From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:12:34 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20071230122217.3CA84830B9A@snark.thyrsus.com> <20071231130712.GB8641@thyrsus.com> <20071231214108.GD26639@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1199142776 2752 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2007 23:12:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:12:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: esr@snark.thyrsus.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: esr@thyrsus.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 01 00:13:11 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J9Tok-00084z-Kg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:13:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9ToO-0000Sk-Ew for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:12:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J9ToL-0000R3-Fp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:12:45 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J9ToJ-0000Ob-M6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:12:44 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9ToJ-0000OR-GB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:12:43 -0500 Original-Received: from romy.inter.net.il ([213.8.233.24]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J9ToJ-00054m-CV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:12:43 -0500 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-151-214.inter.net.il [80.230.151.214]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id JTT98311 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:12:16 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <20071231214108.GD26639@thyrsus.com> (esr@thyrsus.com) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.4) (2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:85777 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:41:08 -0500 > From: "Eric S. Raymond" > Cc: esr@snark.thyrsus.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > I proudly mentioned my work on VC-mode, and got majorly dumped on for > bothering with Emacs at all. The kids out there think we're a > stagnant backwater, an old-boys club of bearded grognards that has > learned nothing and forgotten nothing for the last decade. Curiously enough, I'm having an opposite experience these days: a bunch of extremely able developers who work for years with MS Visual Studio came to respect Emacs, as a viable and powerful alternative to the bloated and dog-slow Studio, even on Windows, to say nothing of GNU/Linux (this is a dual-platform project, where software is developed to run on both systems). All I needed to do is introduce them to some optional features, such as Speedbar, ebrowse, and gdb-ui, and craft a simple .emacs to bind the various Fn keys to compile/run/debug commands they were used to have. After that, I never again heard anyone of them laughing at "stagnant backwater" that is Emacs. Of course, I'm not saying that Emacs is going to win proprietary IDEs any time soon, just that not everybody "dumps" us right away. > In particular, crappy tools and weak leadership hinder attracting new > developers. I can't solve the weak leadership problem, so I'm > focusing on what I know how to do: fix the tools. Sorry, I was taught to identify the 80-20 divide and concentrate on the 80 part before I turn to the other 20. I don't see a point in a revolution that wastes everybody's resources just to produce a 20% or 25% improvement. But that's me.