On 1 December 2012 01:22, dimitris chloupis <theki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > the bottom line is this, may I as a noob user use system browser without the > mouse , just by shortcuts ? How about the debugger and inspector ? > > Personally I dont care about vim shortcuts, I am an emacs user and guess > what I dont care about emacs shortcuts as well. This why there is no way I > am going to bother implementing vim shortcuts which by the way I find them > bad , and so do I emacs shortcuts as well. So we are not far apart on this > point. > > But I will try to implement a shortcut based interface. I wish I could > figure out pharo in a single day and start doing this stuff. But learning > takes time. From time being mouse does not bother because I code slow > anyway, but I think the faster I start to code in pharo the more it will > make sense to rely more on shortcuts and liberate myself from them mouse. > > Also I think you are unfair calling emacs a text editor. Its not. I know the > consensus is calling emacs a text editor but I dont think thats a fair > definition. Because taking a look into emacs will immediately show that is > not that diffirent from smalltalk. Its a development enviroment. It has its > own language, a very capable one, rich library set not just limited to text > editing and an array of development tools. If you add to it a common lisp > runtime together with slime , it can give pharo easily a run for its money. > I am saying this because you talked about shortcuts of making things "bold" > or "italic". >
i know that emacs is not just text editor. but i never used it anyways, so i don't know and don't relly care :) but my "bold" or "italic" was about some features would make sense only in certain environment/ for certain purpose. If you need apples but people offer you oranges.. you won't buy them despite how fresh and juicy and low-pricey they are. And even if you buy, it won't fulfill your need in apples. That means that if you blindly port feature(s) from one environment into another, it is not necessary makes sense, despite how good and useful they are. First thing what you should do is to study deeply both of them, and then you'll have an insight whether doing some moves makes sense. > In any case I don't think its unreasonable from time to time a new user to > jump in here and ask for a feature. This also gives a clear idea what people > want from pharo, old and new users. Whether a developer will jump in and > implement the feature is a completely different matter. After all that's the > beauty of a truly democratic system. > yes.. but what makes me sad that most newcomer initiatives look like following: - hi i am new here - lets improve Pharo by porting X features into it, because X is cool. and then they disappear. By analogy, imagine i started using emacs.. a few days later i will have a bright idea, how cooler it would be to have vim shortcuts in it.. and next step, i will jump into emacs dev mailing list and bring that proposal on table! That will "give a clear idea" where emacs developers should focus their effort for next release. No doubt. :) All i can tell is, that this is not Pharo problem. The problem is that people tend to think that things they already learned or get used to so far is best of best, and anything which does not fits into their world view or using different approach alienating them a lot. The first reaction is to just leave, and second one is to bring as much baggage as they can into new environment, hoping that it will make it less alien. This , of course applicable to everyone, including me, because it is natural behavior of humans :) But here lies a mistake: first you must learn it well. And only then you can judge whether your 'baggage' could make things better or not. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
