It seems like this thread has turned into an emacs v eclipse flame war, which reminds me of the classic emacs v vi debate. Wasn't the original posters question more about if people like using one editor for all languages rather than which editor. And wasn't eclipse designed to be a customizable editor for use with multiple languages (not just java). Isn't that one of the main reasons it was chosen to be the basis for the flex editor? Emacs is similar with it's customizable editing modes. So it seems we are all in agreement that it is nice to use the same editor for different languages. But obviously you should choose the editor that's right for you.
Just for the record, I use emacs to code java, actionscript, C#, php, xml, html, sql, javascript and quite a bit of other stuff. It's really a great piece of software. I've been using it pretty regularly for about 14 years and right now I can't think of any other software that I've used and enjoyed for so long. I've used various IDE's including eclipse over the years but I usually find myself gravitating back to emacs. The main reasons I like it are for it's extensability, it's lightweight (compared to gui apps), it starts up fast, it can open huge files that other editors choke on, you can edit binary files, and it's available on virtually every platform. And of course it is open source... However I realize that emacs has a fairly steep learning curve and the documentation though it's extensive can be a little obscure, so I wouldn't recommend emacs to everyone, especially not to people who perfer GUI over command-line. In my opinon emacs' actionscript support could use some improvement. If anyone out there has been working in this area I'd be willing to help out if I can... I definately use emacs to code actionscript on a daily basis. Ishmael On 12/30/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
