4 ms·
Honestly I feel that it has become more of a fame and dissimination thing than anything else. I've seen VIM portrayed as this holy grail of productivity for se
by Draiken 8y ago
Honestly I feel that it has become more of a fame and dissimination thing than anything else.
I've seen VIM portrayed as this holy grail of productivity for several years now, while Emacs has always been portrayed as a quirky complex editor.
I'm a VIM user and never used Emacs (nothing against it) but, correct if I'm wrong, both have a similar philosophy and have a higher learning curve than modern editors. They're also both extremely powerful under the right hands.
When I first got into VIM, it was from some conference video showcasing it and how to get good at it. Now remembering back I don't think I ever saw a similar thing for Emacs. I've heard of VimCasts but never heard of EmacsCasts (or something like that). It probably exists, I just never heard of it.
Maybe that's what missing for Emacs?
Take all this with a grain of salt. I may just live in a bubble regarding this :D
- erikbye 8y agohttp://emacsrocks.com/ http://emacsrocks.com/ http://emacs.sexy/ http://emacs.sexy/
- eadmund 8y agoI think it's basically the Blub Paradox for editors: vi(m) is so much better than almost any editor, that its users think 'this, this is truly the best!' When they look at e.g. nano or Notepad++ or Atom, they can easily see how vi(m) is so much better, but when they look at emacs, they simply think, 'nah, I don't need to use that!' The thing is, just like conditional, symbolic expressions and garbage collection are pretty important for writing expressive programs, so too a power extensible interface to textual information is important for communicating with a computer. vi(m) is a great editor, but emacs is a great editing environment.