Re: A modern-mode?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: ams@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt)
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:17:08 -0400
> Cc: akrl@sdf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> 
>    On 2020-09-16 10:36 +03, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
>    > The word modern has a negative meaning in that it implies that the
>    > rest of Emacs isn't modern -- why would users ever want to switch of
>    > "modern-mode" and use the un-modern Emacs?
> 
>    IMHO reading too much into names is not productive.  ‘Modern’ is a term
>    that’s used fairly often in this context, and what to expect would be
>    obvious to those who would want to use such a mode: features common to
>    contemporary text editors.
> 
> Names mean things and in this discussion it was because Emacs was seen
> as old (i.e., un-modern), a new user would be curious why modern-mode
> isn't the default.  And as the discussion has showed, there is no
> agreement what people think is modern.  So it would be simply better
> to avoid the term "modern" completely.

Yes, let's find a different name for this.  I'd object to calling it
"modern", because I disagree that vanilla Emacs isn't.

newcomer-friendly-mode? new-to-emacs-mode? numacs-mode?