Re: Emacs: Problems of the Scratch Buffer

[Chiron]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:15:20 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

> Chiron <chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:10:48 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Chiron <chiron613.no.spam.@no.spam.please.gmail.com> Date: Sat,
>>>> 21 Apr 2012 12:43:45 GMT
>>>> 
>>>> In what way do the maintainers of emacs benefit from having more
>>>> users?
>>> 
>>> If you ever maintained a package that others used, you must know that
>>> satisfying your users is a very powerful incentive.  Frankly, I'm
>>> surprised to see this question asked at all.
>>
>> Well, I'm just going by the behavior of the current maintainers.  They
>> aren't making the changes that people seem to want
> 
> You're making that up right?
> 
> Every one of the maintainers works on something someone wants. With a
> little reflection on your part, you'll understand why this is a truism.
> 
> Xah has a point, users and especially new users stumble on the scratch
> buffer.  All Emacs asks is that it's users be smart enough to read the
> little blurb there and ignore the buffer.
> 
> But so far, I don't see a lot of people coming up with good alternative
> designs.  At least the mention of lisp in the blurb gives new users an
> idea what language they need to use to modify things.

OK, I give up.  For some reason, I'm just not making myself clear, and 
there are too many people misunderstanding me for it to be their fault.  
One or two I could understand, but...  As Struther Martin might say, 
"what we got heyah is failyuh to communicate."

I can't think of how to properly express my opinion so that it is 
understood.  Since I'm not particularly attached to this opinion - which 
may very well be incorrect to begin with - I won't continue to belabor it.

-- 
Life is a gamble at terrible odds, if it was a bet you wouldn't take it.
                -- Tom Stoppard, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"