4 ms·

>For me, the thing that sets sublime apart from vim and emacs is the fact that it is a full gui app. Things like go to definition, autocomplete, build panel, co

by sjolsen 12y ago

>For me, the thing that sets sublime apart from vim and emacs is the fact that it is a full gui app. Things like go to definition, autocomplete, build panel, command pallete, sidebar, context menus, are all technically possible in vim, but hacking these features into a command line interface always ends up seeming clunky, confusing and slow. I can't speak for vim, but Emacs is also a "full gui app." It has go to definition (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this idea was invented in some incarnation of Emacs), autocompletion, and various other such features like gdb integration and build message hyperlinking. The discoverability argument applies as well.

kasabali 12y ago
I disagree, Emacs isn't a "full gui app" even if it has a gui with menus and can show images etc.; because almost all kind of interaction happens inside buffers opened in (new) windows. there are no proper dialogs/popups (they're not used even if it's possible), so Emacs is not a proper GUI app as anyone would expect. I don't claim it's a good or bad thing, a lot of people love emacs because of it's buffer/window centric approach, but it's not even remotely close to what you would expect from a modern gui, so Emacs is still oddball when compared to all the other gui's, which is why new users still struggle with it even though on paper Emacs has all the features other gui editors have.
- sjolsen 12y ago
  So all in context, it sounds to me like you're saying that what sets Sublime Text apart from Emacs is simply that it uses a familiar user interface. I suppose that's fair enough. What I wouldn't say is fair, though, is characterizing something as incomplete and especially improper simply for being different from what you're used to.
  - kasabali 12y ago
    > What I wouldn't say is fair, though, is characterizing something as incomplete and especially improper simply for being different from what you're used to. I didn't tell them to offense Emacs fans, so sorry if you're offended. And the point is not being different from what I am used to, it's being different from what the rest of the world used to, only the Emacs users are accustomed to the Emacs convention of graphical ui's, and the way Emacs does it is not a proper gui in the sense that they invented their own conventions and they're different from every other GUI convention in the world. I'm not implying anything insulting here. Incomplete GUI is another thing, yes, Emacs gui is incomplete because it does not use all existing GUI facilities and conventions to the full extent, and prefer existing Emacs ui facilities instead of gui toolkit's. Again, being incomplete is their choice, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing as I said in my previous comment (and a lot of people actually love it), but if you find that offensive I can't help with that.
    - sjolsen 12y ago
      I'm not offended or insulted by what you said. I don't even disagree with most of it, except maybe how you're using the terms "complete" and "proper." Saying that something isn't complete or proper generally really isn't compatible with a claim of impartiality. I really have no problem with criticism of Emacs (provided that it's true, and now that you've expanded a little, I think what you're saying is true), but if you feel that familiarity (whether everyone's or just someone's) really sets Emacs and Sublime Text apart, call it criticism! :)
      - kasabali 12y ago
        I'm happy I didn't offend anybody, then :). I want to explain the terms again. First of all "not proper" or "incomplete" isn't the adjectives I've used for Emacs itself, but the GUI of Emacs. I did use proper in the sense of common GUI idioms and conventions, and I'm not a native speaker, so if you think that was not a right choice, you're probably right. For the incomplete, again we are not talking if Emacs is complete or not, we are debating if Emacs is a "full gui app" or not, and since I don't think it is using gui facilities to full extent (and instead it just creates a basic gui window, shows some menus and prompt dialogs here and there, and then handles everything with it's own mechanisms like windows and buffers), it's not a "full gui app". Again, if you have a better word of choice for it than the words I chose, I'd be happy to accept them. Sorry it caused trouble more than it worth.
  - unfamiliar 12y ago
    It's not just a familiar interface. It's a better interface. Smooth scrolling is better than line-based scrolling. A popup is better at alerting the user that input is needed than a small prompt at the bottom of the screen. The command pallete, which is clearly visually distinguished from the surrounding text by a gui border, is better design than yet more lines of text indistinguishable from the rest. Current selection highlighted in a bright, theme-able colour is better than just toggling the background colour. Little graphical icons next to lines indicating changes, breakpoints, etc is better than a random text character put before the line. Smooth animations are better at conveying change than instantaneous changes to text. Filesystem trees with pixel-wide connector lines and icons indicating file type, displayed in a smaller font than the main text are better than a file tree drawn with ASCII art. The fact that key bindings can interfere with your terminal emulator or shell's keybindings is an annoying restriction. If all these things weren't objectively better in some way, then the gui app could just draw lines of text instead of windows, borders, selections, themes, images, and animations. But it doesn't, because lines of text is a worse interface for almost everything except the actual buffer you are editing. I know vim very well. But I only use it out of necessity now when I'm on remote machines, because it is worse than a good gui app, precisely because it is restricted to its grid of text interface.
    - sjolsen 12y ago
      >It's not just a familiar interface. It's a better interface. Smooth scrolling is better than line-based scrolling. A popup is better at alerting the user that input is needed than a small prompt at the bottom of the screen. The command pallete, which is clearly visually distinguished from the surrounding text by a gui border, is better design than yet more lines of text indistinguishable from the rest. Current selection highlighted in a bright, theme-able colour is better than just toggling the background colour. Little graphical icons next to lines indicating changes, breakpoints, etc is better than a random text character put before the line. Smooth animations are better at conveying change than instantaneous changes to text. Filesystem trees with pixel-wide connector lines and icons indicating file type, displayed in a smaller font than the main text are better than a file tree drawn with ASCII art. The fact that key bindings can interfere with your terminal emulator or shell's keybindings is an annoying restriction. I agree with almost all of this, which is why I use Emacs' graphical interface instead of its terminal interface.

by sjolsen 12y ago

kasabali 12y ago

I disagree, Emacs isn't a "full gui app" even if it has a gui with menus and can show images etc.; because almost all kind of interaction happens inside buffers opened in (new) windows. there are no proper dialogs/popups (they're not used even if it's possible), so Emacs is not a proper GUI app as anyone would expect. I don't claim it's a good or bad thing, a lot of people love emacs because of it's buffer/window centric approach, but it's not even remotely close to what you would expect from a modern gui, so Emacs is still oddball when compared to all the other gui's, which is why new users still struggle with it even though on paper Emacs has all the features other gui editors have.

sjolsen 12y ago
So all in context, it sounds to me like you're saying that what sets Sublime Text apart from Emacs is simply that it uses a familiar user interface. I suppose that's fair enough. What I wouldn't say is fair, though, is characterizing something as incomplete and especially improper simply for being different from what you're used to.
- kasabali 12y ago
  > What I wouldn't say is fair, though, is characterizing something as incomplete and especially improper simply for being different from what you're used to. I didn't tell them to offense Emacs fans, so sorry if you're offended. And the point is not being different from what I am used to, it's being different from what the rest of the world used to, only the Emacs users are accustomed to the Emacs convention of graphical ui's, and the way Emacs does it is not a proper gui in the sense that they invented their own conventions and they're different from every other GUI convention in the world. I'm not implying anything insulting here. Incomplete GUI is another thing, yes, Emacs gui is incomplete because it does not use all existing GUI facilities and conventions to the full extent, and prefer existing Emacs ui facilities instead of gui toolkit's. Again, being incomplete is their choice, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing as I said in my previous comment (and a lot of people actually love it), but if you find that offensive I can't help with that.
  - sjolsen 12y ago
    I'm not offended or insulted by what you said. I don't even disagree with most of it, except maybe how you're using the terms "complete" and "proper." Saying that something isn't complete or proper generally really isn't compatible with a claim of impartiality. I really have no problem with criticism of Emacs (provided that it's true, and now that you've expanded a little, I think what you're saying is true), but if you feel that familiarity (whether everyone's or just someone's) really sets Emacs and Sublime Text apart, call it criticism! :)
    - kasabali 12y ago
      I'm happy I didn't offend anybody, then :). I want to explain the terms again. First of all "not proper" or "incomplete" isn't the adjectives I've used for Emacs itself, but the GUI of Emacs. I did use proper in the sense of common GUI idioms and conventions, and I'm not a native speaker, so if you think that was not a right choice, you're probably right. For the incomplete, again we are not talking if Emacs is complete or not, we are debating if Emacs is a "full gui app" or not, and since I don't think it is using gui facilities to full extent (and instead it just creates a basic gui window, shows some menus and prompt dialogs here and there, and then handles everything with it's own mechanisms like windows and buffers), it's not a "full gui app". Again, if you have a better word of choice for it than the words I chose, I'd be happy to accept them. Sorry it caused trouble more than it worth.
- unfamiliar 12y ago
  It's not just a familiar interface. It's a better interface. Smooth scrolling is better than line-based scrolling. A popup is better at alerting the user that input is needed than a small prompt at the bottom of the screen. The command pallete, which is clearly visually distinguished from the surrounding text by a gui border, is better design than yet more lines of text indistinguishable from the rest. Current selection highlighted in a bright, theme-able colour is better than just toggling the background colour. Little graphical icons next to lines indicating changes, breakpoints, etc is better than a random text character put before the line. Smooth animations are better at conveying change than instantaneous changes to text. Filesystem trees with pixel-wide connector lines and icons indicating file type, displayed in a smaller font than the main text are better than a file tree drawn with ASCII art. The fact that key bindings can interfere with your terminal emulator or shell's keybindings is an annoying restriction. If all these things weren't objectively better in some way, then the gui app could just draw lines of text instead of windows, borders, selections, themes, images, and animations. But it doesn't, because lines of text is a worse interface for almost everything except the actual buffer you are editing. I know vim very well. But I only use it out of necessity now when I'm on remote machines, because it is worse than a good gui app, precisely because it is restricted to its grid of text interface.
  - sjolsen 12y ago
    >It's not just a familiar interface. It's a better interface. Smooth scrolling is better than line-based scrolling. A popup is better at alerting the user that input is needed than a small prompt at the bottom of the screen. The command pallete, which is clearly visually distinguished from the surrounding text by a gui border, is better design than yet more lines of text indistinguishable from the rest. Current selection highlighted in a bright, theme-able colour is better than just toggling the background colour. Little graphical icons next to lines indicating changes, breakpoints, etc is better than a random text character put before the line. Smooth animations are better at conveying change than instantaneous changes to text. Filesystem trees with pixel-wide connector lines and icons indicating file type, displayed in a smaller font than the main text are better than a file tree drawn with ASCII art. The fact that key bindings can interfere with your terminal emulator or shell's keybindings is an annoying restriction. I agree with almost all of this, which is why I use Emacs' graphical interface instead of its terminal interface.