Re:Emacs and TLS
by kqr on Friday July 20, 2018 @10:38AM
(#17575333)
> We provide options with some reasonable defaults, and then let users make informed decisions which defaults are not good enough for them.
This is fine for things that are apparent to the user, such as "I don't like this popup window, so I'll configure it to not show", or "I want a better command to split a quoted email, so I'll create that function". But in this case it's about something that happens behind the scenes, which users may not know needs changing.
Now that I've had the relevant comment out of the way, let me be a little more general.
> It isn't the Emacs way to second-guess our users' needs
This is an odd statement to make. Or rather, let me say, Emacs has an approach to this that I haven't been able to explain to myself yet.
It is absolutely true that Emacs tends to ship with so-so defaults, and that this is not a big deal because most users will want to change the defaults anyway. It is also the case that Emacs is very customizeable, so changing any defaults whatsoever has never been a problem.
However, the term DWIM, meaning "do what I mean", originated in Emacs circles. It still flourishes there.
I create dwim forms of commands all the time. There is often a simple contextual, environmental indicator as to whether I want one variant of a command or another. Not encapsulating that check and dispatching into a new command would be silly. That's a core part of Emacs and Lisp culture, in my opinion.
So yes, it is also in fact the Emacs way to guess the users' needs. But transparently.
This is fine for things that are apparent to the user, such as "I don't like this popup window, so I'll configure it to not show", or "I want a better command to split a quoted email, so I'll create that function". But in this case it's about something that happens behind the scenes, which users may not know needs changing.
Now that I've had the relevant comment out of the way, let me be a little more general.
> It isn't the Emacs way to second-guess our users' needs
This is an odd statement to make. Or rather, let me say, Emacs has an approach to this that I haven't been able to explain to myself yet.
It is absolutely true that Emacs tends to ship with so-so defaults, and that this is not a big deal because most users will want to change the defaults anyway. It is also the case that Emacs is very customizeable, so changing any defaults whatsoever has never been a problem.
However, the term DWIM, meaning "do what I mean", originated in Emacs circles. It still flourishes there.
I create dwim forms of commands all the time. There is often a simple contextual, environmental indicator as to whether I want one variant of a command or another. Not encapsulating that check and dispatching into a new command would be silly. That's a core part of Emacs and Lisp culture, in my opinion.
So yes, it is also in fact the Emacs way to guess the users' needs. But transparently.