Re: basic question: going back to dired

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:16, Tim X <timx@nospam.dev.null> wrote:

> I would suggest a third is that as far as I know, there have been no
> suggestions for different terms which actually improve the situation.

Agreed. Notice I said "at least".

> Change for the sake of change is a waste of resources. If the
> terminology is going to be changed to something, it needs to be
> something that adds real value and which isn't just a 'dumbing down' to
> try and increase popularity.

I don't think that using common terms and increasing popularity is
necessarily related to "dumbing down". But I agree with the first
sentence, and I think that the terminology is not going to be changed.

> for example, I don't think workspace is any real improvement over
> buffer. What would you call all those buffers that users never actually
> see? Are they workspaces?

Perhaps not. Are they buffers? Most of them no, the data is not on its
way to a device or file (which, is, after all, the original CS meaning
of buffer Emacs has borrowed from).

> the other issue here is the frequency of people who are willing to post
> and criticise the terminology as being out of date or misleading or just
> inadequate, but who are not prepared to actually do anything about
> it. Its easy to rite criticism - actually making things change takes
> effort and dedication. If your not prepared to do the work, then I think
> people should just be quiet. If you are prepared to do the work, then
> just get on with it. If your right, your work will be appreciated and
> you may actually improve things.

I'm not sure if you're talking now about me (you quoted my message) or
Xah. I'm not proposing changing anything, so there's no work to be
done. Discussing whether current terms are adequate or not is valuable
in itself, if it helps in the choosing of terms for new features.

   Juanma