Jeez... BSD or Linux... or Doze?=20 Enough already... back to our regularly scheduled Ruby questions! :D -----Original Message----- From: Stu [mailto:stu / rubyprogrammer.net]=20 Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 11:03 AM To: ruby-talk ML Subject: Re: What editor or IDE do you use? 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. >