Sorry, I had thought you were referring to the installed user base of those editors in general, not just by Actionscript and Java users.
-austin On Sat Dec 30 14:22 , hank williams wrote: > Come on dude. Seriously. No one programs java or actionscript, or C#, etc in > emacs. Emacs comes on every linux box, but its not used for these languages. > > Ok, I dont mean to be rude, obvously you do use it for flash, and there's > nothing wrong with that. But seriously, I am subscribed to almost 20 mailing > lists focused on flash and java, and I listen to people talk about what they > do and how they do it all day. I have 46000 threads in my gmail account > which covers all the mail I get on all subjects. And I got 35 hits for > emacs. For eclipse, All gmail would tell me was "thousands". > > > Regards, > Hank > > On 12/30/06, Austin Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Do you have any data on the installed user base of Emacs, Eclipse, and > >Visual Studio? > > > >-austin > > > >On Sat Dec 30 12:15 , hank williams wrote: > >> On 12/30/06, Austin Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >Hank, no offense, but you obviously aren't familiar with Emacs, so I > >don't > >> >think you should be telling people about how it works. You are > >completely > >> >wrong on almost every point. > >> > > >> > >> As far as I can tell, based on your own comments, the only thing I am > >wrong > >> about is syntax highlighting. My bad. But that notwithstanding, one > >thing > >> that comes with being somewhat experienced is being able to understand > >the > >> features and comparative benefits of tools without needing to be an > >expert > >> in them. Emacs has been around long enough (certainly the early 80's > >when I > >> was in school) for those features and benefits and disadvantages to be > >clear > >> to anyone who has been in the field. > >> > >> And though you may not like my opinions, I think they are very much in > >the > >> mainstream based on the installed base of Emacs users vs Eclipse and > >Visual > >> Studio and all the other tools that do not derive anything from Emacs. > >You > >> might do better explaining why, despite the incredibly small user base > >> (relative to other tools) that there are circumstances where Emacs > >rocks. > >> > >> I totally agree with the Pragmatic Programmers. Emacs rules and it is > >great > >> >for any type of editing. Emacs has what are called "Major Modes" which > >are > >> >specific to whatever type of file you are editing. These modes > >customize > >> >every aspect of the editor to suit the language. I can edit html, css, > >xml, > >> >ActionScript, Python, and Lisp all in the same editor at the same time > >and > >> >have each buffer specific to the language, but at the same time many > >> >familiar keybindings will work across any language. > >> > > >> One of the reasons that Emacs is so great and powerful is that it has > >been > >> >in widespread use for over 30 years and contains it's own internal > >> >scripting > >> >language for customization. The result is that thousands and thousands > >of > >> >programmers have been refining and perfecting Emacs over that time. > >> > > >> >It is true that Emacs has been around long before graphical editors and > >it > >> >does not contain a lot of the graphical features that you might expect > >from > >> >IDE's such as Visual Studio, but most Emacs users consider that a good > >> >thing. If you can learn to stop using the mouse, you will find that you > >can > >> >navigate through your code and make edits much faster. Emacs has ways > >of > >> >jumping all over your code with just a few keystrokes that are hard to > >> >imagine if you've only been using the arrow keys. > >> > >> > >> I thoroughly caveatted my comments with not being an Emacs user. But I > >> understand the "ethos" of Emacs as this has been an argument since the > >early > >> 80's when command lines gave way to graphical interfaces. The argument > >will > >> probably continue well after I am dead. There is a (thankfully) small > >group > >> of people that want the most geeky, non-graphical, complicated, command > >line > >> driven tools based on the argument that they are "more powerful". > >That's > >> all this is. For this small minority, GUI's are bad. We really needn't > >argue > >> beyond this point. > >> > >> Specifically, I want to address Hank's claims: > >> > > >> >1. Emacs is not clunky in the least. It's more like a surgical tool for > >> >programming. > >> > >> > >> Based on everything you described, it sounds horribly clunky to me. But > >this > >> gets back to the GUI/non-GUI argument. Emacs people believe the GUI is > >> clunky and commands are smooth. I (and most others) believe the GUI is > >> smooth and command only systems are clunky. The Emacs view is not > >> mainstream, though I would thoroughly agree that there is a small > >minority > >> of people for which it is the most comfortable way to work. > >> > >> 2. Emacs is not a programming language, but it does utilize a dialect of > >> >Lisp as it's scripting language. > >> > >> > >> I know I studied computer science a long time ago, but way back in the > >'84 > >> when I took my first LISP class, it was indeed considered a programming > >> language. As I understand it, the core of Emacs is LISP and most of the > >> features of Emacs are built in lisp. These features are modifiable by > >the > >> users. I am not sure what you are disagreeing with here. > >> > >> 3. Emacs has incredible syntax highlighting support. > >> > >> > >> point taken. > >> > >> 4. Emacs can do code completion, but I don't think that it works in the > >same > >> >way as some other editors. This is something that I wish it could do > >> >better. > >> > >> > >> I am sure Emacs could fry an egg too, but you basically admit whatever > >it > >> does in this regard is not up to snuff. And I seriously doubt it > >compares in > >> any way to something like java in eclipse. One of the things that people > >> tend to do in these arguments is make some argument that if you stand on > >> your head with one hand in your pocket and one arm extended at exactly a > >45 > >> degree angle, you can achieve the desired result. This relates to point > >1. > >> which is that to achieve the desired result in Emacs would be *clunky*. > >This > >> is why *no one* (well very few people) code java in Emacs for example. > >> > >> > >> Some other benefits of Emacs: > >> > > >> >1. I can edit files remotely via ssh, side by side with my local files. > >> >2. I can easily add new editing functions, such as inserting a trace > >> >method for the current function signature. > >> >3. I can collapse functions to just their signatures. > >> >4. Very powerful regular expression searching and replacing. > >> > >> 5. I can collect the trace output from my swfs directly into an emacs > >> >buffer, and use all of the power of the editor there. For example, in > >> >multiplayer games, I can capture the output from two players into the > >same > >> >buffer and use emacs regexp-highlighting functions to highlight all > >> >messages > >> >from one player as blue and the other as red. > >> > >> 6. I've also built a runtime swf profiler into Emacs. > >> > >> 7. Every aspect of Emacs can be customized. If there is anything that > >you > >> >wish could be different, you can change it. I think this is why the > >> >Pragmatic Programmers recommend it. > >> > >> > >> I don't want to design an editor. There is nothing that I could do as > >well > >> in my spare time that could not be done far better by a dedicated team > >> totally focused on the given task. I want an editor that is designed for > >> what I am doing so I don't have to customize anything. Honestly I don't > >> think I am doing anything much differently than anyone else so I > >shouldn't > >> need much customization. This is borne out by the fact that the Eclipse > >Java > >> editor fit me like a glove right out of the box. No customization > >needed. > >> > >> 8. Whenever Emacs opens a brand new file that ends in .as, I have set it > >up > >> >to automatically insert a bunch of boilerplate code, such as the > >package > >> >line, class line, constructor skeleton, and a toString method. > >> > >> 9. I can compile my actionscript from Emacs, using either mtasc or > >mxmlc, > >> >with one button. If there are any errors, Emacs will find the error in > >the > >> >correct file, highlight it in red, and put my cursor on it. > >> > > >> >...but, Emacs has literally millions of features and add-on packages > >that > >> >I'm still discovering every day. > >> > > >> > >> Millions of features is *not* a benefit in most products. I think that > >> includes editors. As I said in my initial post, the fact that Emacs > >> is/contains a programming language means that it can definitely do > >things > >> that eclipse editors can't do. This is always what badly designed tools > >fall > >> back on. Emacs is an accretion of features, not a designed product. > >> Thousands of people adding pieces a bit at a time just *can't* yield a > >> seamless productivity tool for all but the most dedicated. > >> > >> I want something that works really well, not something where I have to > >> spend a year learning a language and customizing to work well. And of > >course > >> as you admitted it doesn't do code completion very well. And, based on > >your > >> description, it doesn't do error detection as well as the Eclipse Java > >> editpr either, which detects errors *as I type* and shows them to me > >with > >> markers on the side or the window without even compiling. When I move my > >> cursor over the error marker it suggests the fix for the problem. This > >may > >> not be important to you, but for me (and I think most) seamless error > >> detection, once you have experienced it, is something you will never > >give > >> up, > >> > >> But the bottom line may just be this: Emacs may just be for the smart > >> people, and I alluded to this in my earlier email. I may not be smart > >enough > >> to use it effectively. I'll cop to that. > >> > >> But coming back to the initial question, this argument is not about > >which > >> editor is "better", but about which one is better for a given task, and > >> whether it is best for the average programmer to only use one editor, > >which > >> would therefore mean not accessing what I consider to be far more > >advanced > >> language specific features like in eclipse or even visual studio. I > >would > >> definitely argue that a text based editor such as Emacs or vi is > >definitely > >> something that should be in your arsenal. As you correctly indicate, > >there > >> are things text based editors can do - like work in a terminal window > >etc, > >> that GUI's cant. And if you need to write code (in LISP) to do custom > >> things, then you should definitely consider it for certain tasks. But > >give > >> up the GUI for the command line for my primary editing? Nah. I don't > >code > >> much in assembler these days either. The stone age just wasn't that much > >> fun. > >> > >> Regards > >> Hank > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> osflash mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > >-- > >Austin Haas > >Pet Tomato, Inc. > >http://pettomato.com > > > >_______________________________________________ > >osflash mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org -- Austin Haas Pet Tomato, Inc. http://pettomato.com _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
