2 ms·

What's unfair? That the arguments made by emacs users with respect to less powerful editors resemble the arguments made by Lisp users with respect to less power

What's unfair? That the arguments made by emacs users with respect to less powerful editors resemble the arguments made by Lisp users with respect to less powerful programming languages? I'm not taking a stand on the argument one way or the other, just pointing out how similar they sound. You said: "There are huge benefits available if you give up all your existing editing tools and spend some time (and yeah, it can be months to years) getting really, really good at just one. Really, that one has to be emacs or vim, which are the only editors out there designed to scale to this level of specialization." How does this differ from: "There are huge benefits available if you give up all your existing languages and spend some time (and yeah, it can be months to years) getting really, really good at just one. Really, that one has to be Lisp, which is the only language out there designed to scale to this level of specialization." Whether you agree or disagree with the sentiments, haven't you heard people expressing those sentiments in much the same terms?

ajross 15y ago
I'm not taking a stand on the argument one way or the other, just pointing out how similar they sound. Uh, no. You're making an editorial point that they both seem equally silly, you just aren't saying that. If your only purpose to posting was a bland linguistic analogy with no bearing on the subject being discussed, then I withdraw my argument on the grounds that your post is unimaginably boring. :) But to respond: the sentences differ in that one statement is truer than the other. "Hugs are good." and "Suffering is good." use the same language too, but you wouldn't use that as part of a sideways argument that huggers are insane, would you?
- raganwald 15y ago
  My words meant exactly what they said, no more and no less. I know this because (a) I wrote them, and (b) I happen to like Lisp, Emacs, and the people I know who use them. I'm pretty sure I am not in the habit of describing their arguments as "silly." At the risk of appealing to authority, I do not consider this essay silly: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html What I was doing is making a commentary about the similarity between cultures, or perhaps mindsets, or perhaps people. Now, if you want to believe that when I say X, that I really mean Y, and when I assert "No, I really meant X," that I am lying and I meant Y but have some sort of duplicitous reason for telling you that I meant X, that is your right. But I'm going to have to let you go your way on this issue, and I will go mine.
  - neutronicus 15y ago
    For what it's worth, I read derision in your original post as well.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      Sometimes, a really simple statement is a Tabula Rasa. We read into it what we believe, or what we think others might believe. Nothing exceptionally wrong with that, and so we ask the author: "Did you mean such-and-such?" If they didn't, they clarify their intent and we move along. I have spent more time thinking about the nature of programming languages than editors, so I will perhaps ruin a perfectly good neutral statement by talking about my own beliefs. I think there is such a thing as a power continuum in languages. I have no idea whether Haskell is more powerful than Clojure, but I am comfortable describing Java as far down the continuum from Scheme. I also think there is such a thing as design in programming languages, and I think it has value. So while Python may be less powerful than some other languages in an absolute sense, I understand why many people choose it. It is well-designed in exactly the same way that the original iPod (No Wireless. Less Space Than A Nomad. Lame.) was well-designed. And by well-designed, I don't mean "Has all the features, " I mean, "Has a carefully selected set of features that complement each other." Given my beliefs, I understand people who prefer to work with more powerful languages and why they might argue that you never need to step down the power continuum. Makes sense. I also understand people who argue a certain tool that is less powerful in an absolute sense but has a design that suits them in some fundamental way. I even understand people who argue that certain languages are more powerful and well-designed, like Haskell. I honestly don't have a strong feeling that either person is wrong, and I'm fairly comfortable saying that we haven't done enough research to settle the matter empirically. So no, I am certainly not ridiculing Lisp users who claim that there is no need to step down the power continuum. They may be right, and we don't have enough solid evidence to disprove their claims, just what amounts to folklore about readability and design patterns and significant whitespace and monkey-patching. Likewise, I cannot really argue with an emacs evangelist. Who can say that such an argument is anything except Blub? I value certain well-designed text editors--I have been enjoying Byword lately--but can I prove that I'm more efficient with Byword than I would be if I spent two weeks or a month or a few years becoming an emacs guru? So anyways, no I was not being derisive, but I don't fault anybody for wondering if I had something on my mind considering that I tried very hard to say nothing about whether Emacs is or isn't superior to Byword, or whether Ruby is or isn't an acceptable Lisp.

ajross 15y ago

I'm not taking a stand on the argument one way or the other, just pointing out how similar they sound. Uh, no. You're making an editorial point that they both seem equally silly, you just aren't saying that. If your only purpose to posting was a bland linguistic analogy with no bearing on the subject being discussed, then I withdraw my argument on the grounds that your post is unimaginably boring. :) But to respond: the sentences differ in that one statement is truer than the other. "Hugs are good." and "Suffering is good." use the same language too, but you wouldn't use that as part of a sideways argument that huggers are insane, would you?

raganwald 15y ago
My words meant exactly what they said, no more and no less. I know this because (a) I wrote them, and (b) I happen to like Lisp, Emacs, and the people I know who use them. I'm pretty sure I am not in the habit of describing their arguments as "silly." At the risk of appealing to authority, I do not consider this essay silly: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html What I was doing is making a commentary about the similarity between cultures, or perhaps mindsets, or perhaps people. Now, if you want to believe that when I say X, that I really mean Y, and when I assert "No, I really meant X," that I am lying and I meant Y but have some sort of duplicitous reason for telling you that I meant X, that is your right. But I'm going to have to let you go your way on this issue, and I will go mine.
- neutronicus 15y ago
  For what it's worth, I read derision in your original post as well.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    Sometimes, a really simple statement is a Tabula Rasa. We read into it what we believe, or what we think others might believe. Nothing exceptionally wrong with that, and so we ask the author: "Did you mean such-and-such?" If they didn't, they clarify their intent and we move along. I have spent more time thinking about the nature of programming languages than editors, so I will perhaps ruin a perfectly good neutral statement by talking about my own beliefs. I think there is such a thing as a power continuum in languages. I have no idea whether Haskell is more powerful than Clojure, but I am comfortable describing Java as far down the continuum from Scheme. I also think there is such a thing as design in programming languages, and I think it has value. So while Python may be less powerful than some other languages in an absolute sense, I understand why many people choose it. It is well-designed in exactly the same way that the original iPod (No Wireless. Less Space Than A Nomad. Lame.) was well-designed. And by well-designed, I don't mean "Has all the features, " I mean, "Has a carefully selected set of features that complement each other." Given my beliefs, I understand people who prefer to work with more powerful languages and why they might argue that you never need to step down the power continuum. Makes sense. I also understand people who argue a certain tool that is less powerful in an absolute sense but has a design that suits them in some fundamental way. I even understand people who argue that certain languages are more powerful and well-designed, like Haskell. I honestly don't have a strong feeling that either person is wrong, and I'm fairly comfortable saying that we haven't done enough research to settle the matter empirically. So no, I am certainly not ridiculing Lisp users who claim that there is no need to step down the power continuum. They may be right, and we don't have enough solid evidence to disprove their claims, just what amounts to folklore about readability and design patterns and significant whitespace and monkey-patching. Likewise, I cannot really argue with an emacs evangelist. Who can say that such an argument is anything except Blub? I value certain well-designed text editors--I have been enjoying Byword lately--but can I prove that I'm more efficient with Byword than I would be if I spent two weeks or a month or a few years becoming an emacs guru? So anyways, no I was not being derisive, but I don't fault anybody for wondering if I had something on my mind considering that I tried very hard to say nothing about whether Emacs is or isn't superior to Byword, or whether Ruby is or isn't an acceptable Lisp.