Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?

[Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com>]

Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Christopher Ritsen writes:
> > Right now, that is strictly org-mode for emacs, and
> > vim for most of my text-editing and coding.
> 
> Yeah, that would be one division that is possible (and
> even sensible, if there isn't anything like org-mode for
> Vim), but I think the "gosh wow" reaction is of *mixing*
> Vim and Emacs for *the same type* of task, or tasks that
> are very similar (e.g., two programming languages).

I don't know.  I have always switched back and forth between emacs and
vi as made sense for me at the moment.  If the machine didn't have
emacs then I used vi.  If I wanted to *quickly* start an editor and
edit something like /etc/fstab and exit it then I would use vi.  But
if I were going to spend several hours in an editor writing C code
then I would always use emacs for that type of activity.

Being bilingual is not that difficult if you are actually fluent in
the two.  I don't even think about it.  My fingers just go.

> And I think that is a bad move. If we (humans) lived for
> 400 years, perhaps.

Why?  Because of the time for the learning curve?  That is, it takes a
long time to learn something well?

> In general, isn't it true that "what works" is obvious
> from day one, and then it is much better perfecting it,
> than jumping between different things?

If you look at a workbench of a wood craftsman you will find a variety
of chisels, a variety of hammers, saws, planes, and other tools.
There isn't a single tool that does everything best.  It is often good
to have a variety of tools available.

Also language shapes the way you think.  If all you have is a hammer
then every problem looks like a nail.

>                                        Even a king of
> Ithaca, that is so creative in solving the island's
> zillion problem, for the same task, I think he uses the
> same method every time, as long as it works.
> 
> > I'm not planning on dropping one for the other, but my
> > assumption is that most people wouldn't want or have
> > the time to configure both (especially if it's not
> > possible to use either at work) and lose objectivity
> > about using the best tool for the job.
> 
> Yeah, but it is not *only* the tool, is it? It is the
> *hands*, *eyes*, and *brain*, as well. If those are as
> good for any tool, yes, but isn't that unrealistic,
> perhaps even impossible?
> 
> Am I making any sense here? :)

Sorry.  You lost me along the way.  I think I didn't make that left
turn at Albuquerque.  :-)

Bob