Chris Dollin <kers@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> If syntax editing really was better than plain-text editing, I would
> have thought that the earlier explorations would have demonstrated the
> benefit. Maybe machines are now becomming powerful enough ...
>
This very point gives me confidence in my assumption: my evaluation
of the speed/convenience of my prefered OS n-o vs. the 'standard'
Wxx is inversely proportional to their popularity
>
> > I speak without experience but I just looked at the syntax-diagrams and:
> > why should I pick an "f" an "o" and an "r", when I can just pick a "for".
> > Or better still, since it is 'not a choice', just pick a "for
> > .....endfor".
>
> I can type `for` faster than I can reach for the mouse and make a
> selection. I can type `fo <completion>` faster than I can type
> `for do endfor`. At least, it *feels* that way. Of course syntax
> editors need not be mouse-driven - I only recall ones that were,
> but that doesn't prove anything.
>
Key-board vs. 'heads up flying' is a separate issue; where 'heads up'
allows you to position the cursor to a different task-window immediately
[for a serious poplog session, I end up with 6 terminals - got to take
notes & search existing files etc.]
The first killer-applications: spread sheets; were menu driven,
not free text entry.
I don't even KNOW about <completion>.
Is <completion> not a type of 'syntax editor' ?
Does it also insert the mandatory 'closing bracket' for the construct(s) ?
>
> Perhaps we mean different things by the term "syntax editing"?
>
If there are < 6 possible choices at some stage of the source text,
I don't want to have to think/remember, but just select.
Perhaps I'm getting senile, but after some moths away from polog,
I had to search my notes on how to <esc> W. And now still I can't
remember how to jump directly for:
HELP * <topic>
Potential new users have other tasks in their lives which must
share the cognitive load. They may not immediately want to get
married to poplog.
> > The desire for freedom to type in near-english dialog to the
> > machine is part of the 'little man in the box' illusion - a curse.
>
> I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Fiddling around with syntax editors
> is just as much a "little man in the box" illusion as typing nowhere-
> near-English non-dialogue text is. Presumably you were aiming for
> the same poetic license as I was ...
>
I'll go further, and say that the virtuosi gypsy violinist hates the
pop-in-dumbed-down music box, which devalues his 'typing skills'.
Imagine if when entering a lift/elevator, you had to type in 'near english'
instead of just selecting one of n buttons.
> > Based on my experience with 3 button mouse cording which takes
> > some initial learning investment, but which becomes a massively
> > powerful (reflex) control, and the (linux)mc/(DOS&Win)Norton-
> > Commander I believe that the investment in tool usage pays
> > dividends.
>
> Yes. Independantly of which tools they are.
>
> > I've never tried it (we all fear investing effort with no return)
> > but I suspect that emacs can do what I have in mind ? I also suspect
> > that the few emacs users who are drawing the benefits are happy
> > the 'fly in the fast lane' while the rest follow the popular way.
>
> So far as I am aware, Emacs users don't routinely use syntax editing
> for eg writing C code, writing TeX documents, writing elisp macros
> etc. They use "modes", which are more like what I referred to above
> as "help".
>
> You certainly *want* some syntax-oriented operations in an editor.
> That's a far cry from forcing them on people.
Sure. After a bit of practice, one doesn't look at the menues
when pounding the key-board for spreadsheets
>
> [Have you tried Eclipse, at least for Java? That's the sort of hybrid
> I think works. You type text, but it flags language errors on-the-fly
> and leaves you to sort them out in your own time. And it supports
> refactoring operations which are structure-oriented, eg rename this
> identifier, lift out this code as a method, add a parameter to a method.]
>
Sounds good.
-- Chris Glur.
|