From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!C70:editor-people
Newsgroups: fa.editor-p
Title: Improved support for Emacs in TOPS-20.
Article-I.D.: ucb.1178
Posted: Tue May 25 19:09:22 1982
Received: Sat May 29 03:07:17 1982

>From GZ@MIT-MC Tue May 25 18:05:21 1982
The question of abstract models aside, it seems to me that in practical terms,
you are proposing only a few things different from the way Emacs works.
1) The user doesn't (need to/have to) manage formatting characters explicitly.
   Things like trailing white space and tabs are taken care of by the editor,
   with some appropriate semantics (e.g. automatic extension at end of line
   due to cursor motion, automatic deletion when writing to file)
2) Truncation and horizontal scrolling as the preferred mode of viewing long
   lines.
3) Overwriting as the preferred mode of editing.

I think 1) is perfectly reasonable.  Somebody should implement this for emacs
(you only need ^R Up Screen line, ^R Down Screen Line, etc. and a save-file
hook). (Actually, tabs are useful in retaining their tabbing property when
editing tables, but in most free-form text their presence is incidental
anyway, due to the use of higher level formatting commands)
2) is a reasonable option.  I would like to see it added to Teco, or to future
implementations of Emacs.  It is probably preferable when viewing text with
some "columnar" properties, such as a compiler listing.  However, when what you are viewing is strictly left-to-right, such as English text, I don't think
cutting it off and forcing the user to shift the whole screen left and right just to maintain the natural flow of the text is reasonable.
As for 3), all I can say is I've used both, and, except for making pretty
pictures, overwriting is a total loss.  It forces you into a line-editor mode
of thinking, counting characters and all.  No amount of improved efficiency is
worth the price.  You admit as much yourself, by saying that in most editing
situations, you place the user in insert mode automatically.

Finally, I think you got it backwards when it comes to words like "obsolete".
Regardless of whether the model you present is better or not, it is older than
emacs.  It is the model used by IBM screen editors.  In fact, they go you one
better, efficiency wise...  Instead of putting the support in the monitor,
they put it in the terminal.  Simple cursor motion, overwriting and even
inserting characters is instantenious regardless of system load.  Of course
you will wake up the editor in more situations (I guess most control
characters and on attempts to go off screen) while they only wake up the
editor on ten or so keys (ENTER and the PF keys).  But then one would expect
SOME progress in 10 years.