3 ms·

> has been pretty solidly invalidated by GP How exactly has it been invalidated? By pointing out that SOME widely used software (mostly web/web infra with uni

by Johanx64 11mo ago

> has been pretty solidly invalidated by GP How exactly has it been invalidated? By pointing out that SOME widely used software (mostly web/web infra with unix heritage) has been written using vim/emacs as the text editor? Now, you can find endless sea of garbage software on github that is written using riced vim/emacs setups - would you therefore conclude that using vim/emacs leads to garbage software? The only thing you can conclude here is that to write software (either good or bad) you generally speaking need a keyboard and a text editor. Claiming vim/emacs leads to or directly contributes to "quality software" is the same and about as meaningful as saying that keyboards and text editors lead to "quality software". Cargo cult insanity.

whytevuhuni 11mo ago
> would you therefore conclude that using vim/emacs leads to garbage software? I cannot conclude that "it leads to garbage software", but I can definitely conclude that "it has ever led to garbage software" at least once, and in some "shape or form". > Claiming vim/emacs leads to or directly contributes to "quality software" is the same This (or the alluded opposite) was not the original claim. The original claim was the total impossibility of vim/emacs to have ever led to quality software, in any shape or form. That is the only claim being contested here.
- Johanx64 11mo ago
  Don't tell me what the original claim was. You contorted it to mean that it's literally impossible to write "quality software" in vim/emacs. I did NOT claim this. Nobody would claim this either. I wouldn't make such claim even about nano or notepad or any text editor (of which there and hundreds and thousands) for that matter. What an insane thing to contest even. Would I attribute quality of software to - in any shape or form - to the text editor it was written in - whether written in nano, notepad or vim or emacs or god knows what else? No, I would not. That WAS the original claim.
  - whytevuhuni 11mo ago
    > I did NOT claim this. Nobody would claim this either. Regardless of what you wanted to convey, I hope the responses make a bit more sense now. > What an insane thing to contest even. We just simply thought so too.

whytevuhuni 11mo ago

> would you therefore conclude that using vim/emacs leads to garbage software? I cannot conclude that "it leads to garbage software", but I can definitely conclude that "it has ever led to garbage software" at least once, and in some "shape or form". > Claiming vim/emacs leads to or directly contributes to "quality software" is the same This (or the alluded opposite) was not the original claim. The original claim was the total impossibility of vim/emacs to have ever led to quality software, in any shape or form. That is the only claim being contested here.

Johanx64 11mo ago
Don't tell me what the original claim was. You contorted it to mean that it's literally impossible to write "quality software" in vim/emacs. I did NOT claim this. Nobody would claim this either. I wouldn't make such claim even about nano or notepad or any text editor (of which there and hundreds and thousands) for that matter. What an insane thing to contest even. Would I attribute quality of software to - in any shape or form - to the text editor it was written in - whether written in nano, notepad or vim or emacs or god knows what else? No, I would not. That WAS the original claim.
- whytevuhuni 11mo ago
  > I did NOT claim this. Nobody would claim this either. Regardless of what you wanted to convey, I hope the responses make a bit more sense now. > What an insane thing to contest even. We just simply thought so too.