New POLL!!!

Which layout do you prefer?
QWERTY
DVORAK
PROGRAMMER DVORAK
COLEMAK

=3D)

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Chad Perrin <code / apotheon.net> wrote:
> (In the following, I will use "vi" to refer to vi-like editors in
> general, including Vim. =A0I will also use "Emacs" to refer to EMACS-like
> editors, including GNU Emacs.)
>
> Interesting . . . right away, when the question was first asked, several
> vi users responded. =A0A day later, I find that several Emacs users final=
ly
> responded as well. =A0I can only surmise that the vi users responded more
> quickly because vi helps people get things done more quickly.
>
> No, no, I'm kidding. =A0It was probably actually a result of Emacs' slow
> startup time.
>
> No, wait, I'm kidding about that too. =A0The truth of the matter is that
> both of these editors have some serious learning curves associated with
> them. =A0See the image illustrating those learning curves on this page:
>
> =A0 =A0Vim for New Users
> =A0 =A0http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=3D981
>
> In terms of what they provide to the person who scales that learning
> curve, becoming an adept user of either one of these editors, the return
> on investment is incredible. =A0Each has its advantages over the other, o=
f
> course, and which you will prefer is a matter of preference more than
> anything else, it seems -- though of course we (heavy vi and Emacs users)
> are probably all afflicted by the sincere belief that one of them is
> objectively superior to the other. =A0It is taking a powerful act of will
> to avoid turning this email into a platform for extolling the virtues of
> the vi way of doing things. =A0I really do not want to be accused of
> starting a flamewar with a partisan attack in this email.
>
> Ultimately, however, my thought is that if you are already comfortable
> with either vi or Emacs, you should use it anywhere that it is at all
> reasonable to do so. =A0While other editors may provide some handy featur=
es
> that make them particularly useful in certain contexts, such as Redcar[0]
> for Ruby development, those features' payoff is limited -- and it goes
> away the moment you start working on a different task.
>
> Meanwhile:
>
> * The payoff for using the vi or Emacs way of doing things applies in
> =A0almost every single situation where entering or altering text is the
> =A0task at hand.
>
> * The benefits of these editors are not limited to context-specific
> =A0features like those of Visual Studio[0] (or whatever); they grow
> =A0endlessly over time, as you learn more about how to use them, tweak
> =A0them to suit your personal preferences, and acquire the knack of
> =A0applying them effectively in more situations.
>
> * They are *everywhere*, while other choices like TextMate[1] are
> =A0generally much more platform-dependent.
>
> * They aren't going anywhere. =A0As long-established staples of open sour=
ce
> =A0software culture used by more people than almost any other piece of
> =A0open source software, their durability in the face of developers and
> =A0vendors getting hit by buses, going out of business, suffering
> =A0crippling RSI that prevents them from coding[2], or just getting bored
> =A0with them and ceasing to perform needed maintenance on them is nearly
> =A0unmatched in the world of software development. =A0The same cannot be
> =A0said of UltraEdit's[1] futureproofing.
>
> Ultimately, there probably isn't much reason to switch editors if you are
> already comfortable, and gaining increasing proficiency, with vi or
> Emacs. =A0If you have never used either, though, and do a lot of coding,
> you should probably give each of them enough of a try to get past the
> point where you feel completely helpless, then pick the one whose
> "philosophy" best suits your taste and stick with it long enough to start
> feeling its benefits. =A0At that point, give it up if you don't like it,
> but if you do a lot of coding (especially in high-level dynamic languages
> like Ruby) you will probably get to love one of these editors --
> especially if you spend a lot of time in a Unix-like environment.
>
> ## NOTES:
>
> [0]: The editor or IDE mentioned in this case is basically just a
> placeholder for "pretty much every editor in the world that is not
> vi-like or Emacs-like".
>
> [1]: The editor or IDE mentioned in this case is a basically just a
> placeholder for a sizable subset of the applications from note [0].
> TextMate users in particular should not take it personally; I'm sure it
> is a wonderful editor, despite its platform snobbery.
>
> [2]: I hear this happened to Richard Stallman, famous for his involvement
> in the early development of the original EMACS and for his ongoing
> maintenance of GNU Emacs (when he wasn't suffering crippling RSI).
>
> --
> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
>
> PS: I should probably polish this lengthy ramble into an article for
> TechRepublic at some point.
>