3 ms·

> The thought of waiting for a "real" editor to launch when I just want to edit a tiny unstructured file is a sad one to me. Amen to that. That's why I use em

by loxias 5y ago

> The thought of waiting for a "real" editor to launch when I just want to edit a tiny unstructured file is a sad one to me. Amen to that. That's why I use emacs. ;) Just timed it myself, started and ready to go in 120ms. Pretty sure we can shave more time off that.

kamaal 5y ago
>>Just timed it myself, started and ready to go in 120ms. Let me get this straight. You plan to code for hours, and your biggest concern at this point in time is your editor takes 1 - 2 seconds more to start? A second is 1.666666666667% of a minute. And 0.02777777777% of an hour. Just how much more productive are you getting by saving this time? On the other hand emacs is notorious for making users spend days to get a decent working set up. And even that's more like bad vscode clone than anything else.
- stnmtn 5y ago
  Programmer brains are weird, and are stimulated thoroughly by any and all optimization, especially ones that are impossible to not see On the scale of reality, it's obviously less time to just pick up VScode in a few hours of learning (if that), and then deal with it taking 2-3 seconds to launch But on the scale of programmer brain, it's clearly wayyyy better to invest days into learning emacs, writing custom configs for it, learning plugin ecosystems, and the like so that you can see and FEEL that 150ms startup every time.
  - kamaal 5y ago
    That's ok if all you write is something like C or C++. If you are writing html, css, react, js, python, sql and myriad other things. Then having all of this configured to your likings is a multi month project. While vscode gets you up and running in minutes. Edit efficiency should be least of your worries. vscode constantly reminds me if I forgot to import something, or if I imported something and forgot to use it. It lets me navigate code semantically, not just through text tags. It lets me debug, have a project running on a remote box, and let me work on it like Im working locally etc etc. Writing a full feature list will make this a blog post/book. At the end of the day my job is write code, not to work on side tooling projects.
- loxias 5y ago
  > Let me get this straight. You plan to code for hours, and your biggest concern at this point in time is your editor takes 1 - 2 seconds more to start? NO. Mine isn't. I happily used emacs when it took a solid half a minute to fully load. Hell, I once was stuck on an AIX machine that needed lots of maintenance and figured it would "save time in the long run" if I built emacs from source so I could debug things there instead of copying files back and forth. Eight megs and constantly swapping and I feel fine. :) I was just pointing out the startup time as an easy way to pop the nonsensical argument that on today's hardware emacs is anything but lightning fast. > On the other hand emacs is notorious for making users spend days to get a decent working set up. Days? Powerful tools can take years to master! The best are those which let you be productive immediately, while providing a natural and built-in path for you to grow as you need to. Make easy things easy, hard things possible, &c.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  > Just how much more productive It's naive to measure productivity in editor startup times when developer satisfaction is way more important. Clearly this developer values shaving time off editor start time. Seems like it's a mistake to conclude they are concerned about recouping the milliseconds.
  - kamaal 5y ago
    >>It's naive to measure productivity in editor startup times when developer satisfaction is way more important. To be honest, I don't even notice what happens in 1 - 2 seconds. Its like less than the time I take to sip my green tea. And yeah more importantly. I don't kill vscode and restart it every day that's more like once in a few weeks. I think Im ok sacrificing 1 - 2 seconds a month for the value vscode has to offer.

by loxias 5y ago

kamaal 5y ago

>>Just timed it myself, started and ready to go in 120ms. Let me get this straight. You plan to code for hours, and your biggest concern at this point in time is your editor takes 1 - 2 seconds more to start? A second is 1.666666666667% of a minute. And 0.02777777777% of an hour. Just how much more productive are you getting by saving this time? On the other hand emacs is notorious for making users spend days to get a decent working set up. And even that's more like bad vscode clone than anything else.

stnmtn 5y ago
Programmer brains are weird, and are stimulated thoroughly by any and all optimization, especially ones that are impossible to not see On the scale of reality, it's obviously less time to just pick up VScode in a few hours of learning (if that), and then deal with it taking 2-3 seconds to launch But on the scale of programmer brain, it's clearly wayyyy better to invest days into learning emacs, writing custom configs for it, learning plugin ecosystems, and the like so that you can see and FEEL that 150ms startup every time.
- kamaal 5y ago
  That's ok if all you write is something like C or C++. If you are writing html, css, react, js, python, sql and myriad other things. Then having all of this configured to your likings is a multi month project. While vscode gets you up and running in minutes. Edit efficiency should be least of your worries. vscode constantly reminds me if I forgot to import something, or if I imported something and forgot to use it. It lets me navigate code semantically, not just through text tags. It lets me debug, have a project running on a remote box, and let me work on it like Im working locally etc etc. Writing a full feature list will make this a blog post/book. At the end of the day my job is write code, not to work on side tooling projects.
loxias 5y ago
> Let me get this straight. You plan to code for hours, and your biggest concern at this point in time is your editor takes 1 - 2 seconds more to start? NO. Mine isn't. I happily used emacs when it took a solid half a minute to fully load. Hell, I once was stuck on an AIX machine that needed lots of maintenance and figured it would "save time in the long run" if I built emacs from source so I could debug things there instead of copying files back and forth. Eight megs and constantly swapping and I feel fine. :) I was just pointing out the startup time as an easy way to pop the nonsensical argument that on today's hardware emacs is anything but lightning fast. > On the other hand emacs is notorious for making users spend days to get a decent working set up. Days? Powerful tools can take years to master! The best are those which let you be productive immediately, while providing a natural and built-in path for you to grow as you need to. Make easy things easy, hard things possible, &c.
spacemanmatt 5y ago
> Just how much more productive It's naive to measure productivity in editor startup times when developer satisfaction is way more important. Clearly this developer values shaving time off editor start time. Seems like it's a mistake to conclude they are concerned about recouping the milliseconds.
- kamaal 5y ago
  >>It's naive to measure productivity in editor startup times when developer satisfaction is way more important. To be honest, I don't even notice what happens in 1 - 2 seconds. Its like less than the time I take to sip my green tea. And yeah more importantly. I don't kill vscode and restart it every day that's more like once in a few weeks. I think Im ok sacrificing 1 - 2 seconds a month for the value vscode has to offer.