I think the key (to suck people in) is to make the basic things easy,
perhaps even intuitive (although I'm not fond of using that word for a whole
lot of things), and hard things possible, but perhaps you have to work for
them.
The most frustrating thing for someone who wants to get real,
.---
| Chris Devers wrote:
|
| The trick is to be complex, yet accessible.
|
`---
To enjoy emacs without investing any time, talk to some emacs users you
know. Ask them about their text editing habits. When you find one that
closely resembles yours, ask to borrow their .emacs. It makes emacs
hi
( 03.07.09 22:20 -0400 ) Chris Devers:
> I wish I could think of better metaphors for this, because intuitively
> it seems clear to me that there are plenty of examples of things that
> are very complex and yet still not necessarily challenging.
this seems too one dimentional- i think most
As a long time emacs user I must agree
with the positions we have all been agreeing with:
* it has a long learning curve
* it has a lot of power
So I have a lot invested in it, and want to ensure
emacs continues to survive, nay thrive.
Unfortunately I think its rate of adoption
is continually
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Erik Price [2003-07-10 08:24]:
> On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 10:20 PM, Chris Devers wrote:
> > I wish I could think of better metaphors for this, because
> > intuitively it seems clear to me that there are plenty of examples
> > of things that
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 10:20 PM, Chris Devers wrote:
I wish I could think of better metaphors for this, because intuitively
it
seems clear to me that there are plenty of examples of things that are
very complex and yet still not necessarily challenging.
Python?
]} dodges barrage of
Dear Chris -
> "Chris" == Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> The trick is to be complex, yet accessible.
Chris> Emacs has complexity nailed, but isn't accessible to most
Chris> people.
Point taken. I don't mean to troll, but I'm curious if there really
are
7 matches
Mail list logo
