Re: Scientific Workplace vs Latex2e



blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

In article <85veq6ni2e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[ snip ]

I am still curious to know about what kind of problems make learning
Emacs so much harder than learning an arbitrary other editor one has
not used before.

There must be something about this sentence of yours that I don't
understand, because the answer seems so obvious to anyone with any
exposure to the way most people use computers these days (not me,
or at least most of the time, probably not you, but most people) ....

Do you mean emacs or xemacs? if the former, hm, I would think that
most people these days find the user interface off-putting -- if it
doesn't present you with a bunch of menus and give the impression
that you can just start doing stuff without any need to read any
documentation, they're not interested.

When was the last millennium you used Emacs? It presents you with a
bunch of menus and gives the impression that you can just start doing
stuff without any need to read any documentation.

Indeed, that's the cause of not too few problem reports and/or feature
requests for AUCTeX... People _do_ start doing stuff without reading
documentation...

Or maybe the way to make the point I'm trying to make is that many
people these days don't particularly want to *learn* any editor;
they want to start using it right away, and may never be interested
in developing any expertise that would require more effort than
navigating menus, etc. I don't think you can get far with emacs
with this approach.

You can't get as far as a wizard, no question, but that's pretty much
the same with every software.

So I am still somewhat at a loss just to figure out what makes the
crucial difference here.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>
.