Re: Great SWT Program
nebulous99@gmail.com skrev:
On Nov 21, 11:02 am, Lars Enderin <lars.ende...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. It is based on reality.
You claim that only your perceptions reflect reality?
No, I merely claim that my perceptions reflect reality. Each other
person's may do so as well, or may not.
A bolted-on-afterthought "GUI" is scarcely better than the original
crummy text-mode interface to something like that. I've yet to see a
Windows or similar port of such a tool that didn't prove to be awkward
That is not an adequate or relevant characterization of emacs.
It's a characterization of its graphical ports, and of those of
similar archaisms, rather than of the original, I admit, but a lot of
the pro-emacs crowd's defense is based on the existence of supposedly
easy to use graphical ports, the inadequacies of which they neglect to
address in their argumentation.
You're still harping about "graphical ports". Emacs today is a native
GUI, which also can be used as a text-only terminal application.
There are no inadequacies that come to mind, not in relation to any
Windows applications, anyway.
one, b) the GUI is poorly-constructed and non-native in various ways
and thus gets all sorts of things subtly wrong in ways that are
jarring and slow things down, and c) underlying bogosities in the
application cannot be covered by any amount of cosmetics, such as
wacky selection or clipboard semantics or broken backspace behavior or
whatever.
Points b and c just show your own perceptions. No facts. No objective
reality.
Wrong. It is easy to objectively determine whether a given GUI behaves
like a native Windows GUI, for example, simply by observing whether
Windows component semantics are violated for instance. I've even seen
That's not a valid criterion. Emacs has it's own semantics and does not
need to conform to CUA or any other Windows conventions, no more than
(other) Unix/Linux applications have to conform to Windows.
[snip discussion of uninteresting Win app]
Or are you claiming that whether the insertion point is moved by a
mouse click that also focuses the window is a subjective question?
Irrelevant. I have not seen that problem come up in emacs.
If you are, then we can have no further discussion as it would be
pointless. You'd obviously be somewhere between one of those
everything's-socially-constructed postmodern pinko types and an out-
and-out solipsist. :P
This is a supposedly native Windows app that contains the error, BTW.
Ports of non-native apps to a graphical environment tend to contain
numerous subtle errors of this sort, and they throw off a proficient
user of the GUI and slow them down and generally piss them off. We
dislike such behavior the way you apparently dislike having software
actually present a real user interface or have context-sensitive help,
autocompletion functionality, and other things that the software you
champion tends to lack (decent help and UI) or that you repeatedly
moan about here (autocompletion functionality). We dislike
inconsistent and nonstandard behavior in response to mouse inputs the
way you dislike anything involving using either a mouse, function
keys, or the entire right-hand half of the keyboard.
Since "we" don't dislike any of these (mischaracterized) features, your
argument is void.
(Eschewing over half the possible user input sources, including all of
the analogue ones, being the main source of cruddiness in what passes
for the UIs in your software preferences, from what I've been able to
determine...)
I use what means I need to use to edit effectively. I don't "eschew"
anything. I tend to avoid showing scrollbars, though. They are mostly in
the way.
Likewise it is not merely "my perception" but objective reality that
emacs does not restrict cuts to the visibly highlighted text, does not
always interpret backspace as "delete the character left of the
cursor" (in particular at the search prompt apparently), and does not
always interpret escape as "escape". You cannot deny this unless you
are some sort of nut of the sort described in detail above. Social-
constructionist at minimum.
It's your perception that these features are bad. Emacs users are
perfectly happy with the way they work.