306150@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 25, 5:20 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> In article <1182657564.912472.55...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Twisted <twisted...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 10:36 am, Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address>
> > wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > * The operating system where you can do powerful stuff with a command
> > line and a script or two, but can also get by without either. (Windows
> > fails the former. Linux fails the latter.)
>
> About the latter -- it's hard for me to be sure, since for many
> things something with a GUI is not my first choice of tool, but
> my impression is that on "user-friendly" Linux distributions,
> pretty much everything, including sysadmin stuff, can be done by
> pointing and clicking, starting with the menus displayed on the
> default desktop.
With the latest stuff like Ubuntu, you're pretty much right ... until
something goes wrong. Windows has safe mode and System Restore and, if
push comes to shove, a recovery disk or partition. Linux has ... the
command line, or worse a GRUB or fsck prompt at startup. No access to
accessible, easy to browse help right when you need it most.
Blow away the partition with everything on it and reinstall? y/n _
Sometimes it's not that bad. Sometimes it's just some X thing needing
tweaking, or a particular thing elsewhere that's broken, but it
requires at minimum hand-hacking a .rc file and running some stuff in
a terminal window (aka command line, but with maybe more easily
available and navigable help, since at minimum you can open two side
by side and leave one open to the output of man or less).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:46:09 -0000
From: Twisted <twisted0n3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
Message-Id: <1182811569.871702.207010@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 25, 5:32 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> To me it's similar to "memorizing" a phone number by dialing
> it enough times that it makes its way into memory without
> conscious effort. I suspect that not everyone's brain works
> this way, and some people have to look it up every time.
> For those people, I can understand why something without a
> GUI could be a painful experience. "YMMV", maybe.
You'll be happy to know then that my opinion is that the phone system
is archaic too. Exposing the numerical network addresses like that is
so 1970s; where's the phone version of DNS, given that the technology
to develop it is clearly there now, and (from my experiences with the
phone menus at some 800 numbers) even the technology for you to just
pick up the handset, say someone's name, and have it look them up and
ring them, possibly after being prompted to accept long distance
charges, reverse them, or cancel if it's LD. :)
We'll actually probably see a generation of friendlier phones RSN --
either regular phones, or because VoIP providers leapfrog them and
advance rapidly leaving the old telcos eating dust when these don't
advance their technology and interfaces.
Setting up and using voice mail or speed-dial keys still tends to be
*painful*. There's still an excuse for that with cell phones since you
can't put a more sophisticated interface onto something the size of a
credit card, but a phone that takes up a substantial chunk of desk
space really should have more than a tiny LCD screen and twelve tone
keys. The only reason nobody complains much is because they're so bog
standard everyone is used to them and knows how to operate them. If we
had modern internet and other services and someone tried to introduce
the touch-tone telephone system now, the market would reject it in a
heartbeat and pursue VoIP, and Techdirt would run a "Failures"
category article blaming the terrible UI and excessive fee structure.
The same sort of inertia that let the phone system survive mostly
unchanged over the last 20 years without improving its UI much keeps
some old unix tools beloved by those who mastered them, and of course
propels Windows, which has done some dumb things with its UI (and much
worse under the hood).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:14:10 +0200
From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
Message-Id: <853b0f8w59.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
Twisted <twisted0n3@gmail.com> writes:
> 2. Regarding these graphical derivatives (apparently plural) of
> emacs,
Emacs is a graphical derivative of Emacs? What nonsense. The
canonical Emacs as distributed and copyrighted by the FSF is a GUI
application on a large number of platforms.
> has nobody considered that this means that Xah had already won
> before he'd even fired his shot? :P
It just means that you have no clue what Xah has been talking about.
Xah was concerned about keybindings and terminology. Never mind that
there are menus (with keyboard shortcuts displayed automatically),
toolbars, scrollbars, multiple frames, font support, mouse support and
so forth and so on. Xah knows this since he actually _uses_ Emacs.
> Someone obviously felt the need for a more usable emacs and
> delivered one. In that case it's a fait accompli. Criticisms leveled
> at original-emacs shouldn't bother users of the graphical versions
> regardless.
The graphical versions _are_ original Emacs.
> The one complaint might be that both of us had out of date
> information and were fighting a war our side had already won years
> ago. :)
You just have no clue what Xah has been talking about.
> Unless of course these are all klunky bolted-on GUIs of the sort all
> too common when porting unix software to Windows or the Mac or for
> use under X, which don't work quite right or are clearly poorly
> integrated with the application's internals...about which I
> currently have no information.
You have had no information about _anything_ right from the start.
> And no, I'm not about to spend hours downloading half a gig of
> bloated who-knows-what just to find out, tyvm. :)
You could start with the current NEWS file at
<URL:http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/emacs/etc/NEWS?root=emacs&view=markup&pathrev=EMACS_22_1>
which describes everything which is new in Emacs 22.1 (and will give
quite a few ideas about what has already been there in earlier
versions).
Of course, you'll whine together some excuse why you can't be bothered
getting some information about Emacs, never mind that you post several
dozens of embarrassing tirades that are completely based on nonsense
of your own imagination.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:23:08 -0000
From: JackT <jackt123@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
Message-Id: <1182817388.736770.59590@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 25, 10:01 pm, Twisted <twisted...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2. Regarding these graphical derivatives (apparently plural) of emacs,
> has nobody considered that this means that Xah had already won before
> he'd even fired his shot?
You have no idea what Xah was talking about.
Xah knows the ONE TRUE EMACS has had GUI capability
since early 1980s.
To summarize:
Richard Stallman was the original author of the original Emacs,
but he wrote it while he was an employee of another company,
so that company owned his code.
Richard Stallman then quit the company, rewrote Emacs from
scratch, and this emacs is now sometimes called the GNU emacs.
GNU emacs (and forks of it) is the only emacs today.
GNU emacs is a continuous product from about 1980 to 2007:
Richard Stallman is still writing code for it even now.
GNU emacs will gladly use the GUI library on the system
if available. So GNU emacs will launch Windows file menus
on Windows, and will launch GTK file menu on Linux, etc.
GNU emacs will also run in a text mode window gladly.
I use it all the time when I'm connected to a remote system
via SSH.
GNU emacs starts out with an initial help screen every time you run
it.
Every time.
If you don't believe one (or more) fact, please point out which one,
and we can try to prove it.
- JackT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:26:25 -0000
From: JackT <jackt123@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
Message-Id: <1182817585.132850.43310@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 26, 12:23 am, JackT <jackt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the ONE TRUE EMACS has had GUI capability
> since early 1980s.
Sorry, I meant early 1990s.
I believe it was 1993 or so (it is in the web page).
- JackT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:09:20 -0700
From: "Clenna Lumina" <savagebeaste@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: why we need perl6 if we have parrort?
Message-Id: <5easolF37uhspU1@mid.individual.net>
Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "SP" == Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> writes:
>
>> "Clenna Lumina" <savagebeaste@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> Why did they go with parrot instead of just augmenting the
> existing Perl >> interpreter.
>
>> Because the existing code base is huge and brittle - as a result
>> of twenty- odd years since Perl 1 of "just augmenting" it. There
>> was a very real need to do a major ground-up rewrite.
>
> actually perl5 was a complete rewrite by larry and didn't share any
> source code with perl4.
That is what I was getting at. Perl 5 was a complete rewrite in and of
itself, so why extend that existing base (keeping it more "pure" if you
will.)
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V11 Issue 578
**************************************
