3 ms·
Option f was “there is already an editor like this ___” or something like that. That might have been a bit more polite. Emacs imo doesn’t really match what op
by geoah 5y ago
Option f was “there is already an editor like this ___” or something like that. That might have been a bit more polite.
Emacs imo doesn’t really match what op is proposing. Specifically the part about user experience.
> * conformat, easy to use, human interface guidelines (shortcuts, layout)
> * all features ready to use, no initial configuration necessary
- db48x 5y agoNobody can agree on which software is easy to use, or which guidelines to follow, or which things count as configuration. For example, if I put my source code in a different directory than you do, do I have to configure anything? Does that even count as configuration? My compiler is in /gnu/store/…, and yours is in /usr/bin. Oops, one of us has to configure something. You write in code Raku and I write in Self. Oops, more configuration. It’s an incoherent goal. Emacs has 1.3 million lines of code that you don’t have to reinvent, all written in a language that is extensible and doesn’t need a lengthy compilation and restart cycle every time you make a change.