Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19990323151815.27874932@shadow.net>
X-Sender: ralphgpr AT shadow DOT net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:18:15
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: Ralph Proctor <ralphgpr AT shadow DOT net>
Subject: Re: EMACS is superb
In-Reply-To: <fycflpbqrpbz.f925ir0.pminews@nntp.generation.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

At 12:20 PM 3/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 05:42:43 -0500, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>>I could ask you why the macro feature is at all relevant to this.  I'm
>>using Emacs for 15 years, and exclusively for about 6 years, and I
>>don't think I used keyboard macros more than 5 times in all that time.
>
>	Simply put, all EMACS commands are invoked by multiple CTRL/ALT+KEY
>combinations and that is quite ugly and/or cumbersome.. Aside from that the
>editor is fine.
>
>Gili

Gili:

Let's try a thought experiment (as the theoretical physicists do):

Imagine that EMACS is just as it is in every way but one:

That one change is that the key-stroke commands (no change in the
word-commands) are
so grotesque that nobody could ever memorize a single one. Imagine that.

Now answer this: Would EMACS still be an asset? (assuming you could benefit
from its
features, of course)
.
If you say no, it would be of no value, then I don't think you know EMACS
very well. Its value
is not in key-strokes, IMHO  :)

Ralph