Re: Somewhat on Topic: Word Processing

[Stephen Leake <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov>]

DPH <rally2xs@compuserve.com> writes:

> On 06 Mar 2003 14:45:25 -0500, Stephen Leake
> <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> >DPH <rally2xs@compuserve.com> writes:
> >
> >> [about Emacs] Gimmie a pull-down menu every time...  
> >
> >Emacs has pull-down menus, for the most common operations. 
> 
> The one I got hold of a couple years ago had nothing resembling
> pull-down menus.  I was using it on Windows - maybe that's the
> difference.

http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs.html

I've been using it for at least 5 years.

> >Ok. You'll be less productive than me, so I'll survive better in the
> >market place :).
> 
> Of course, its a basic tenent of software engineering that more time
> is spent in the design phase than in the code and test phase, so
> overall, I doubt an editor will be all that significant an impact.

It has a noticable impact for me. But that may just be my frustration
level with the more primitive systems; I don't have hard data that
says I'm twice as fast with Emacs as with Borland. But I suspect it's
true.

I have a similar difference in productivity between Ada and C++ (just
to bring this back closer to on-topic :). Tools matter!

> Plus, I use Microsoft Word, unless I'm in and IDE, and anything I
> want it to do that it doesn't do, I can pretty much use VBA and make
> it do it. 

Same for Emacs; I just write some elisp. And since I use LaTeX instead
of Word, I only need one IDE!

> I just don't much need colored keywords... I know what
> they are... <G>

Yes, but it really is easier (thus faster) to read if they color is
right. It's amazingly painful to use an Emacs that has not yet been
properly configured; the first thing I do is configure it, then get on
with my work. But maybe that's just me.


-- 
-- Stephe