4 ms·

Or, they are aware of what Emacs can do and still consider it to not be a real option for other reasons.

teddyh 2y ago
They would have to be rather specific and specialized reasons, and they did not specify anything of the kind, just “Go and Python”.
- badrequest 2y ago
  They don't "have" to be any of those things. People are not consistently rational actors, as evidenced by your continued advocacy for Emacs.
- cweagans 2y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing that emacs is *incapable* of being a good editor for Go and Python. I personally just don't want to. These same reasons are as applicable to emacs as they are to (neo)vim (which I used as my daily driver for a while). 1. I don't really want to bother with a DSL for configuring my editor (even if the language is usable outside of that context for other things) 2. I don't have time to bother with maintaining extensive configuration to get the level of code completion/refactoring/etc that I expect from a modern IDE (nor do I want to have to stop what I'm trying to work on to debug a problem with my config) 3. I don't want to have to research various plugins and stuff to provide functionality that I get out of the box with VS Code (or other editors) 4. I don't want to have a bespoke environment that only I understand when I'm trying to collaborate with my teammates Don't get me wrong: I think digging into emacs and/or (neo)vim is a valuable thing to do and that everybody probably *should* do it at some point (even if only as an academic exercise), but to assert that they are a viable path for everyone is ignoring the reality that some people simply aren't interested in investing that time/effort into getting their tools working. One can argue whether or not that stance is a good one or not, but you're just debating personal preferences and priorities at that point.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    > I don't think anyone is arguing that emacs is *incapable* of being a good editor for Go and Python. On the contrary, the article said, literally: ”We are primarily a Go and Python shop, which means our only real option is VSCode”. Meaning they do not consider Emacs to be a ”real” option. This is expressing more than mere personal preference; it is, at best, profound ignorance of what Emacs is capable of.
    - cweagans 2y ago
      IMO, emacs isn't a real option when you're talking about a group of developers. The people for whom emacs is a real option likely already use emacs (same with (n)vim), but that choice is made at the individual level, rather than at the team level. It's unlikely that a given team/workplace is going to roll out dev tooling that is just a pile of elisp. With VS Code, you can drop a couple of JSON files into your project, commit and push them, and then everyone has a preconfigured set of tools that match the needs of that project.
jimnotgym 2y ago
Because they already opened Vim, and haven't worked out how to quit yet?

They would have to be rather specific and specialized reasons, and they did not specify anything of the kind, just “Go and Python”.

badrequest 2y ago
They don't "have" to be any of those things. People are not consistently rational actors, as evidenced by your continued advocacy for Emacs.
cweagans 2y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing that emacs is *incapable* of being a good editor for Go and Python. I personally just don't want to. These same reasons are as applicable to emacs as they are to (neo)vim (which I used as my daily driver for a while). 1. I don't really want to bother with a DSL for configuring my editor (even if the language is usable outside of that context for other things) 2. I don't have time to bother with maintaining extensive configuration to get the level of code completion/refactoring/etc that I expect from a modern IDE (nor do I want to have to stop what I'm trying to work on to debug a problem with my config) 3. I don't want to have to research various plugins and stuff to provide functionality that I get out of the box with VS Code (or other editors) 4. I don't want to have a bespoke environment that only I understand when I'm trying to collaborate with my teammates Don't get me wrong: I think digging into emacs and/or (neo)vim is a valuable thing to do and that everybody probably *should* do it at some point (even if only as an academic exercise), but to assert that they are a viable path for everyone is ignoring the reality that some people simply aren't interested in investing that time/effort into getting their tools working. One can argue whether or not that stance is a good one or not, but you're just debating personal preferences and priorities at that point.
- teddyh 2y ago
  > I don't think anyone is arguing that emacs is *incapable* of being a good editor for Go and Python. On the contrary, the article said, literally: ”We are primarily a Go and Python shop, which means our only real option is VSCode”. Meaning they do not consider Emacs to be a ”real” option. This is expressing more than mere personal preference; it is, at best, profound ignorance of what Emacs is capable of.
  - cweagans 2y ago
    IMO, emacs isn't a real option when you're talking about a group of developers. The people for whom emacs is a real option likely already use emacs (same with (n)vim), but that choice is made at the individual level, rather than at the team level. It's unlikely that a given team/workplace is going to roll out dev tooling that is just a pile of elisp. With VS Code, you can drop a couple of JSON files into your project, commit and push them, and then everyone has a preconfigured set of tools that match the needs of that project.

jimnotgym 2y ago

Because they already opened Vim, and haven't worked out how to quit yet?