help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What does 'run' do in cperl-mode?


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: What does 'run' do in cperl-mode?
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:33:23 +0300

> From: Xah <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> On Jul 28, 8:32 pm, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > From:XahLee<address@hidden>
> > > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > > After all, many emacs developers read here i was told.
> >
> > Most of them don't, actually.  Whoever told you otherwise was wrong.
> 
> 
> thanks for setting this correct.
> 
> ... wait, but it was you who told me so here few months back i think.

Can't be, you are either confusing me with someone else, or you
misunderstood what I said back then.

> Remember, in my article
> 
> “Emacs's M-‹key› Notation vs Alt+‹key› Notation”
>  http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization_meta_key.html
> 
> The main reasons i gave are:
> 
> • Universally understood

So is Meta.

> • Identical To Key's Label

Only on some keyboards.

> • Meta is Alt in practice

Only on some keyboards.

> • Keyboards don't have Meta key today

Yes, they do, at least some of them.

> So i consider it more as bug report now i think about it. Why? Because
> emacs failed to update itself when its keyboard under lisp machines
> become obsolete.

You have your history wrong: Meta came from old Sun keyboards, where
it was marked with a diamond.

> As i mentioned, the computing industry changes relative fast.

So is Emacs.  There are hundreds of lines of code that get committed
each day into the Emacs repository.

> Oh, another point i wanted to make before, was that OpenSource
> software often takes a 5 to 10 years lag of adopting features from the
> commercial wold.

With Emacs, it's actually the other way around: it got many features
waaay before the rest of the world.

> Syntax coloring, for example, i think by 1995 is in every commercial
> software. (when did it came to emacs?)

In July 1993.

> Mouse support...

1985

> Font ...

Hard to tell, but looks like 1992 at the latest (I'm quite sure it was
much earlier, but cannot find evidence in the few free moments I have
now).

> Unicode ...

2000

> GUI support ...

1985

> I'm actually don't have solid historical facts for the above points as
> i liked...

Oh, but you should, perhaps.  Then you might see that some of your
opinions have no factual basis at all, as far as Emacs is concerned.

> but anyway i just want to write instead of like doing 10
> years of research and post 1 article and got overflooded.

No need for that: I looked up the above in less than a minute of
grepping Emacs ChangeLog files.

> So back to emacs.... there was CUA mode. I don't know the history of
> the mode, but it is my guess that mode has been floating out there for
> quite some time before it is part of emacs. I think there must be huge
> resistance back then, even today, the use of it is somewhat
> controversial, and geekers are shy to admit they use it because that
> somehow makes them “Microsoft Kiddies”.

You are wrong.  As long as a mode is optional, there's normally no
resistance at all (assuming that it's written cleanly and according to
Emacs coding style and standards).

> The other point is that if you research the adaption of GUI features
> or practices in commercial and free software world, you'll see that
> the free camp is rather slow in 5 to 10 years.

Like I said: get your history right first, then I will perhaps
consider taking seriously your claims.  For now, it's just bla-bla
that's not based on anything except itself.

> Emacs in fact is a good example.  Nobody uses it.

Yeah, right.  That'd be a very LARGE nobody.

> lol.

Same here.

> alright, i typed fast. this post is maybe 50 min but now it flies out
> sans cleanup. I have written much better about all these points
> actually, but citing my website gets tired and ignored. Better answer
> question on person to person basis, is what am trying to do.

I hope the ratio of your lines to mine will not be so large next time,
though, or else I'd need to cut my losses and stop.  I will never have
enough time even to read everything you managed to dump on me in
response to just 11 lines.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]