7 ms·

I don't consider emacs successful. Succesful among fanatics, maybe, but I don't consider is valuable to a serious programmer. Also, surely it's not that hard

I don't consider emacs successful. Succesful among fanatics, maybe, but I don't consider is valuable to a serious programmer. Also, surely it's not that hard to switch languages? In my experience all languages are essentially the same.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 9y ago
>In my experience all languages are essentially the same. That's the problem: you don't seem to have enough experience.
- ruleabidinguser 9y ago
  I dont seem to have much experience? Based on what? For having a different view than you? Isnt that a little naive? So as far as actually talking about my point goes, what exactly am I missing? There are small differences but I've never seen a language that I couldn't get up and going in over the course of a week. How much experience do you think I have? I've used plenty of languages, and I'm well aware that there are nuances.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >So as far as actually talking about my point goes, what exactly am I missing? There are small differences but I've never seen a language that I couldn't get up and going in over the course of a week. That's because you either used the languages superficially, or use only very similar languages, probably of the Algol family (e.g. Ruby, Python, PHP, JS, etc). You won't get very far with Haskell "over the course of a week". Or APL. Or Idris. Or Erlang. Or Lisp -- or any other language that's not a mere Algol derivative with some different bells and whistles. And even those have their idioms, of course, that one needs much more than a week to get competent with, but, it gets worse when we expand languages to not be "mainstream Algol derivatives". One would only be using languages like Smalltalk, OcamL, Scheme, Scala, Self, etc, superficially without getting into their idioms and nuance, which wont happen in a week (and can take years to really master).
    - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
      Well of course you can't include languages like Haskell in the group of interchangeable languages. Incidentally I have used Haskell (and it did take more than a week). But it doesn't matter because we're talking about moving JavaScript developers to Java, or C++, or as you say, Algol-likes.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >Well of course you can't include languages like Haskell in the group of interchangeable languages. Well, if you can only include "interchangeable languages" then it's not an observation but a tautology.
        ruleabidinguser 9y ago
        No kidding? What I was trying to say (I thought I was pretty clear) is that we're really only considering institutional languages here. As it turns out to my knowledge theyre basically all the same.
  - tree_of_item 9y ago
    > I dont seem to have much experience? Based on what? Based on the fact that you think all programming languages are essentially the same. That's just a ridiculous claim and it immediately exposes you as someone who's only used a couple of Algol derivatives.
    - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
      2 things 1. I don't think literally all programming languages are the same 2. I have used Haskell, and am very aware of every language listed in the other replies to this comment, so you're completely wrong. I kind of thought this community was better than this, to be honest.
      - michaelmrose 9y ago
        This community is in fact pretty good you posted something wholly and totally ridiculous and the worst thing anyone has said is that you need to get out there and get more experience. Try saying silly things on reddit and watch the hate flow in.
        ruleabidinguser 9y ago
        Well sure we beat reddit I guess, and maybe I just don't post here enough, but I feel like the community is deteriorating. I used to hold this place to higher standards. Also I still don't think what I said was ridiculous, and its something I basically believe.
        coldtea 9y ago
        Well, it might not be ridiculous IF qualified. E.g. "most of algol-derived languages are quite similar, aside from small differences in syntax and feature set". Or: "Most modern mainstream languages, etc have pretty much similar feature sets and syntax (while still differing in being dynamic vs statically typed etc)" That's not the same as what you said.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
computerex 9y ago
Not useful to serious programmers? Do you feel the same way about Vim? Just because you haven't gotten used to using something, doesn't mean it's necessarily total shit. There is a reason why people have been using emacs for decades.
- ruleabidinguser 9y ago
  I do actually, and I should reword that to "not useful for serious programming." VIM to me is best used for lightweight, quick and short editing tasks. THats how I use it. For any involved work, you're going to want a debugger, you're going to want automated build tools, you're going to want effortless compile/run cycles and so on.. You don't really want to implement all of that in VIM because your work won't be portable.
  - scott_s 9y ago
    I have all those. They're just not integrated into my editor. I use vim; it is my editor, but not my development environment. Unix is my development environment.
    - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
      I;ve tried that approach, and its cumbersome to remember all the different commands, flags, combinations etc. I might need for each different project and for each different task. IDEs simplify this process dramatically. Its akin to GUI v DOS in terms of usability benefits.
      - scott_s 9y ago
        That's fine. But myself and a lot of other people get a lot of "serious programming" done using the approach.
        ruleabidinguser 9y ago
        I don't really understand what the benefit of it is.
michaelmrose 9y ago
Do you really conflate suitable to your own tastes with being useful or not? Further in what profession is any tool "all the same" See the blub paradox.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 9y ago

>In my experience all languages are essentially the same. That's the problem: you don't seem to have enough experience.

ruleabidinguser 9y ago
I dont seem to have much experience? Based on what? For having a different view than you? Isnt that a little naive? So as far as actually talking about my point goes, what exactly am I missing? There are small differences but I've never seen a language that I couldn't get up and going in over the course of a week. How much experience do you think I have? I've used plenty of languages, and I'm well aware that there are nuances.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >So as far as actually talking about my point goes, what exactly am I missing? There are small differences but I've never seen a language that I couldn't get up and going in over the course of a week. That's because you either used the languages superficially, or use only very similar languages, probably of the Algol family (e.g. Ruby, Python, PHP, JS, etc). You won't get very far with Haskell "over the course of a week". Or APL. Or Idris. Or Erlang. Or Lisp -- or any other language that's not a mere Algol derivative with some different bells and whistles. And even those have their idioms, of course, that one needs much more than a week to get competent with, but, it gets worse when we expand languages to not be "mainstream Algol derivatives". One would only be using languages like Smalltalk, OcamL, Scheme, Scala, Self, etc, superficially without getting into their idioms and nuance, which wont happen in a week (and can take years to really master).
  - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
    Well of course you can't include languages like Haskell in the group of interchangeable languages. Incidentally I have used Haskell (and it did take more than a week). But it doesn't matter because we're talking about moving JavaScript developers to Java, or C++, or as you say, Algol-likes.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Well of course you can't include languages like Haskell in the group of interchangeable languages. Well, if you can only include "interchangeable languages" then it's not an observation but a tautology.
      - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
        No kidding? What I was trying to say (I thought I was pretty clear) is that we're really only considering institutional languages here. As it turns out to my knowledge theyre basically all the same.
- tree_of_item 9y ago
  > I dont seem to have much experience? Based on what? Based on the fact that you think all programming languages are essentially the same. That's just a ridiculous claim and it immediately exposes you as someone who's only used a couple of Algol derivatives.
  - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
    2 things 1. I don't think literally all programming languages are the same 2. I have used Haskell, and am very aware of every language listed in the other replies to this comment, so you're completely wrong. I kind of thought this community was better than this, to be honest.
    - michaelmrose 9y ago
      This community is in fact pretty good you posted something wholly and totally ridiculous and the worst thing anyone has said is that you need to get out there and get more experience. Try saying silly things on reddit and watch the hate flow in.
      - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
        Well sure we beat reddit I guess, and maybe I just don't post here enough, but I feel like the community is deteriorating. I used to hold this place to higher standards. Also I still don't think what I said was ridiculous, and its something I basically believe.
        coldtea 9y ago
        Well, it might not be ridiculous IF qualified. E.g. "most of algol-derived languages are quite similar, aside from small differences in syntax and feature set". Or: "Most modern mainstream languages, etc have pretty much similar feature sets and syntax (while still differing in being dynamic vs statically typed etc)" That's not the same as what you said.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

computerex 9y ago

Not useful to serious programmers? Do you feel the same way about Vim? Just because you haven't gotten used to using something, doesn't mean it's necessarily total shit. There is a reason why people have been using emacs for decades.

ruleabidinguser 9y ago
I do actually, and I should reword that to "not useful for serious programming." VIM to me is best used for lightweight, quick and short editing tasks. THats how I use it. For any involved work, you're going to want a debugger, you're going to want automated build tools, you're going to want effortless compile/run cycles and so on.. You don't really want to implement all of that in VIM because your work won't be portable.
- scott_s 9y ago
  I have all those. They're just not integrated into my editor. I use vim; it is my editor, but not my development environment. Unix is my development environment.
  - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
    I;ve tried that approach, and its cumbersome to remember all the different commands, flags, combinations etc. I might need for each different project and for each different task. IDEs simplify this process dramatically. Its akin to GUI v DOS in terms of usability benefits.
    - scott_s 9y ago
      That's fine. But myself and a lot of other people get a lot of "serious programming" done using the approach.
      - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
        I don't really understand what the benefit of it is.

michaelmrose 9y ago

Do you really conflate suitable to your own tastes with being useful or not? Further in what profession is any tool "all the same" See the blub paradox.