3 ms·
Experienced emacs users will beg to differ. It is as capable and arguably, more easily extensible. I must admit, it is not for everyone. As your anecdotal 10 ye
by 533474 4y ago
Experienced emacs users will beg to differ. It is as capable and arguably, more easily extensible. I must admit, it is not for everyone. As your anecdotal 10 years experience, I have the opposite opinion but I think it is fair to say that both, Graphical IDEs and emacs/vim, have their merits. Having transitioned from Graphical IDEs -> vim + plugins -> emacs + evil + configs + org-mode. I will never go back to my old self, I've never been as productive and free.
- scruple 4y agoSame trajectory here. I started with vi(m), used a handful of IDEs along the way, but vi(m) was (is*, if I'm in my terminal and just need to edit a config file or look at some data file, and sometimes even just for reading source, I default to using neovim) a mainstay, and I also eventually landed on Emacs with evil-mode. I still use an IDE frequently for graphical debugging. I find it's the best way to approach thorny problems, but I jump in and out of the IDE quickly. I don't hang around in it and write code, almost as a rule.
- ms4720 4y agoI just wish emacs used a better lisp or scheme