Feel free to disagree with what I'm about to say. I know that this thread would be far, FAR shorter if OP hadn't been instigating disagreement, but so far most of the discourse has been polite, so I'm going to say what I'm thinking.
I think there are far too many people in all camps (the Emacs camp, the vi* camp, and the GUI/IDE/point-and-click-and-make- everything-"user-friendly" camp) who look at this disagreement as a debate in which they Are Right, and the members of the other two camps Are Wrong. There are billions of people in this world, and even if you ignore the ones who don't need to use a text editor or word processor on a regular basis, you end up with a VERY large number of people. And people are different. We think differently, we all have different things that come to us naturally, different things that are tricky but learn-able, and different things that we'll never be able to do without a manual open in front of us. There are a lot of people for whom emacs is easy to learn, logical to use, and the way it is set up (or at least the way -they- set it up) is so natural to them that they'll never be as productive anywhere else. But there are also a lot of people for whom emacs doesn't click, who can give it a genuine try but still not catch on, and even once they learn enough to muddle through, they'll always work better in Word, or in an IDE. But I think there's something else to it, and it's part of why I think the emacs faithful swear by it so fiercely, even if it does seem a daunting tool to master. I don't think anyone can make the argument that any (past or current) graphics-based editor is as efficient when being used to its fullest as a text-based editor. It's basic math - it takes measurably more time to move a hand to the mouse, move/click the mouse, and more the hand back to the touch-typing position than it does to execute even a moderately complex series of keystrokes. Maybe not large amounts of time -per action-, but it doesn't take too long for it to add up if you spend a lot of time editing. Contrast the time saved by not having to reposition one's hands, the extensibility, and customization against the learning curve of an interface that doesn't exactly throw its controls at the user, and here's the conclusion I think results: graphical interfaces are - easier- to develop some proficiency with, but proficiency with emacs pays of far more in the long run. And if you disagree with me, or if you think I expressed my point poorly (I'm good that that), all you need to do is ask Steve Yegge his thoughts on emacs. -Andrew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
