Reply to Re: RSS this!
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
I won't continue this discussion beyond this reply, because you never listen to me anyway
Actually I did listen. I just didn't agree. I hate when people do what you just done, i.e. think that I didn't listen just because I didn't agree. Besides with your constant misinterpretaions of what I said, i could say that to some extent you done the same thing you accused me of doing.
So first of all, ease of figuring out is different from ease of learning.
I know that. I'm not an idiot.
Figuring out vi is extremely difficult. But learning how to use vi (by reading the manual and tutorials) isn't necessarily hard.
Well I prefer intuitive over having to learn from a manual or tutorials. Well where it's possible that is. For example a programming language has to learnt through tutorials or looking at well commented code.
To get that same functionality in Word as in vi, you would either have to program some macros yourself (ease of use, eh?) or be lucky and have had someone else do that for you already.
Personally I'd rather not add more features to Word. I think it's bloated. Both it and OpenOffice have more features than I like to be in a program (a member of Objectivism Online Forum's count for Word was "hundreds"). I prefer programs like RoughDraft, Wordtabs and Abiword. None of these are, in my opinion, bloated. However, I prefer OpenOffice over Word, because it is cheaper and more intuitive.
What those lines describe is cut and paste. You didn't know that? And if you compare the two, you have to agree that if you know both the methods, the vi one is easier. It's a matter of a few keystrokes, versus Word's method with a whole dozen Ctrl-commands.
Um... with Word you just select text to be moved, press Ctrl+X to cut it (or use the context menu), then use the mouse or arrows keys to position the cursor where you want the text to be, the press Crtl+V to paste it (or use the context menu). That's a lot easier than what you described. And if vi doesn't support this method, which is an industry standard, then it is harder and lacking in an important area.
Uh... the mouse isn't a tool of ease of use in text editing. If you know a proper editor, you don't ever touch the mouse. It's always the slower and less easy option. That's why. As far as I know, vi doesn't even support mouse use.
Actually, even though I know macros like the above one I find it easier to use the mouse, thus making it a tool of ease of use for me. like I said. ease of use is subjective. You keep repeatedly desribing ease of use as an objective thing, even if you don't realise it, but it simply isn't, as I've already made clear.
See? You're missing the point. Because until you've learnt how to use it, you're not allowed to talk about how easy or not it is. Since you don't know vi, you're not really qualified to tell me whether or not it's harder to use than Word. And unless you're bothered to learn vi properly, you never will be qualified to tell me.
Not allowed? Who is forbidding me? besides, I never actually said vi is harder/easier than Word. I just said "if it's like this" and "if it isn't like this". So in other words I wasn't talking about what I wasn't qualified to talk about. I agree with you that I am not qualified to say which is easier, which is why I limited my arguments to ifs.
No. I did not ignore anything. Besides, your post is now not the same as the one I replied to, so I will never be able to really check.
Actually I changes only spelling, not the point, so your comment is invalid. Didn't igonre? Then why did you reply in a way that ignored the two quotes sentances?
No. You said sometimes ease of use is connected to ease of figuring out. To which I replied "Yeah, but in the rarest of cases".
It didn't come across that way. You used words that illustrated disagreeing not "only in rare cases" when intrepreted literally. You should choose your wording better.
You keep talking like ease of use is ease of figuring out, because one of your major points always is that since figuring something out quickly means knowing how to do something correct quicker means ease of use
No I didn't. I used words that when interpreted literally mean that it can sometimes be connected.
No. Something that is made to be very simple to use once you know it means ease of use, even if it takes longer to learn than the program that was made easy to figure out, (and get that part, you gotta learn something before you can say whether or not it's easy to use) but not necessarily created with ease of use in mind.
You seem to be arguing that something that is figured out is not related to ease of use because it is not learnt. That is not true. Learning is the gaining of new knowledge. A couple of direct quotes from WordWeb: "The cognitive process of acquiring skill or knowledge" and "Gain knowledge or skills". There is also more in WordWeb to support my claim to the meaning of learning.
However, I will admit that I may be getting twhat you said there wrong. However, i do not think it is through a fault of mine. Your wording is ambigous.
I refer to intrepreting words literally, beacuse as someone who wants to be an author I have to know how to do so and with the knowledge of how to do so came the realisation that most people are useless at doing this. And so far throughout this argument you have not proved good at doing so. However, I use words based on a literal intrepretation of their meaning, hence a literal use of the word. Without the knowledge of literal definitions of words you will never be able to correctly interpret my more meaningful comments, hence never be able to argue with my true point.
Finally, I finuse of with a question: why are still aruing with me about the fact that ease of understanding and ease of use after I blatently said that I didn't think it was and even agblatently agreed with you?
Actually I did listen. I just didn't agree. I hate when people do what you just done, i.e. think that I didn't listen just because I didn't agree. Besides with your constant misinterpretaions of what I said, i could say that to some extent you done the same thing you accused me of doing.
So first of all, ease of figuring out is different from ease of learning.
I know that. I'm not an idiot.
Figuring out vi is extremely difficult. But learning how to use vi (by reading the manual and tutorials) isn't necessarily hard.
Well I prefer intuitive over having to learn from a manual or tutorials. Well where it's possible that is. For example a programming language has to learnt through tutorials or looking at well commented code.
To get that same functionality in Word as in vi, you would either have to program some macros yourself (ease of use, eh?) or be lucky and have had someone else do that for you already.
Personally I'd rather not add more features to Word. I think it's bloated. Both it and OpenOffice have more features than I like to be in a program (a member of Objectivism Online Forum's count for Word was "hundreds"). I prefer programs like RoughDraft, Wordtabs and Abiword. None of these are, in my opinion, bloated. However, I prefer OpenOffice over Word, because it is cheaper and more intuitive.
What those lines describe is cut and paste. You didn't know that? And if you compare the two, you have to agree that if you know both the methods, the vi one is easier. It's a matter of a few keystrokes, versus Word's method with a whole dozen Ctrl-commands.
Um... with Word you just select text to be moved, press Ctrl+X to cut it (or use the context menu), then use the mouse or arrows keys to position the cursor where you want the text to be, the press Crtl+V to paste it (or use the context menu). That's a lot easier than what you described. And if vi doesn't support this method, which is an industry standard, then it is harder and lacking in an important area.
Uh... the mouse isn't a tool of ease of use in text editing. If you know a proper editor, you don't ever touch the mouse. It's always the slower and less easy option. That's why. As far as I know, vi doesn't even support mouse use.
Actually, even though I know macros like the above one I find it easier to use the mouse, thus making it a tool of ease of use for me. like I said. ease of use is subjective. You keep repeatedly desribing ease of use as an objective thing, even if you don't realise it, but it simply isn't, as I've already made clear.
See? You're missing the point. Because until you've learnt how to use it, you're not allowed to talk about how easy or not it is. Since you don't know vi, you're not really qualified to tell me whether or not it's harder to use than Word. And unless you're bothered to learn vi properly, you never will be qualified to tell me.
Not allowed? Who is forbidding me? besides, I never actually said vi is harder/easier than Word. I just said "if it's like this" and "if it isn't like this". So in other words I wasn't talking about what I wasn't qualified to talk about. I agree with you that I am not qualified to say which is easier, which is why I limited my arguments to ifs.
No. I did not ignore anything. Besides, your post is now not the same as the one I replied to, so I will never be able to really check.
Actually I changes only spelling, not the point, so your comment is invalid. Didn't igonre? Then why did you reply in a way that ignored the two quotes sentances?
No. You said sometimes ease of use is connected to ease of figuring out. To which I replied "Yeah, but in the rarest of cases".
It didn't come across that way. You used words that illustrated disagreeing not "only in rare cases" when intrepreted literally. You should choose your wording better.
You keep talking like ease of use is ease of figuring out, because one of your major points always is that since figuring something out quickly means knowing how to do something correct quicker means ease of use
No I didn't. I used words that when interpreted literally mean that it can sometimes be connected.
No. Something that is made to be very simple to use once you know it means ease of use, even if it takes longer to learn than the program that was made easy to figure out, (and get that part, you gotta learn something before you can say whether or not it's easy to use) but not necessarily created with ease of use in mind.
You seem to be arguing that something that is figured out is not related to ease of use because it is not learnt. That is not true. Learning is the gaining of new knowledge. A couple of direct quotes from WordWeb: "The cognitive process of acquiring skill or knowledge" and "Gain knowledge or skills". There is also more in WordWeb to support my claim to the meaning of learning.
However, I will admit that I may be getting twhat you said there wrong. However, i do not think it is through a fault of mine. Your wording is ambigous.
I refer to intrepreting words literally, beacuse as someone who wants to be an author I have to know how to do so and with the knowledge of how to do so came the realisation that most people are useless at doing this. And so far throughout this argument you have not proved good at doing so. However, I use words based on a literal intrepretation of their meaning, hence a literal use of the word. Without the knowledge of literal definitions of words you will never be able to correctly interpret my more meaningful comments, hence never be able to argue with my true point.
Finally, I finuse of with a question: why are still aruing with me about the fact that ease of understanding and ease of use after I blatently said that I didn't think it was and even agblatently agreed with you?
