Re: Change terminology to better align users’ experience with modern GUIs

[Jean Louis]

* 조성빈 <pcr910303@icloud.com> [2019-07-23 08:47]:
> Is there any intent or interest in updating the terminology of Emacs 
> documentation/function names to better align users’ experience with modern 
> GUIs? 
> 
> For example, `window' and `buffer' in emacs is more meaningful when
> explained as `pane' or `document'.

One word may have different definitions, right?

The Emacs manual explains the definitions.

I understand your viewpoint, you learned some other definitions for
same words and now you face little confusion. But imagine how many
people are there, so many of them would come from random environments
and would be faced with new definitions, so it would not be feasible
to change definitions to satisfy each particular wish, but I know that
changes and modifications are made by Emacs developers whenever it
benefits the majority.

In Emacs `buffer' is not necessarily connected to any file
document. Do you know?

> Especially the term `window' is a frequent source of confusion to
> Emacs newcomers which confuse them to `frame'.

Me not sure about that. I did not have confusion since 1999, since I
started using Emacs and stopped using that other system. But I did
take my time to read the books and manuals, and there were too many
new definitions of commands and terminology in the GNU/Linux system.

So facing the new terminology ALWAYS take place when learning some new
subject.

I hope that you can generally understand the situation. It applies in
every subject, not only computing.

When a new student in mining university learns definition of a
"sample", he cannot just try to adapt it to his previous understanding
of it, but he shall rather learn the new definition and apply it
properly in the context how and where it is used.

The word `sample' may be small part of something inteded as
representative of the whole (reference Wordnet). It could be a bite of
watermelon before its purchase.

But in mining, the word sample has quite different definition such as
"collection of fragments or pieces from a deposit which contains
exactly the same minerals in exactly the same proportions as they
exist in the deposit".

While it would be easier for student to simply go on with those known
definitions, it would create disaster in the subject of mining if his
definition of the word `sample' would be used.

That is why developers are pretty careful and try to find consensus
when making such modification.

> IMO in my ideal world, there should be no division between `window' and 
> `buffer', the difference should be abstracted away so that users don’t have 
> to know the `window' notion at all.
> However that currently isn’t the case, there are multiple occurrences (and a 
> dedicated chapter) in the Emacs manual about `window' and `buffer'.
> 
> Changing the `window' term to `pane' or something else seems like a 
> low-hanging fruit for people who would like to try using Emacs; I’m 
> interested/curious on other people’s opinions about this.

I am also not native English speaker. It should be logical from
physical world that a window consists of frames and panes eventually.

Those definitions are different from Emacs terminology.

And I would leave it how it is. Do you know why?

Because Emacs is an important part of civilization and development of
many other apparently not related pieces of software.

It brings to easier understanding of its history. I have here a
document AI Memo 554, from October 22nd 1981, EMACS Manual for ITS
Users. Now I am not sure if they had any graphical environment at that
time.

That company that sells operating system Windows maybe started in the
same year some plans for it, but nothing was released until
1985. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Early_versions

And in the EMACS Manual for ITS Users the words "windows" are
mentioned.

What if they did not use graphical system? Then it was a console or
terminal based application. Monitor would not be considered a window
so that screen tilings become pane.

I think that logic of "window" comes from the console or terminal
based operation.

And Emacs is widely used through terminal modes, so changing
terminology would break the logic for those users.

Jean