Reply to note from Bob Newell <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sat, 19 Sep 2026 11:16:25 -1000 Bob, > I've been using the Emacs keymap that Carl developed and it's quite > good. I've been looking at fine tuning and making it still more > Emacs-like. > > But I've been thinking (uh-oh) and I wonder if I'm really on the > right track. ... I think your thinking is spot on. As I see it, the point of XyScript -- and XyWrite before it -- is not to simulate any other program, but rather to enable users to shape the experience for themselves. The thing that got me hooked on XyWrite was the realization that I could create my own commands and make them do whatever I wanted them to do -- an "aha!" moment, when every other program forced me to do things its way. If you're used to Emacs and want to recreate that familiar environment, go ahead. If you'd prefer to do things in your own, idiosyncratic way, that's fine too. It's all about choice. > Really fast loading and usefulness as a pop-up quick editor as > well as an editor for extensive work. It does indeed start up quickly for a 100 MB program (or a program of any size). I'm thrilled to hear that you think of it as a "pop-up" -- remember the days of DOS and those oh-so-handy TSRs? (Speaking of pop-ups, have you tried the pop-up calendar, command `CAL`?) > Relative ease of programming once familiarity with the scripting > language is obtained (admittedly an extended and ongoing effort > but with immediately usable components). I'd appreciate it if you could enumerate the "immediately usable components". It would be helpful since it's evident that most users have no inclination or need to delve any further. (I get it. Vita brevis.) > Emacs has been called an operating system which contains an editor. This is true-ish, in my opinion (note well that I refrained from calling it hype). But while it's (absolutely) true that XyScript has no such pretensions, it does seek to leverage the operating system you already have -- in the service of whatever it is you happen to be writing, be it "litrature", doggerel, or code. > I can say I have been more productive in less time with XyScript > than back in the day with Emacs. The corollary to this is that in > general attracting new users to XyScript should be easier than > attracting them to Emacs. Theoretically, yes. But the question is: How to attract them? I have no illusions that XyScript, given its DNA, has the potential for wide appeal. But, once the source code goes public, even a handful of savvy users might spur further development in interesting directions. I welcome any and all ideas. -- Carl Distefano cld@xxxxxxxxxx