3 ms·
What I'm trying to say is this: I can pick up almost any text editor and be productive immediately, even if I've never used that editor before. That is manifest
by bartread 6y ago
What I'm trying to say is this: I can pick up almost any text editor and be productive immediately, even if I've never used that editor before. That is manifestly not true with emacs (or vim). Getting back to my point about the emacs documentation, it is simply not optimised to get me productive in the way I can be with other editors anything like as quickly as I can become productive with those editors.
Of course you're right, when you start using computers everything is hard, but many applications have common conventions, even across different authoring organisations and people, and even across different operating systems.
Emacs has conventions but there's next to no commonality with other applications within the same broad class, so you are starting from scratch. Emacs makes no affordances for people who are already used to using other software, whereas much other software does make those affordances, and so is easier to pick up as a result.
Maybe you don't see that as a problem, and that's fine, but for me - and, I suspect, quite a lot of other people - the steep learning curve feels unnecessary and, frankly, bizarre to the point of being out of place.
There's no reason Emacs couldn't be easier to use. There's no reason the documentation couldn't be written to accelerate proficiency with the application. But neither of these things is the case, and it's a deliberate choice. As I've already implied, it seems almost obtuse just for the sake of it.
- taeric 6y agoAnd my point is that you have plenty of other training in those editors you are ignoring. Not out of malice, but because it is second nature. You have done a ton of training on them already. I know it will sound contrived, but when I sit at a coworker's desk using sublime, I'm literally lost on how to navigate. I don't even know how to get the editor to list all open buffers. IDEA? I mean, I know it has the functions, but it is a search every time I have to try them. (Again at someone else's computer.) I could think it was just my emacs knowledge not working, but I see the same hiccups from folks moving from each. So it isn't just me. Are there affordances that are common? Yeah, but many have changed, and not all over long timeframes. Worse, many are different from Windows to Mac to Linux. There is a good argument for adopting what is native to where you are, but the rise of browsers has shown that to not be that important, ironically. I do see it as a problem, if it is keeping folks from using computers. Or, if it makes folks build things that can't be used from emacs. That said, I don't see it as an insult or as a problem if you choose to use something else. Again, for many of us, emacs is easy to use. For many of us, the documentation is written in a way to accelerate proficiency. I would love more documentation or affordances to help. So not stonewalling, but I caution against the attitude that what is there is bad. And I get it, I think. I have recently tried to plunge into Blender and Gimp. Holy crap do I feel punished for mistakes there all too easily. :(
- BeetleB 6y ago> I can pick up almost any text editor and be productive immediately, even if I've never used that editor before. It's true, but I don't see why this is being given much importance. If you pick up any editor and use it only to the extent that you can without ever having to read up documentation, then simply go ahead - you likely do not need power features. If you need to do powerful things, then I suspect you will need to read docs regardless of the editor. Emacs is a powerful tool. If you only need basic editing, then don't use it. That you can't do basic editing with Emacs without even going through a tutorial is not a flaw of Emacs, and you are clearly not the target audience for the program.