🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike's response (more like a Bronx cheer) forces me to clarify some of the
points I was trying to make:

First, I could not say that the design of Unix is not simple, clean and
well-integrated from top to bottom.  In fact, I only objected to one thing,
certainly not a central point, which is the cryptic command names (cat, mv,
rm, sh, ls, grep).  These are almost as mnemonic as PDP-10 opcode names.
(Jrst enough for some, I suppose.)

Second, Emacs is no Mies van der Rohe creation.  The implementation is at
three levels, MIDAS, TECO, and Emacs keyboard input, the first two of which
are incompatible with each other and sane human beings.  The single
character commands are also cryptic, but there is readily accesible online
documentation for them.  Common editing commands are often used in rapid
succesion, necessitating brevity.  (Although I believe I saw an editor
described in Software P & E using the Tops-20 COMND JSYS which looked
somewhat interesting for novices.)  Mike (apparently) objects to the use of
extra shift keys for commands.  This is required because there is no
"insert mode" in Emacs; what you see is what you get.  That is what
distinguises it from every other editor I have used, and is the most
important aspect of its design.  Also, by not requiring special editing
keys or other input devices such as a mouse, a good typist can remain in
registration when entering commands.

Unix was designed when CPU power, memory, address space and terminal
bandwidth were scarce resources.  Its popularity (in academic circles) is
due to its accessibility, portability and malleability.  I only hope
in extolling its virtues we do not overlook its shortcomings.

-- Eric

P.S. Sorry for getting a little off the topic of personal workstations per
se, but I believe this is relevant to system design.
-------