3 ms·

A classic apples vs. oranges fallacy--which is main reason why these horrid comparison articles will never stop being published.

CUViper 17y ago
The primary goals of these apps are not so different, which is why I think comparisons can be meaningful. Consider how they describe themselves: Vim is a highly configurable text editor built to enable efficient text editing. GNU Emacs is an extensible, customizable text editor--and more. The "and more" speaks volumes about the complexity of Emacs...
- jjames 17y ago
  That's interesting. It actually illustrates the sometimes massive difference between "configurable" and "extensible".
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Yes. Emacs is a library for writing text editors, and this library also comes with a text editor that runs when you type "emacs". Programs are much easier to write than config files. (Incidentally, emacs can be set up to act like vi with all of Emacs' editing commands available. To preempt the inevitable "it's not vim" comments, I'll point out that this tends to confuse vim users, who think that all "vi"s have the same commands that vim does...)
crux 17y ago
I disagree. The two apps have wildly different configuration schemes, yes, to wildly different ends, but in this case we're addressing the exact same function in both editors. It's not a question of whether vim's syntax highlighting is better or worse than emacs's ability to run tetris. It's a direct look at which of the two apps makes it easier and more effective to configure the modeline. Now, you might argue that that's not going to be a determining factor for anyone who's choosing between the two—because perhaps they are apples and oranges, but in this case he's simply saying that vim has more vitamin b. So to speak. In general though I find the apples-and-oranges complaint about vim-emacs comparisons to be disingenuous. You may say, 'Oh, but emacs is much more than a text editor, so it's foolish to compare them directly!' but not everybody who's interested in choosing one or the other would necessarily have any interest in the OS-like capabilities of emacs. That is to say: there is still a very good reason to review emacs purely in its function as a text editor, even if that is not the full extent of its capabilities. Many, if not most, people in the market for a text editor aren't really interested in whether, after several years' learning the ropes, they might run a full Turing Machine in it.

CUViper 17y ago

The primary goals of these apps are not so different, which is why I think comparisons can be meaningful. Consider how they describe themselves: Vim is a highly configurable text editor built to enable efficient text editing. GNU Emacs is an extensible, customizable text editor--and more. The "and more" speaks volumes about the complexity of Emacs...

jjames 17y ago
That's interesting. It actually illustrates the sometimes massive difference between "configurable" and "extensible".
- jrockway 17y ago
  Yes. Emacs is a library for writing text editors, and this library also comes with a text editor that runs when you type "emacs". Programs are much easier to write than config files. (Incidentally, emacs can be set up to act like vi with all of Emacs' editing commands available. To preempt the inevitable "it's not vim" comments, I'll point out that this tends to confuse vim users, who think that all "vi"s have the same commands that vim does...)

crux 17y ago

I disagree. The two apps have wildly different configuration schemes, yes, to wildly different ends, but in this case we're addressing the exact same function in both editors. It's not a question of whether vim's syntax highlighting is better or worse than emacs's ability to run tetris. It's a direct look at which of the two apps makes it easier and more effective to configure the modeline. Now, you might argue that that's not going to be a determining factor for anyone who's choosing between the two—because perhaps they are apples and oranges, but in this case he's simply saying that vim has more vitamin b. So to speak. In general though I find the apples-and-oranges complaint about vim-emacs comparisons to be disingenuous. You may say, 'Oh, but emacs is much more than a text editor, so it's foolish to compare them directly!' but not everybody who's interested in choosing one or the other would necessarily have any interest in the OS-like capabilities of emacs. That is to say: there is still a very good reason to review emacs purely in its function as a text editor, even if that is not the full extent of its capabilities. Many, if not most, people in the market for a text editor aren't really interested in whether, after several years' learning the ropes, they might run a full Turing Machine in it.