Linux-Advocacy Digest #940, Volume #30 Sun, 17 Dec 00 05:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 10:02:05 GMT
Les Mikesell writes:
>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't already written
>>>>>>>> something logical.
> I can't have observed something that hasn't occured, but I can and have
> observed that something hasn't occured within the context of this
> discussion, so you are the incorrect one.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> For someone used to using hjkl, anything else would be less intuitive.
> It contradicts 'intuition doesn't apply to something you already know'.
> Intuition requires something you already know.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> Personally I almost never care about the fact of moving
>>>>> the cursor one position at a time and instead use a command that more
>>>>> closely represents my intention. In fact it is difficult to talk
>>>>> about 'wanting' the cursor to move one position in some direction or
>>>>> other in a context that would invoke an intuitive action.
> Writing something cogent is very different from typing
> edit commands. Hitting keys does not always require
> reasoning. If it does, it can't be intuitive.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
> There is no requirement for a definition to be useful, especially
> for it to be useful to support your misguided opinion.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> A more direct mapping of the desired action to the required command
>>> can make it more intuitive.
> When you have learned to type, you no longer need to think about
> the locations of the keys and reason which direction your fingers
> should move to hit them. When you have learned to edit, you no
> longer need to think about the relationship between what you want
> to happen and the command(s) to do it. The more closely the
> command can represent your intent, the sooner you can dispense
> with the intermediate reasoning. For example if you want to change
> 3 words, being able to express that intent directly instead of having
> to deal with some number of existing characters makes it easier for
> the operation to be done without reasoning and thus potentially
> intuitive.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> Not if you already know the command.
>>> It is a new situation, and may be a new combination of comand
>>> components.
> Irrelevant.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>> is a new combination compared to
>>
>> DO I=1,100,1
>>
>> but it is not an intuitive situation.
> Irrelevant.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>> Both accept an appropriate numeric count
> You have confused the attributions. I'm quite sure I never mentioned
> a goose.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>> DT] You don't use hjkl.
>> ]
>> LM] You do if you want to move the screen a line one way or the other
>> LM] after finding the match.
> I did say this, because moving one line is done with the jk keys without
> having to reason. Other ways would involve thinking about why
> you might end up at the desired location.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> I said you may not be able to position to the desired location
>>> with control-u/d.
> That still doesn't make them move a line.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>>> I said they were not intuitive for cursor movement. Get it right.
> It consisted of your claims to have answered to the above question and
> my claims not to have seen any such answer, and was not at all interesting.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> On the contrary, there are my responses to you for you to remember.
> The question remains above. When you claim that one set of characters
> are not intuitive, do you mean that no characters could be intuitive to
> you or that an existing set is less intuitive than a possible alternative?
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>> I just did it without hjkl. But more importantly, considering that
>>>>>> the discussion is about viewing a document, why would you want to
>>>>>> move just a line? Is your screen only one line tall?
> Didn't say that.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>> ]
>> DT] You don't use hjkl.
>> ]
>> LM] You do if you want to move the screen a line one way or the other
>> LM] after finding the match.
> Note the conditional.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> Now that you have made it plain I understand that you are wrong
>>>>> instead.
> All of the places where you ignore or contradict the examples given
> by others that disprove your opinion, which you just state over again.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>> The point of bringing up the viewer was to discuss the command set.
> Not mine.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>> DT] You don't use hjkl.
>> ]
>> LM] You do if you want to move the screen a line one way or the other
>> LM] after finding the match.
> Note: "if you want to move the screen a line". j and k deal with lines.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> I showed that your use of control-u or control-d might not be
>>> a suitable substitute.
> And besides being wrong, was not relevant.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> Use what best represents your intention.
> Yes.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> The definition of editing implies changes. If no changes were made,
>>>> then no editing was done.
> Only if you do not understand the definiton of editing.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> I didn't mean editing by someone literally blind. I meant that in
>>> the decision-making process of editing, I view the document and
>>> thus need the commands for viewing.
> The commands for searching and positioning are needed for
> the decision making process of editing. As those decisions
> are made, the commands for modifying the document may
> also be necessary.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> And having the same command set in a viewer allows reusing knowlege
>>> of the commands.
> Then we disagree.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> There have been times that I have reused the knowlege of brushing
>>> on new teeth without reasoning.
> Surprise: we disagree again.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>> Elvis, vim, vile, emacs in viper-mode, emacs in vip-mode.
> Intuitive things always involve prior learning.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> It is essential that the function represent something new. It is
>>>> essential that no reference materials need to be consulted. What
>>>> you're doing is reusing existing knowledge.
> Yet again, we disagree.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> So, it is different, and if you know vi you can reuse that knowlege
>>> in this new situation.
> The difference I identified may make it impossible to
> load the file at all in vi, so you cannot be repeating the
> same experience. In addition, the emacs modes still
> allow the use of most emacs native commands on the
> same buffer if you want. If the command set were not
> the same as one you know there would be no opportunity
> to reuse it without reasoning.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> For example I think that once you understand what a steering wheel
>>>>> does on one device you will intuitively try to use it the same way
>>>>> if you find one on another device.
> Did I say vi had a single two-dimensional control?
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> I don't see how the 'intuitiveness' of this re-use of knowledge is
>>>>> affected by the degree to which the devices in question differ.
> You said "The fact that it is another device makes the situation new".
> That is surrounding context. How much must they differ to invoke
> your perception of intuitiveness?
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>> And just look at how many other products decided to go with those
>>>>>> "innovations": not many. Clones like elvis exist because some vi
>>>>>> users didn't want to learn a new editor on a PC. They were shunning
>>>>>> the innovations of the separate cursor keypad, the mouse, and so on.
> I meant I was correct about you being wrong, but since logic
> and reason have gotten nowhere with you, pontification seems
> as appropriate as anything else.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> Clones of the command set like the vip-mode and viper-mode macros
>>>>> for emacs exist solely to allow the users to re-use their knowledge
>>>>> of the vi commands.
> No, that is guessing.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> Adding mouse operations defeats the purpose of the "keep the hands on
>>>> the keyboard" style of vi.
> Matters of taste do not involve reason.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>> Since when is "vi" the same as "view"? One lets me do things; the
>>>>>> other does not.
> It is behaving as you command it. Starting it as view or 'vi -R' commands
> it not to allow changes to be written back. It is the identical program
> following your different instructions. If you do not attempt to modify
> the buffer in view, ZZ will exit without writing the file, as does vi.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> Ever play Monty Python's "Matching Tie and Handkerchief"?
>>>> Identical side of the record. Two quite different results.
> For once we agree. How did the conversion to CD fare?
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>>> And I keep asking you how many other editors use hjkl for cursor
>>>>>>>> movement. If you answer "zero", then there wouldn't be previous
>>>>>>>> experience with those keys for cursor movement in an editor. If
>>>>>>>> you don't answer "zero", give me the name of the editor. So far,
>>>>>>>> nobody has done that.
> Try again. You were the one attempting to put the burden of proof
> on others and claiming it was necessary for others to produce
> something you already knew about.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>> The answer is not zero.
> Please read up on their capabilities before making this claim. They
> maintain the history of a configurable number of previous commands
> with the ability to scroll through, edit, and re-execute them. The
> editing is limited to one visible line at a time, but they are still
> editors.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> but omit all the ones that are like vi?
> I am trying to make sense out of your claim, and conceeding
> that between the original and the *bsd vi there is nothing that
> jumps out as a visible difference. The others have various
> additions that you may or may not learn or use. None of
> which means I agree with your perception of intuitiveness.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> You simply apply existing knowledge.
>>>> Intuition did not apply to my use of RimStar, because I was able
>>>> to select BRIEF emulation, and the implementation was pretty
>>>> faithful, unlike some other editors that claimed to offer such
>>>> emulation.
> That is what would make it intuitive, not a reason for it not to be.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> Yes, repeating the task happens the 2nd time you
>>>>> do the same set. Brushing new teeth the same
>>>>> way as the old is done intuitively by most people
>>>>> as they appear.
> Then why mention it?
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> Perhaps you didn't notice the sentence started with 'not'.
> Why should I do that? It is not a topic I am particularly
> interested in.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> People do not have instinctive behavior,
> Let's play this one your way. Produce the list or
> accept the lack as being real.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> No instinct for self preservation? No instinct to close your eyes in
>>>> response to a bright flash, or cover your ears in response to a loud
>>>> noise?
> Covering your ears would be one - I've forgotten what else
> you mentioned.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> You did not describe a way to change the intuitiveness of something. If
>>> intuitiveness exists at all it will exist independently of someone else
>>> telling you things.
> Does that mean that if your intuition is wrong it isn't intuition? Or
> does it become 'not intuition' only after you learn from some other
> source that it is wrong?
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>>> Then exactly what have you been arguing about, if not that?
> We disagree again. But perhaps you would change your mind
> if you read it again.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>> That is, the fact that the same commands
>>>>>>> are re-used within vi in ways that are indendent of the context
>>>>>>> makes them intuitive as you construct different combinations.
> Because it does not consist of substituting one number for another,
> or resemble it in any serious way.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>> If you know what 'k' does and the nature of the pattern, you
>>>>>>> automatically know what 10k does, and as soon as you
>>>>>>> know what 'd' does, you know what 10dk does.
> No one but you has mentioned a do loop in the context of
> intuition. The difficult part to understand is why you
> brought it up.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> I also learned a template for constructing a sentence in the english
>>> language. Following your logic I should thus be able to
>>> construct all sentences in the language with nothing new involved
>>> once the words are memorized. Is that also correct?
> Yes, it is equally irrelevant as the do loop example.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> Similarly, filling out a template involves knowledge of a process.
>>>> Your vi command set involves the filling out of a template. It
>>>> does not involve intuition.
> It is different in that the situation requiring it and the command
> constructed from the arrangement of components may be something new,
> not just a numeric substitution.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> Where intuition could come into play
>>>> would be if you didn't know the letter that corresponded to some
>>>> action, but you picked the correct one on the basis of a
>>>> mnemonic, for example, rather than consulting a manual or quick
>>>> reference card. But as I noted previously, 10d does not delete
>>>> 10 characters.
> We disagree again. The program author picks a letter/word
> and the program user guesses along the same lines. I won't
> argue that the process is totally random because randomness
> is difficult to achieve, but it is not predictable either. Call
> the psychic hot line and ask if their intuition is real. Same
> thing here.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>> As I said before, you have a peculiar notion of what is intuitive.
> We disagree. And for this kind of claim the burden
> of proof clearly rests with you. Anyone can form
> opinions around isolated coincidental anecdotes but
> if you want others to agree you need reproducible
> studies.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>> If you were in front of a keyboard controlling a nuclear missile
>>>>>>> and wanted to start a document with the letter 'h', would you
>>>>>>> hit the 'h' key without knowing anything else?
> In the decision-making process of editing, choosing to insert
> characters is likely to happen only after reviewing the current
> contents or at the very least after positioning to the place where
> new language would be inserted and perhaps deleting some
> of the old contents. Taking the handiest keys on the keyboard
> out of the choices for the most likely things to be done (by making
> them insert) is odd.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> Editing is a decision making process often requiring many
>>> positioning or search commands to be issued before an informed
>>> decision can be made about inserting any more characters.
> We disagree. You are certainly wrong in the absolute sense that
> the document could be modified by deletions instead of insertions,
> but my concept of editing involves primarily the decisions with
> the reflection in the document being a side effect, and deciding
> not to modify a document is indeed a reasonable choice while
> editing.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>>> Not at all. People do not have an instinctive nature,
> Reflexes and instincts are different things. Reflexes are nearly mechanical
> reactions that involve neither learning nor knowledge. Instincts involve
> complex behavior patterns that appear to be knowlege that exists without
> learning - but in animals, not humans.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>> Are you gearing up to reproduce Monty Python's "Argument Clinic"?
>>>>
>>>> "No, it isn't."
>>>> "It's a connected series of statements intended to establish a
>>>> proposition."
>>>>
>>>> Your turn.
> We can disagree and do that, or we can just disagree.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>> If, for
>>>>>> example, you know that 10l moves the cursor 10 columns to the right,
>>>>>> and you want to delete the next 10 characters, but you don't yet
>>>>>> know the magic letter to trigger the deletion, your intuition might
>>>>>> lead you to try 10d.
> If it doesn't work, then what is the point of all this? I thought
> your complaint about hjkl not being intuitive as cursor moving
> keys must have some basis in terms of something else you
> consider better. Something that doesn't have to work isn't better.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> Could it be intuitive to one person but not another?
> Coincidence works sometimes too.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> If so we are back to coincidence.
> No, we have identified it as a misconception - black
> magic until proven otherwise.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>> You might also have been taught that the correct command to delete
>>>>> is x, yet type d in this situation.
> Of course not. The vi command pattern involves a specified motion
> or range. Something involving a single character instead would be
> a special case and likely have a less intuitive command letter.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> but you have to understand the pattern and supply the motion/range
>>> to delete.
> That is not the pattern. That is a special case for commands with an
> implicit range. You have to understand the pattern before you can
> build the variations easily. The pattern (As I said before and you deleted)
> is:
> [count] [command] [motion/range].
> You won't find vi intuitive before understanding this.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>> That is, knowing 10l as you mentioned, if you understood
>>> the pattern and guessed d as delete, you would have constructed
>>> 10dl correctly.
> x is the special case which won't have intuitive variations because
> of the implicit range.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>> If that happened to work, then you could
>>>>>> claim that the command was intuitive. Unfortunately, it doesn't
>>>>>> work. What you wanted was 10x. Not intuitive in this example.
> d was. d was the right guess to delete a range, yet you claimed it
> wasn't. The relevant text is still there. You just did not understand
> the pattern you claimed to be repeating. And you are the one
> who deleted my re-iteration of the pattern.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
>>>>>> But if you already knew that x was the command to delete a character,
>>>>>> then using 10x to delete 10 characters is not relying on intuition
>>>>>> at all. It's relying on filling out the template.
> That's progress. I was convinced you weren't able to learn anything,
> but I see you are learning technique from Aaron.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot, Les? I'll address
the rest of your nonsense when you learn to grow up.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
