4 ms·
I think this is a case of the classic fallacy of evolution. Which is more evolved: E. coli? or Humans? Before you answer, consider that E. coli has been living
by jballanc 15y ago
I think this is a case of the classic fallacy of evolution. Which is more evolved: E. coli? or Humans? Before you answer, consider that E. coli has been living successfully in various ecological niches literally all across the globe for a couple billion years.
In other words: just because something is newer doesn't mean it is better, especially when we're talking about a complex system like life...or text editors.
- hvs 15y agoBut computers really are better than 30 years ago. The fact that we haven't come up with a better text editor is actually surprising. I don't think that emacs is the best that we are capable of.
- JoachimSchipper 15y agoModern vim is quite a lot more convenient than the original vi; I agree that there's no revolution, but there definitely is progression.
- jballanc 15y agoThis. The point of the evolutionary fallacy is that when evolving, creating new forms is not better (necessarily) than improving the existing forms. E. coli today are probably nothing like E. coli 2 billion years ago, but they have been continually improving in their own niche while other organisms have gone off trying to find new niches. Similarly, emacs and vim of today are nothing like emacs and vim of even 10 years ago, but instead of creating new devices they continually improve on a proven model.