[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thu, 02 Jun 2016 15:21:15 -0000
On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:09:09 PM UTC+5:30, Drew Adams wrote:
> Making a blanket, one-size-fits-all judgment for everyone
> takes choice away from users.
> I'm all for such a possibility. What I am not for is
> Emacs imposing or recommending this or that look & feel
> in some blanket way.
> Let a hundred flowers bloom. Vive the mode line.
Just consider me in the opposite camp.
Everything else being equal too much choice is a bad thing:
One could go further and DEFINE freedom as choicelessness.
While I wont do that I will say that emacs is progressing from the
best software category to suxware category by offering too much bogus choices
- .emacs.d/init.el or .emacs
- custom-file or let customize mess your init
- setq or customize
- half a dozen options to specify keybindings
- eval-after-load or add-hook or simple-setq (+prayer that the mode author
I could go on
But I think you get the idea -- Choice is undesirable if there is any choice
about making the choice
Most recent example of bogus choices
haskell mode has been upgraded to some new fancy beyond-comint stuff
But the old comint is still there -- if you like -- Choice after all is
Result: What used to work OTB now needs to have explicit define-keys to make
sure user chooses old or new interface
|[Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread]|