🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3234@kim> kim@spock (Kim Letkeman) writes:
>In article <10558@yunexus.UUCP>, oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes:

>Perhaps noting the name of the author would help explain the reasoning
>behind the original article, which might make for a more enlightened
>response.

Should other posters like myself expect such a gracious reception
as well?

>| Kyle suggests that there is a point at which the programmer should
>| "stop" configurability, and make fixed (and perhaps arbitrary)
>| decision as to what is "good" for that user. I merely inquired what
>| that point (or dividing line if you wish) is.
>
>A very uncharitable and biased interpretation. 

You are mistaken.

>... Kyle made it fairly
>clear that he felt that there was a place where the designer of a
>function might consider protecting the unsophisticated user from
>catastrophy, rather than allowing a risky command to be easily
>triggered by type ahead. 

This is *exactly* where the problem is.

It is one thing to provide safety-features as a possible solution against
presumed human failings under certain circumstances. It is totally another
thing to suggest/imply that those features are necessarily correct,
sufficient, or even required without appropriate justification.

Tell me: what exactly *is* an unsophisticated user? [by implication, you
*are* sophisticated right?] Unsophisticated in relation to what? Typing?
Un*x?  Editors? Computers in general? Does "unsophisticated" mean "stupid"?
By the way, what is a catastrophic command? One that cannot be undone? Why
can't it be undone? Is that a theoretical or provably practical necessity
or bad design? How catastrophic should the commands be? Are they
necessary?  

Yup, it is nice to talk about "unsophisticated users" and "risky commands"
and "catastrophies". "Designer" indeed.

>The dividing line is obviously a personal choice.

Is that so. Do you think the programmers working on the next release of
WordPerfect (for example) make "obviously" personal choices? Would you
like to ask them?

>Configuring a program to operate a certain way is hardly the same as
>extending it by adding new functionality. Webster agrees.

Is that Webster's Intro to Computer Science?? Wrong book. :-). Try
something on automata theory.

>| No, not quibble, but discuss: It certainly is not a waste of time,
>| especially not when it is hip to throw around "extensibility" (some
>| call them macros :-) as if it is be-all-end-all solution to
>| everything.
>
>This appears to be a point of religion. I read this newsgroup every
>day and haven't received the same message.

So ?? My point was far more general than just emacs, and I expected the
reader to think of other "extensible" editors, window managers, word
processors, directory browsers, hypertalk, awl, tcl, ad nausiam. Actually,
RMS has had a very clear vision, and made a serious effort in explaining
his design choices, extensibility, up to and including, for example,
"dynamic binding".  [e.g.  See RMS Emacs paper on Barstow's I.P.E.]. His
followers have not been so thorough.

oz

-- 
The king: If there's no meaning	   	    Interned:  oz@nexus.yorku.ca
in it, that saves a world of trouble        ......!uunet!utai!yunexus!oz
you know, as we needn't try to find any.    Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti]
Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland)