7 ms·

Why spend a few hours over the course of 60000+ working hours to learn how to use more effective tools?

by coryrc 11y ago

Goronmon 11y ago
You're making the assumption that vim/emacs are more effective tools.
- krisdol 11y ago
  You're arguing that stating that water is wet is an assumption
  - imtringued 11y ago
    If it's so obvious then it should be easy to back up your claim with data.
    - typon 11y ago
      I highly doubt its even possible to obtain such data. The best you will have is anecdotal claims. For example, do productive programmers tend to use Vim or is it the other way around? It's hard to find the causality.
- taylodl 11y ago
  The best possible programming environment is comprised of emacs coupled with a "lispy" language such as Common Lisp, Scheme, Racket or Clojure and the REPL to go along with it. Nerdvana.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    And the somewhat sad thing is that this is only a shadow of what was once possible on Lisp Machines... In some areas, we really did make a big step back over the last three decades.
crispyambulance 11y ago
"a few hours" ??? Come on, let's not pretend that EMACS is going to take "a few hours" to come to terms with and become more productive in than an IDE.
- granos 11y ago
  I actually switched from VS to vim (while doing a project that integrated ironruby and C#). It took me about a week to reach 75-80% effectiveness with vim. At the end of 2 weeks I was back to full speed. At the end of 2 months I was considerably more effective at editing code. I'm now several years and several jobs removed from that initial project and I can't imagine not using vim.
  - MrBra 11y ago
    IronRuby... good (and too short) memories.. I hope MS will embrace Ruby again sooner or later.
    - granos 11y ago
      I gave up on that hope a while ago. And also on developing for Microsoft platforms in general.
      - MrBra 11y ago
        This is completely nonsensical.
- aldanor 11y ago
  I switched to Emacs (Spacemacs) from Sublime Text with zero prior knowledge of vim or Emacs. In a day or two I could continue doing what I was normally doing. In a few weeks I felt completely comfortable.
- taylodl 11y ago
  My 13 year old daughter came up to speed with emacs in a couple of hours. Now she's starting to realize she can make it into whatever she wants and make it work however she wants. She hadn't even thought about being able to program new functionality into an application. It's opened whole new worlds for her. Yes, emacs.
marssaxman 11y ago
Because I don't need them, and would rather focus my attention on the part of the job I actually care about. The simplest tool which doesn't waste my time is the best. I have found that I would rather use a simple editor with no features that I never have to think about, and automate repetitive tasks using the same tools I already use for automating repetitive tasks: programming languages.
- vacri 11y ago
  So... you'd rather spend the time writing new code to do repetitive tasks rather than use existing ones? You'd rather spend time writing 'search and replace' in your favourite language than just use an editor with it? I don't see how that doesn't waste your time.
  - marssaxman 11y ago
    I'm happy to spend a little extra time every now and then doing some unusual task by hand in exchange for never having to think about the editor or try to remember how some powerful, infrequently-used feature works. As long as the editor can do everything I want to do on a daily basis, I'm happy; if it can also automate tasks I only have to do every week or two or every couple of months, it's a waste, because it'll take some effort to remember that the feature exists, what it's called, where to find it, and how to use it. I'd rather just use a simpler editor and deal with that oddball task in whatever way is convenient when it comes up. Since I spend all day slinging code, bashing up a little script to do some odd code-munging job is no trouble; I already have all the tools I need to do that paged into my working memory. I was thinking more of the sorts of automatic refactoring tools some people really like to use in their IDEs. I haven't found that such tools save enough time to be worth learning how to use them.
- galistoca 11y ago
  That just sounds like a self rationalization to me. "I don't need them" is something you say after you tried something and realized you actually don't need them. It doesn't carry any weight when you haven't even tried. Because when you do, it's just saying you don't want to try new things. I'm not saying you must learn these, I'm just saying you shouldn't lie to yourself.

Why spend a few hours over the course of 60000+ working hours to learn how to use more effective tools?

by coryrc 11y ago

Why spend a few hours over the course of 60000+ working hours to learn how to use more effective tools?

Goronmon 11y ago

You're making the assumption that vim/emacs are more effective tools.

krisdol 11y ago
You're arguing that stating that water is wet is an assumption
- imtringued 11y ago
  If it's so obvious then it should be easy to back up your claim with data.
  - typon 11y ago
    I highly doubt its even possible to obtain such data. The best you will have is anecdotal claims. For example, do productive programmers tend to use Vim or is it the other way around? It's hard to find the causality.
taylodl 11y ago
The best possible programming environment is comprised of emacs coupled with a "lispy" language such as Common Lisp, Scheme, Racket or Clojure and the REPL to go along with it. Nerdvana.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  And the somewhat sad thing is that this is only a shadow of what was once possible on Lisp Machines... In some areas, we really did make a big step back over the last three decades.

crispyambulance 11y ago

"a few hours" ??? Come on, let's not pretend that EMACS is going to take "a few hours" to come to terms with and become more productive in than an IDE.

granos 11y ago
I actually switched from VS to vim (while doing a project that integrated ironruby and C#). It took me about a week to reach 75-80% effectiveness with vim. At the end of 2 weeks I was back to full speed. At the end of 2 months I was considerably more effective at editing code. I'm now several years and several jobs removed from that initial project and I can't imagine not using vim.
- MrBra 11y ago
  IronRuby... good (and too short) memories.. I hope MS will embrace Ruby again sooner or later.
  - granos 11y ago
    I gave up on that hope a while ago. And also on developing for Microsoft platforms in general.
    - MrBra 11y ago
      This is completely nonsensical.
aldanor 11y ago
I switched to Emacs (Spacemacs) from Sublime Text with zero prior knowledge of vim or Emacs. In a day or two I could continue doing what I was normally doing. In a few weeks I felt completely comfortable.
taylodl 11y ago
My 13 year old daughter came up to speed with emacs in a couple of hours. Now she's starting to realize she can make it into whatever she wants and make it work however she wants. She hadn't even thought about being able to program new functionality into an application. It's opened whole new worlds for her. Yes, emacs.

marssaxman 11y ago

Because I don't need them, and would rather focus my attention on the part of the job I actually care about. The simplest tool which doesn't waste my time is the best. I have found that I would rather use a simple editor with no features that I never have to think about, and automate repetitive tasks using the same tools I already use for automating repetitive tasks: programming languages.

vacri 11y ago
So... you'd rather spend the time writing new code to do repetitive tasks rather than use existing ones? You'd rather spend time writing 'search and replace' in your favourite language than just use an editor with it? I don't see how that doesn't waste your time.
- marssaxman 11y ago
  I'm happy to spend a little extra time every now and then doing some unusual task by hand in exchange for never having to think about the editor or try to remember how some powerful, infrequently-used feature works. As long as the editor can do everything I want to do on a daily basis, I'm happy; if it can also automate tasks I only have to do every week or two or every couple of months, it's a waste, because it'll take some effort to remember that the feature exists, what it's called, where to find it, and how to use it. I'd rather just use a simpler editor and deal with that oddball task in whatever way is convenient when it comes up. Since I spend all day slinging code, bashing up a little script to do some odd code-munging job is no trouble; I already have all the tools I need to do that paged into my working memory. I was thinking more of the sorts of automatic refactoring tools some people really like to use in their IDEs. I haven't found that such tools save enough time to be worth learning how to use them.
galistoca 11y ago
That just sounds like a self rationalization to me. "I don't need them" is something you say after you tried something and realized you actually don't need them. It doesn't carry any weight when you haven't even tried. Because when you do, it's just saying you don't want to try new things. I'm not saying you must learn these, I'm just saying you shouldn't lie to yourself.