4 ms·

No, read carefully, he did spend 2 weeks setting up Visual Studio for F#, not for the Eclipse setup. One can reasonably think he did spend less time for the Ecl

by Gmo 17y ago

No, read carefully, he did spend 2 weeks setting up Visual Studio for F#, not for the Eclipse setup. One can reasonably think he did spend less time for the Eclipse setup. Besides, I don't think you can be as productive with Vim or Emacs in 2 weeks as he is or would be with Eclipse, if he is really not into this kind of tool. This is just a personal statement, I can't backup this claim with any data obviously.

bmj 17y ago
I agree. I've recently moved to emacs, and it has taken me at least 3 or 4 weeks to feel really comfortable with it, and be reasonably productive. If you're a Windows person, moving to either emacs or vim (Cream can help with vim, I suppose) is a big step, as you lose many of your normal keyboard shortcuts (and yes, I know you can rebind things in those editors).
gcv 17y ago
"So for now, I decided to abandon F# in favor of OCaml, spending yet another two weeks trying to set up a great work environment. [Eclipse screenshot] And there it was." Reads to me like spent an extra two weeks on Eclipse. As for your other point, I specifically said that he'd learn enough vi or Emacs "to get by," not achieve equivalent productivity. However, he'd be coding in OCaml within a day or so, not two weeks (a total of four weeks, including his F# experiment) later. I understand the need to tweak the working environment to maximize productivity. I do so on a regular basis, and my .emacs.d/init.el and .zshrc files have evolved tremendously over the last ten years. There's a difference between spending an hour here and there, though, and two weeks. I would be inclined to fire a programmer who spent a total of four weeks mucking around trying different IDEs instead of turning out useful work.
- Gmo 17y ago
  You're right, I didn't see the other 2 weeks mention. I also find 2 weeks for setting up an environment very long, but one can imagine he didn't spend 2 weeks before writing his first line of OCaml. And even if he did so, I think he would have spent the equal amount of time for configuring Emacs and/or Vim.

by Gmo 17y ago

bmj 17y ago

I agree. I've recently moved to emacs, and it has taken me at least 3 or 4 weeks to feel really comfortable with it, and be reasonably productive. If you're a Windows person, moving to either emacs or vim (Cream can help with vim, I suppose) is a big step, as you lose many of your normal keyboard shortcuts (and yes, I know you can rebind things in those editors).

gcv 17y ago

"So for now, I decided to abandon F# in favor of OCaml, spending yet another two weeks trying to set up a great work environment. [Eclipse screenshot] And there it was." Reads to me like spent an extra two weeks on Eclipse. As for your other point, I specifically said that he'd learn enough vi or Emacs "to get by," not achieve equivalent productivity. However, he'd be coding in OCaml within a day or so, not two weeks (a total of four weeks, including his F# experiment) later. I understand the need to tweak the working environment to maximize productivity. I do so on a regular basis, and my .emacs.d/init.el and .zshrc files have evolved tremendously over the last ten years. There's a difference between spending an hour here and there, though, and two weeks. I would be inclined to fire a programmer who spent a total of four weeks mucking around trying different IDEs instead of turning out useful work.

Gmo 17y ago
You're right, I didn't see the other 2 weeks mention. I also find 2 weeks for setting up an environment very long, but one can imagine he didn't spend 2 weeks before writing his first line of OCaml. And even if he did so, I think he would have spent the equal amount of time for configuring Emacs and/or Vim.