On Jun 21, 2:10 pm, Kaldrenon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I have to point out, that this makes the assumption that the most oft- used commands in a GUI editor are not as easily accessed from the keyboard as they are in a terminal editor. I took a moment to look at the gui editor which has been made available to me, and short of the "remove leading spaces" commands, I do not need to remove my hands from the keyboard if I do not want to. Your statement holds true if, and only if, a user does not take full advantage of the keyboard commands. But if we're talking about experienced users in both cases, then that's not an issue, is it? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
