Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#101

Post by dcalacci »

tikhonj wrote: post #5

With inline LaTeX previews, we're already surprisingly close. In fact, I'd say that going all the way would be almost a step back. WYSIWYG is ultimately not an ideal editing paradigm: it wins in the short term, being easy to learn, but drags you down in the long term. I've recently started using Quora a bit more. Unlike StackOverflow, they use a WYSIWYG editor. I've found this significantly less convenient than Stack…

>So here's my idea for a great emacs-based document editor: markdown with inline math previews coupled with a full live preview to the side. All the necessary modes for this already exist

So org-mode has you covered there, basically. Org isn't markdown, but it's close (and full of tons of note-taking features), and you can do inline latex with live preview in org-mode. I use it for notes all the time.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#102

Post by belorn »

Toenex wrote: post #39

I've always felt it was this kind of thinking that puts Emacs at odds with the UNIX philosophy of do one thing well . Unless your one thing is everything-you-can-do-with-text.

Some projects are like that, because the synergy from a core functionality works well with added features. Its like how a window manager has menus and keyboard shortcuts even if its main purpose is to draw windows, or session managers are normally full working desktops.

Emacs do exactly one thing well (editing text), and a bunch of other things sort of OK. The sort of OK stuff is there because their core, they are about editing text. Like with an IDE, if the editing is crap, the ide is crap. As such, all IDE's require a good text editor to start with before they can do anything well.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#103

Post by invalidOrTaken »

Toenex wrote: post #39

I've always felt it was this kind of thinking that puts Emacs at odds with the UNIX philosophy of do one thing well . Unless your one thing is everything-you-can-do-with-text.

Emacs is a conscious computer virus with the aim of hollowing Unix out function by function, eventually to overthrow it. It's like a vampire: a shadow of what made it beautiful in life (elisp vs the old lisp machines), sustained mostly by blood (of its new users) and its long-term goal of revenge.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#104

Post by belorn »

reuven wrote: post #85
belorn wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But to flat-out refuse to read things on the Web As you described it, he did not actually flat-out refuse. He simply stated that he hasn't read all the documented published on the world wide web, since he don't "surf" the web. His approach to the web has been described many times. When someone sends him a link that they want him to read, stallman uses the program wget to download the file and reads it offline.

When I specifically asked him if he had read the bill in question to which he was objecting, which was available on the Web, he said that he had not, because he doesn't surf the Web. He, not I, equated "surfing" with "reading documents." The impression I got from that conversation was that Stallman makes no effort to go out and find things that would be useful and of interest to him. I don't call that "surfing," but…

In general, it is important to do independent and individual research before voicing an opposition.

However, it does depend on context. If this unnamed bill just happens to be SOPA, I am actually happy that we do not put such restrain on opposing voices. At some point, group action is more important than a handful individuals that has the time and energy to research the question independently.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#105

Post by computer »

tikhonj wrote: post #5

With inline LaTeX previews, we're already surprisingly close. In fact, I'd say that going all the way would be almost a step back. WYSIWYG is ultimately not an ideal editing paradigm: it wins in the short term, being easy to learn, but drags you down in the long term. I've recently started using Quora a bit more. Unlike StackOverflow, they use a WYSIWYG editor. I've found this significantly less convenient than Stack…

LyX is a great LaTeX WYSIWYM editor: http://www.lyx.org/

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#106

Post by jethro_tell »

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #103
Toenex wrote: post #39

I've always felt it was this kind of thinking that puts Emacs at odds with the UNIX philosophy of do one thing well . Unless your one thing is everything-you-can-do-with-text.

Emacs is a conscious computer virus with the aim of hollowing Unix out function by function, eventually to overthrow it. It's like a vampire: a shadow of what made it beautiful in life (elisp vs the old lisp machines), sustained mostly by blood (of its new users) and its long-term goal of revenge.

Did you mean GNU/Emacs/hurd or GNU/Emacs/Linux

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#107

Post by streptomycin »

melling wrote: post #82

Stallman lacks a coherent vision. He has an end goal but he really doesn't have a great plan to get there. It's really frustrating. Emacs could be a lot better. For instance, it has taken forever to get a high-performance Lisp working inside of Emacs. I think Guile is partly there? Anyway, since we'll all be long dead before his plan starts to work, I think the better solution is to support inexpensive software. For…

The real problem was that software was expensive??

Also, I don't know how much of the success/failure of FOSS can be pinned on RMS. He's just one man. The plan was never for the entire movement to be dependent on him.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#108

Post by peatmoss »

computer wrote: post #105
tikhonj wrote: post #5

With inline LaTeX previews, we're already surprisingly close. In fact, I'd say that going all the way would be almost a step back. WYSIWYG is ultimately not an ideal editing paradigm: it wins in the short term, being easy to learn, but drags you down in the long term. I've recently started using Quora a bit more. Unlike StackOverflow, they use a WYSIWYG editor. I've found this significantly less convenient than Stack…

LyX is a great LaTeX WYSIWYM editor: http://www.lyx.org/

Though I end up just using LaTeX (with memoir class) most of the time, I've always thought LyX hit a sweet spot between strict enforcement of document structure and forcing people to write markup.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why LyX doesn't exist as a collaborative google docs style web app.

Re: 25 years ago I hoped we would extend Emacs to do WYSIWG word processing

#109

Post by icebraining »

lmm wrote: post #76
icebraining wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all they had to do was pay Keker & Van Nest for two years, without knowing whether they'd win or not - and Google didn't even make a VM that can run Java apps! Not to mention that Oracle has appealed, so we still don't know if Google is clear or not. If you want to risk getting yourself or your company involved in that quagmire, by all means do so.

This is FUD, pure and simple. Anyone can be sued for anything.

Oracle has already - and is currently - suing for implementing a competing JVM. It's not FUD to suggest they might do it again.

FUD is what Oracle is doing; blame them, not me.

Post reply on HN