🚀 go-pugleaf

Anil Joshi (joshi@edu.uiuc.cs) writes:

| Your X-ZIPPY really got me for a minute. Please look before you post(or
| mail).  [Personal comment deleted]

	Zippy is inserted automatically when I send, and is not an insult
     but a light-hearted "joke" sort of thing.  Pretty obvious really,
     it's only the header.

| >      I'm sorry, I'm not going to get
| >      flamed by someone who asks for help in gnu.emacs.help & then slags
| >      off GNU & Emacs because of ignorance.  I have seen a demolishment by
| >      Joe Wells (jbw@bigbird.bu.edu), so I'll try not to repeat his points.
| > 
| I am not flaming.. these are some of my genuine concerns. If you can't
| distinguish between a complaint (BTW RMS suggests that people should 
| complain if they don't like something) and falme, shut up.

	Then why say things like "Looks like they [GNU] have not done
     their homework", "why o why", calling Emacs "a step backwards" etc.
     (Haven't got an original of you posts & can't remember them word for
     word).  Rms is right (see, I can name drop too), you should complain,
     *but not when you don't know what you're talking about*.  You don't
     understand Emacs or Unix enough to pass judgements, that much is
     clear from your postings.  You must recognise that, I'm not the only
     one to point it out.

| > | >|    I need to escape the escape (\\). This is
| > | >|    totally counter-intuitive (as many things in emacs are). Why o why?
| > | >     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| > | >       Don't say things are "totally counter-intuitive" just because you
| > | >     don't understand them!!!  If you don't like it, you can always use vi
| > | >     or ed!!!
| > | I understand reg.exp. as much as any CS student does. I don't like
| > | ed ed or vi either. Their reg.exp are any good. I am using
| > 		      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I presumed "aren't"
| > | "counter-intuitive" as an euphemism.
| > 
| > 	Euphemism for what?  What on earth do you mean? 
| Don't you understand the meaning of euphemism?
| Here I go(from oed2):
|   1. That figure of speech which consists in the substitution of a
| word or expression of comparatively favourable implication or less
| unpleasant associations, instead of the harsher or more offensive one
| that would more precisely designate what is intended.
|   2. An instance of this figure; a less distasteful word or phrase used
| as a substitute for something harsher or more offensive.

	Exactly!  It is a *substitution*.  What for?  Counter-intuitive is
     a word, not a figure of speach, like "I'm off to see a man about a
     dog" (1) for "I'm going to the toilet".  You use a euphemism instead
     of the real thing, but not something that means something else, but
     it isn't obviously a euphemism!  You used counter-intuitive, and
     that's what it read as.  If you said (1) in a pub/bar at midnight,
     someone is not going to take it as face value, and will frown
     disbelievingly (if they don't know what you mean), not say "Oh, what
     are you going to buy"!

| > | I don't see any ambiguity if one leaves out the escaping the escape.  Could
| > | you please emlighten me as to the rationale behind forcing the \\.  Syntax?
| > 
| > 	As I said to you, the regexp is being parsed/processed/interpreted
| >      before the directory-files function sees it.  This is Lisp, it is a
| >      functional language.

| I know functional languages. You seem to be making a lot of
| presumptions about what other do/don't know.

	So now do you understand why you quote the quote?  This is because
     it is a *functional language*, if you can't even see this, you can't
     complain when you write Lisp, because you don't understand it.

| > 	Again, you're not "forced" to do anything.  Emacs is not a
| >      conspiracy on behalf of MIT & GNU, it's a good editor which is very
| >      easily extended by users in a language which, while not quick, is
| >      easy to write in *when you understand it*.

| I differ with your point of view. I do understand enough of it to make
| a judgement of my own. Why are you so sensitive anyway to something
| which is not your own work. Let RMS answer.

	I haven't seen rms' answer, I presume he's posted one?  Why does
     he have to answer for you?  Can't you do it yourself?  I haven't seen
     anyone suport you (your arguments are wrong, so it's not surprising),
     but a few disagree and point out (again) your incorrect statements.

| > | I don't see any advantage of using LISP syntax over say REXX for editor
| > | macros. I can do better in REXX than LISP.
| > 
| > 	Use it then.  (1) How long have you known REXX?  (2) How long have
| >      you known Emacs & Emacs Lisp?  My guess is (1) >> (2).
| Oh. So if somebody criticizes what you like, you just go off and say
| that well up yours. How typical of a UNIX hacker/programmer - totally
| insensitive to user's needs.

	???!!!  My point is that you don't know (1) as well as (2), so you
     can hardly compare them.  You make an interesting point about Unix
     people though, a few generalisations should go down a treat.  My IBM
     dig was meant more as a joke, & as I said, perhaps I should've made
     that clearer for you.

| > | Unix utilities don't hang together well due to their origins ... (1)
| > 
| > 	I don't think you understand Unix either.
| > 
| You think that ignorance is bliss. You seem to understand/know UNIX and
| nothing else. (2)

	I am just commenting on your understanding of Unix.  You say (1) &
     I (and others) point out that this isn't even true.  So how can you
     get (2) from that?  You can't criticise something *you don't
     understand*

| > | ... Emacs has gone one step further in widening the gap by introducing an
| > | entirely new set of utilities/interfaces/langauges/tools. I don't have
| > | anything against changes as long as they are progressive.  But GNU emacs is
| > | in my opinion is a step backwards in terms of bringing computing closer to
| > | the users.
| > 
| > 	So there should be only one tool for any given job?  Emacs is an
| >      editor/environment.  A user can extend Emacs, if s/he wants to.
| This is garbage. I never said there should be only one tool. I need a
| tool that makes tools - a meta-tool so to speak.

	Are you just saying you want an editor/environment that it is
     really easy to make tools with?  I know that is not a meta-tool, but
     what else do you mean?

| >      There are a multitude of existing environments to make make editing
| >      easy.
| What multitude of environments? Your note seems to be generated 
| completely from quotes from ZIPPY.

	!!!  For example, different modes for different programing
     environments.  C, Ada, TeX, LaTeX, scheme, Lisp, Modula...  My "note"
     had no Zippies in it, only headers have *one*.  Let's be accurate.

| > 
| > | There is definitely a point or two that can be incorporated into emacs from
| > | the IBM mainframe world.
| > 
| > 	Ahhh!  Now we have it!  An IBM user!

| What is your problem? Are you jealous that somebody is making money
| because they serve the users better and are sensitive to their needs
| more than the likes of you do?

	Perhaps I should have enclosed it in ( ;-) the !s weren't
     enough...  Ibm have a reputation - you love them or hate them.  I was
     pandying to the latter.

| You seem to be doing nothing but read ZIPPY, Eliza or play towers of
| hanoi.
| Anil Joshi
| joshi@cs.uiuc.edu

	That's right!  How could you tell I read zippy & play eliza,
     towers of hanoi etc all day, just from reading mail that doesn't
     mention them!  You must be psychic!  Enclose all in those ( ;-)s.
     Btw, did you know Emacs has all of these too???

	You must surely admit you don't know what you're talking about
     when it comes to Emacs & Unix!  I can't believe, seeing the
     demonstratably incorrect things you've said about both, that you can
     still believe you can make (informed) judgements on either!

	When you have an understanding of Emacs/Unix, *then* you can make
     your judgements.

	Simon.