🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7107@boring.mcvax.UUCP> guido@boring.uucp (Guido van Rossum) writes:
>Matt Dillon:
>>Mouse-based 'user friendly' editors are all an well, but completely useless
>>once you get experienced.

Useless for what, layout, paragraph entry, spelling, graphics, ???

>>Not only that, but user-friendly editors have virtually NO programmability.
>>Programmability implies things that you cannot do with a menu-driven editor.

This is more a problem of immature technology than some constraint on the
technology itself.  Some of the early visual editors had virtually no
programmability.  VI for a Version 7 system isn't as programmable as TECO.
GNU emacs is more programmable that MacWrite, because the basics behind
full-screen systems is better understood.

>Oh yeah?  Wait till mouse-based editors have been around as long and
>hacked as much as VI...

Even then, there will be a great deal of work that should be done with
a "key oriented" environment.  Paragraph entry, spelling, and any other
type of text-oriented data entry are excellent examples.

When it comes to layout, organization, and presentation planning, the
mouse is a definite win.

In some cases, such as graphics data entry, it will depend on the nature
of the data to be entered.

>Are we just discussing the merits of existing
>editors or also the potential of different paradigms?

A little of both.  Existing editors, and indications of evolutionary
trends, tend to give a good idea of where things might eventually go.

Mac products seem to be suffering from a profound lack of evolution.
MacProject is probably one of the more interesting variations, but
many products seem to be self-limited by the "Inside Mac Mentality".

>Why would it be
>impossible to add complete mouse support and standard cut/paste to an
>Emacs-like editor?

There is already an emacs editor which has some of these features.  Microemacs
3.8? for the Atari ST has options for "mice" as well as fully supported
function keys.

>	...Guido
Rex