From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bob Proulx Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving? Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:27:29 -0600 Message-ID: <20131015062729.GA28863@hysteria.proulx.com> References: <878uy2b59p.fsf@nl106-137-194.student.uu.se> <9c485a2d-1e2a-4c38-b04a-db69db9b5bc2@googlegroups.com> <87r4btl8e5.fsf@zerg32.ncl.ac.uk> <87a9igcbht.fsf@zerg32.ncl.ac.uk> <20131012220155.GA20851@www> <8738o49kqv.fsf@zerg32.ncl.ac.uk> <87li1va56r.fsf@nl106-137-194.student.uu.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1381818477 29768 80.91.229.3 (15 Oct 2013 06:27:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 06:27:57 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 15 08:28:01 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VVy6r-0002s8-Ej for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 08:28:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40029 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VVy6q-0006l8-Tx for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 02:28:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52194) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VVy6S-0006cA-7U for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 02:27:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VVy6M-0004q6-76 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 02:27:36 -0400 Original-Received: from joseki.proulx.com ([216.17.153.58]:38426) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VVy6L-0004pt-VW for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 02:27:30 -0400 Original-Received: from hysteria.proulx.com (hysteria.proulx.com [192.168.230.119]) by joseki.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1E2211DE for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:27:29 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: by hysteria.proulx.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4A71A2DCE6; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 00:27:29 -0600 (MDT) Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87li1va56r.fsf@nl106-137-194.student.uu.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 216.17.153.58 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:94020 Archived-At: 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