GNU bug report logs - #15335
emacs -Q usability

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 15335 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 15335 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: emacs -Q usability
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:50:50 +0200

Emacs -Q opening with scratch buffer is a mistake in most cases.

Please make Emacs star as general purpose Editor, preferably with an empty buffer,
in text- or fundamental mode, where use may see it's input, being offered to save it etc.

See also

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18734848/choosing-an-all-purpose-editor/18735853

Thanks!

Message #8 received at 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>,
 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#15335: emacs -Q usability
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:17:00 -0700 (PDT)

> Emacs -Q opening with scratch buffer is a mistake in most cases.
> Please make Emacs star[t] as general purpose Editor, preferably with an
> empty buffer, in text- or fundamental mode, where use may see it's input,
> being offered to save it etc.
> See also http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18734848/choosing-an-all-
> purpose-editor/18735853

I have some sympathy for this. However, which mode for that (presumably)
new-file buffer?  You say text mode or fundamental mode. Perhaps (text,
but not fundamental). But realistically, how much of the time does an Emacs
user use text mode?  Yes, the mode could be configurable by the user. 

But other editors often open with no such new file/buffer window.  TextPad
is a good example.  Just as for Emacs, you need to click the `New' icon to
open a new-file buffer.  Otherwise, it opens with just an empty editor frame.

Anyway, Emacs now provides multiple possibilities for the startup
appearance & behavior.  One of those is `initial-buffer-choice', which you
can customize to a file or directory name.  This should get you pretty much
what you are asking, I think.

But the question then is what the default startup should be like.  If
`initial-buffer-choice' were by default a `new' buffer name then that
should pretty much give you what you are asking for.

Personally, I think the default startup should be with Dired, in some
default directory that a user can trivially customize.  That gives a larger
perspective than does *scratch* or even a new-file buffer.  IOW, I'd vote
for `initial-buffer-choice' to be an existing directory name.

Message #11 received at 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15335: emacs -Q usability
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:57:22 +0200

Am 11.09.2013 16:17, schrieb Drew Adams:
>> Emacs -Q opening with scratch buffer is a mistake in most cases.
>> Please make Emacs star[t] as general purpose Editor, preferably with an
>> empty buffer, in text- or fundamental mode, where use may see it's input,
>> being offered to save it etc.
>> See also http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18734848/choosing-an-all-
>> purpose-editor/18735853
>
> I have some sympathy for this. However, which mode for that (presumably)
> new-file buffer?  You say text mode or fundamental mode. Perhaps (text,
> but not fundamental). But realistically, how much of the time does an Emacs
> user use text mode?  Yes, the mode could be configurable by the user.
>
> But other editors often open with no such new file/buffer window.  TextPad
> is a good example.  Just as for Emacs, you need to click the `New' icon to
> open a new-file buffer.  Otherwise, it opens with just an empty editor frame.
>
> Anyway, Emacs now provides multiple possibilities for the startup
> appearance & behavior.  One of those is `initial-buffer-choice', which you
> can customize to a file or directory name.  This should get you pretty much
> what you are asking, I think.
>
> But the question then is what the default startup should be like.  If
> `initial-buffer-choice' were by default a `new' buffer name then that
> should pretty much give you what you are asking for.
>
> Personally, I think the default startup should be with Dired, in some
> default directory that a user can trivially customize.  That gives a larger
> perspective than does *scratch* or even a new-file buffer.  IOW, I'd vote
> for `initial-buffer-choice' to be an existing directory name.
>


The question was about the steep learning curve. So I asked, what's in the way for beginners? Why not just start to edit?
Dired already is a thing which needs some learning. An empty buffer not.

Message #14 received at 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
Cc: 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15335: emacs -Q usability
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:21:39 +0100

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de> writes:

> Emacs -Q opening with scratch buffer is a mistake in most cases.
>
> Please make Emacs star as general purpose Editor, preferably with an empty buffer,
> in text- or fundamental mode, where use may see it's input, being offered to save it etc.
>
> See also
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18734848/choosing-an-all-purpose-editor/18735853

Do new users generally run "emacs -Q" though?  I would have assumed
that they either just run "emacs" (probably from a menu somewhere), or
"emacs <file>".

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #17 received at 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de
Subject: Re: bug#15335: emacs -Q usability
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 20:07:41 +0200

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:21:39 +0100
> Cc: 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de> writes:
> 
> > Emacs -Q opening with scratch buffer is a mistake in most cases.
> >
> > Please make Emacs star as general purpose Editor, preferably with an empty buffer,
> > in text- or fundamental mode, where use may see it's input, being offered to save it etc.
> >
> > See also
> >
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18734848/choosing-an-all-purpose-editor/18735853
> 
> Do new users generally run "emacs -Q" though?  I would have assumed
> that they either just run "emacs" (probably from a menu somewhere), or
> "emacs <file>".

I think this horse has been beaten ad nauseam, and every time we
discussed it, we decided to keep the current behavior.  It's time to
put this to rest, IMO.

Message #20 received at 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de
Subject: Re: bug#15335: emacs -Q usability
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 15:44:42 -0700

tags 15335 + wontfix
close 15335
thanks

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:21:39 +0100
>> Cc: 15335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>
>> Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de> writes:
>>
>> > Emacs -Q opening with scratch buffer is a mistake in most cases.
>> >
>> > Please make Emacs star as general purpose Editor, preferably with an empty buffer,
>> > in text- or fundamental mode, where use may see it's input, being offered to save it etc.
>> >
>> > See also
>> >
>> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18734848/choosing-an-all-purpose-editor/18735853
>>
>> Do new users generally run "emacs -Q" though?  I would have assumed
>> that they either just run "emacs" (probably from a menu somewhere), or
>> "emacs <file>".
>
> I think this horse has been beaten ad nauseam, and every time we
> discussed it, we decided to keep the current behavior.  It's time to
> put this to rest, IMO.

OK, since there has been no further comments within 28 weeks, I'm
closing this bug as wontfix.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.