4 ms·

> Now we have Visual Studio Code which a lot of people seem to use, even those that judged me for using emacs a few years back. But... IDEs are better, right?

> Now we have Visual Studio Code which a lot of people seem to use, even those that judged me for using emacs a few years back. But... IDEs are better, right? VS Code is not an IDE, it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs. And it's now 9 years old, so I would think it has established itself well for this decade. > We also have Sublime Text 2 It's now at version 4, still in development. But being a commercial app, which is also not that cheap, you will naturally see not too many people using it. But considering they are still developing it, they seem to still make money from it, so enough people are using it I guess. > Once in a while (in the last 15 years) I see the odd vi or vim user. They continue to exist like me with emacs. That's a very strange observation. There are significant more (neo)vim-users than emacs-users around. They are probably the second biggest crowd in text-editor-space, only beaten by VS Code at the moment. It's far more likely for emacs to die, than for vim. > Point is - emacs will be around for many years to come. That's true for all of them. As long as someone maintains them, people will use them. Software will only die when they don't start anymore or the users left them. And at the moment Emacs seems more at the position where users will slowly die of old age, than Emacs not starting anymore. So another 30, 40 years, and Emacs might have a real problem.

masfoobar 3y ago
> VS Code is not an IDE... I know. > ...it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs. And it's now 9 years old, so I would think it has established itself well for this decade. Point I am making is those using Visual Studio (before Visual Studio Code) would criticise me for using Emacs.. a text editor. They mocked me because "IDEs are better" Roll on to more recent times.. many of said people are now using Visual Studio Code. The same people that told me "IDEs are better" > It's now at version 4, still in development. But being a commercial app, which is also not that cheap, you will naturally see not too many people using it. But considering they are still developing it, they seem to still make money from it, so enough people are using it I guess. I will admit I did not know there was a ST v4. I knew about version 3 (I will not get into that). I do not know anyone using it. Not suggesting noone is.. just my personal observation. I would not be surprised if many ST2 users moved to VSCode. > That's a very strange observation. There are significant more (neo)vim-users than emacs-users around I was talking about vi/vim.. not neovim. I made my point with regards to VSCode and NeoVim. They are the current cool kids on the block. Not suggesting they wont be popular in 10 years time. They could be.. but large of their userbase could move onto another cool kid by then. Emacs, on the other hand (like vi/vim) will continue like they normally do.
- PurpleRamen 3y ago
  > Point I am making is those using Visual Studio (before Visual Studio Code) would criticise me for using Emacs.. a text editor. They mocked me because "IDEs are better" Maybe you failed to explain it, probably, or configure the IDE-features of Emacs? I mean, that's the point of VS Code and Emacs and others like them. They can have IDE-features, without being an IDE. And those features can have value it used well, elevating these apps above your normal plain text editor. > I was talking about vi/vim.. not neovim. There is no significant difference between them, and no reason to distinguish between them when talking about users and their preferences. One can move mostly freely between them with little to no hindrance.
  - softirq 3y ago
    I assume you're joking right? Vim/Neovim have already diverged. They have completely separate scripting languages now, config languages for the main config file, and Neovim has LSP support out of the box, removed cscope and a bunch of other built ins... They have about as much in common as Vim has with Helix.
    - PurpleRamen 3y ago
      > Vim/Neovim have already diverged. They are still 99% the same. They still have the same mental model, shortcuts, commands... > They have completely separate scripting languages now, config languages for the main config file, and Neovim has LSP support out of the box I'm not saying there can't be work involved when moving from one to the other. But it depends on the user, their setup and is more akin to changing from one vim-version to another version, not like switching between two completely different editors. From my experience, a (neo)vim-user will always be able to continue with (neo)vim or any other future flavor of them instantly on a high level out-of-the-box. Which is very different from switching to any other editor. I mean I have seen vim-users being challenged by nano, simply because it's so different from they established habits..
  - masfoobar 3y ago
    > Maybe you failed to explain it, probably, or configure the IDE-features of Emacs? I mean, that's the point of VS Code and Emacs and others like them. They can have IDE-features, without being an IDE. And those features can have value it used well, elevating these apps above your normal plain text editor. Lots of assumptions to try and cling on to some kind of point, I guess. > There is no significant difference between them, and no reason to distinguish between them when talking about users and their preferences. One can move mostly freely between them with little to no hindrance. Wrong.
msla 3y ago
> VS Code is not an IDE, it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs. "We were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp." Interesting way to get an acknowledgement that IDEs aren't as advanced as Emacs, I suppose, and that VSCode (as in Man Vs Code, one of the Basic Plots) is only partway to being Emacs, being a GUI version (simplification) of the core concept, as if Emacs didn't already have a GUI. (Having a GUI being different from depending on a GUI, but baby steps... ) > And it's now 9 years old, so I would think it has established itself well for this decade. But no guarantees about the next decade.
ParetoOptimal 3y ago
> it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs If you mean "evolved GUI-Version" and not also "evolved emacs" I might be able to agree. The friction in customizing vscode is too high and in some cases impossible given you have no hooks or way to order plugin load order (last I checked).

masfoobar 3y ago

> VS Code is not an IDE... I know. > ...it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs. And it's now 9 years old, so I would think it has established itself well for this decade. Point I am making is those using Visual Studio (before Visual Studio Code) would criticise me for using Emacs.. a text editor. They mocked me because "IDEs are better" Roll on to more recent times.. many of said people are now using Visual Studio Code. The same people that told me "IDEs are better" > It's now at version 4, still in development. But being a commercial app, which is also not that cheap, you will naturally see not too many people using it. But considering they are still developing it, they seem to still make money from it, so enough people are using it I guess. I will admit I did not know there was a ST v4. I knew about version 3 (I will not get into that). I do not know anyone using it. Not suggesting noone is.. just my personal observation. I would not be surprised if many ST2 users moved to VSCode. > That's a very strange observation. There are significant more (neo)vim-users than emacs-users around I was talking about vi/vim.. not neovim. I made my point with regards to VSCode and NeoVim. They are the current cool kids on the block. Not suggesting they wont be popular in 10 years time. They could be.. but large of their userbase could move onto another cool kid by then. Emacs, on the other hand (like vi/vim) will continue like they normally do.

PurpleRamen 3y ago
> Point I am making is those using Visual Studio (before Visual Studio Code) would criticise me for using Emacs.. a text editor. They mocked me because "IDEs are better" Maybe you failed to explain it, probably, or configure the IDE-features of Emacs? I mean, that's the point of VS Code and Emacs and others like them. They can have IDE-features, without being an IDE. And those features can have value it used well, elevating these apps above your normal plain text editor. > I was talking about vi/vim.. not neovim. There is no significant difference between them, and no reason to distinguish between them when talking about users and their preferences. One can move mostly freely between them with little to no hindrance.
- softirq 3y ago
  I assume you're joking right? Vim/Neovim have already diverged. They have completely separate scripting languages now, config languages for the main config file, and Neovim has LSP support out of the box, removed cscope and a bunch of other built ins... They have about as much in common as Vim has with Helix.
  - PurpleRamen 3y ago
    > Vim/Neovim have already diverged. They are still 99% the same. They still have the same mental model, shortcuts, commands... > They have completely separate scripting languages now, config languages for the main config file, and Neovim has LSP support out of the box I'm not saying there can't be work involved when moving from one to the other. But it depends on the user, their setup and is more akin to changing from one vim-version to another version, not like switching between two completely different editors. From my experience, a (neo)vim-user will always be able to continue with (neo)vim or any other future flavor of them instantly on a high level out-of-the-box. Which is very different from switching to any other editor. I mean I have seen vim-users being challenged by nano, simply because it's so different from they established habits..
- masfoobar 3y ago
  > Maybe you failed to explain it, probably, or configure the IDE-features of Emacs? I mean, that's the point of VS Code and Emacs and others like them. They can have IDE-features, without being an IDE. And those features can have value it used well, elevating these apps above your normal plain text editor. Lots of assumptions to try and cling on to some kind of point, I guess. > There is no significant difference between them, and no reason to distinguish between them when talking about users and their preferences. One can move mostly freely between them with little to no hindrance. Wrong.

msla 3y ago

> VS Code is not an IDE, it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs. "We were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp." Interesting way to get an acknowledgement that IDEs aren't as advanced as Emacs, I suppose, and that VSCode (as in Man Vs Code, one of the Basic Plots) is only partway to being Emacs, being a GUI version (simplification) of the core concept, as if Emacs didn't already have a GUI. (Having a GUI being different from depending on a GUI, but baby steps... ) > And it's now 9 years old, so I would think it has established itself well for this decade. But no guarantees about the next decade.

ParetoOptimal 3y ago

> it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs If you mean "evolved GUI-Version" and not also "evolved emacs" I might be able to agree. The friction in customizing vscode is too high and in some cases impossible given you have no hooks or way to order plugin load order (last I checked).