Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mailrus!cornell!rochester!bbn!jr@bbn.com
From: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: assorted questions
Message-ID: <30011@bbn.COM>
Date: 23 Sep 88 14:16:45 GMT
References:  <1423.590955666@pizza> <38609@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson)
Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge MA
Lines: 33
In-reply-to: spolsky-avram@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky)

In article <38609@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, spolsky-avram@CS (Joel Spolsky) writes [about (previous-line) and (scroll-down)]:
>On my terminal
>they're attached to (cursor up) and (page up), why shouldn't they
>behave like every other word processor in existance?

Okay, okay, sorry I started this.  Look, GNU (and other) emacses' BIG
win is that if you don't like how it does something, you can change
it!  Try that with your wordstar.

I think someone even wrote a wordstar.el.  Would you like to own up?

As to "fixes" proposed in this discussion, they ain't.  This is
religion, folks; there's no right and wrong.

Emacs predates "word processors" by a goodly number of years.  Those
who have lived with (ITS/Bottoms20/GNU) emacses all these years
appreciate the consistency they have shown in pritnear all of the
default behaviors.  The growing body of smart packages to go with are
that much more sugar.

Maybe the problem is that rigid word procesors made for rigid habits,
and since they were for-money products with lean support staff and no
friendly user community to improve them, people got their features,
and bugs, wired into their fingers.

I like Dijkstra's quote about how microprocessors set the art of
computer programming back about 20 years.  I am tempted to say the
same thing about "word processors" and editors.  But I won't.

Diving for the asbestos...
--
/jr
jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr