> Okay, let's say we're going to break backwards-compatibility; how should the user kill the running program, and how should they input character literals, and how are we going to implement your change?
Please don’t take it personally, but I find it a bit sad that your imagination ends here. These two questions depend entirely on the chosen implementation. If we’re talking about a new implementation, should we really start by accepting the limitations and constraints of the existing system as requirements for the improvement?
> I find it a bit sad that your imagination ends here.
This isn't the limit of what's possible, it's a lower bound of questions that you have to answer if you want to build a replacement.
> These two questions depend entirely on the chosen implementation.
Okay? Feel free to include multiple answers, but you need at least one.
> If we’re talking about a new implementation, should we really start by accepting the limitations and constraints of the existing system as requirements for the improvement?
If you ditch all the behaviors of the old system without figuring out how to shim them in, then you can build a beautiful new system that's free of all the problems of the old system, and that's also free of all users because you just jettisoned all the programs that let people actually do useful work with their computers. We're stuck with 50 years of backwards compatibility not because we love it, but because people need to be able to interact with their machines without relearning everything, and people need to be able to use the machine to run the programs they're using.
Instead of a specific key combination that a) clashes with the way the vast majority of computer users enter text, b) is neither obvious nor easily discoverable, and c) not available or awkward to enter depending on the input device, we could also separate the monitoring of running processes from the command prompt and let the terminal application offer a control to cancel them, or match modern user expectations and do so using the Escape key. Or entirely different.
The point is that we don't use ^C because it's ergonomic or obvious, but because of conventions inherited from a time long gone. Keeping legacy software running does not imply imposing the same UX constraints on users.
> Instead of a specific key combination that a) clashes with the way the vast majority of computer users enter text, b) is neither obvious nor easily discoverable, and c) not available or awkward to enter depending on the input device,
I grant that a) it's different from everything else, but b) CUA shortcuts aren't obvious or discoverable either, they're just more common, and c) I can't think of any device that has a terminal where ctrl isn't readily available. Nonetheless, I actually agree that if we could do it without breaking everything, moving everything to the same convention is compelling on its own. (Of course, I don't think we can do it without breaking everything, but that's life.)
> we could also separate the monitoring of running processes from the command prompt and let the terminal application offer a control to cancel them,
When I want a process dead, I want it dead now, not after I've found the mouse and hit a button. I also have concerns about how that button is going to actually work under the hood; the only options I can think of are that that sends a simulated ctrl-c, or the terminal emulator suddenly has to track child processes and decide what to kill (which strikes me as a bad idea).
> or match modern user expectations and do so using the Escape key.
And in so doing break anything that was using escape, like vi. Incidentally, the plan to intercept ctrl-c will break emacs, too. Which is why I strongly disagree with
> Keeping legacy software running does not imply imposing the same UX constraints on users.
because breaking legacy software is exactly the trade you're proposing.
Please don’t take it personally, but I find it a bit sad that your imagination ends here. These two questions depend entirely on the chosen implementation. If we’re talking about a new implementation, should we really start by accepting the limitations and constraints of the existing system as requirements for the improvement?