4 ms·
Its not flawed. The greatest use case for editor is editing text. Even the small differences in efficiency in the main use case pile up enormously on the long r
by majkinetor 10y ago
Its not flawed. The greatest use case for editor is editing text. Even the small differences in efficiency in the main use case pile up enormously on the long run. Thats why people practice vim golf - to make micro optimizations that will lead to huge benefit.
The argument emacs can do frames is irrelevant in this respect.
- massysett 10y agoYou suppose that the only measure of efficiency is keybindings. It is not. For me, other aspects of the editor, such as frames, superior auto-completion, and superior compilation mode, make me more efficient. I don't use an editor solely to "edit text." I'm using to to accomplish a bigger objective, such as creating or fixing a program. Overall, Emacs is better at that, and the fact that I can give it bindings that mimic those in Vim also helps.