Now some might point out that LSP-based stuff is, like, bloat. Sure, OK. But there's a lot of motivation to do work that can pay off across the board. So much language stuff was based off of random regexes! It's hard to overstate how much better of an editor situation we are in than 10 years ago.
This isn't even getting into VS Code offering a way for you to put... one? two? files into a git repo and have that mean that opening the editor will spawn a container, _install itself in the container_, and run there while still having a native GUI for the actual usage of the tool. So much incidental complexity, gone!
One might point out that containers are a "big ball of mud" solution, but I vastly prefer that to big setup scripts that only half work. Here's to hoping we can shrink the ball of mud.
Like I said, I like LSP, but a great exceptional feat of engineering it is not.
This applies to most of VSCode as near as I can tell.
Would something like Go have taken off 20 years ago? I'm not so sure, the zeitgeist at the time was very much in the direction of dynamic languages. And would Python take off if it was released today? Not so sure about that either.
But you know, putting in the work to write down a specification isn't really a marvel of engineering. It's ... just putting in the work.
It's no marvel of engineering, but someone did put in the work, and others used it, more that can be said about many other things that might be "better engineered".
It just seems to be a generic interface to describe language bindings, which most text editors have.
In practice it's mostly a bad thing because any advanced language has special needs which will end up difficult to address by funneling everything through a common interface.
A far cry from the days of sublime text’s regex-based autocomplete
Not to mention that VSCode has countless other productivity boosters built in which would require plugin hunting or fiddling with configuration files for Vim and Emacs.
Wrong. Good tools don't require that. Imagine someone showed you a complicated mechanical contraption and told you "it's a type of hammer, much better than the 'non-professional' hammer, but you need to 'get to know it' first". That product would be dead on arrival.
Great tools are obvious in their base functionality and have optional additional layers that can be discovered if necessary. When you have to search the web to find out how to close the editor you just opened, because it works differently than every other program running on your system, you know you're using a bad tool.
It’s wonderful and beautiful that we can get real work done with a heavy thing on a stick, but pretending every tool can be as simple as a hammer is not really arguing in good faith.
You mean like a nail gun? The kind that all professional roofers use?
And even the hammer metaphor falls apart pretty quickly: compressor driven nail guns are commonly used.
VSCode is obviously has something going for it, else so many people wouldn't be using it. Vi and Emacs are also extremely popular and have been for decades.
> Wrong. Good tools don't require that.
No, good tools absolutely require learning how to use them.
To think that they don't is a maddening take because it has led to the infantilization of applications in so many areas of the software world.
There is definitely a place for simplistic tools that have no customization, no configuration, a single limited way to do anything and no hooks/APIs to modify their internal behavior. Yes, such tools are easiest to pick up and casually use in the limited way they can be used and that's often all that is needed.
But, the world also need professional tools. In the non-software world this is obvious and such tools exist in every profession. Even your hammer example is wrong as the sibling post noted, there are "professional hammers" (nail guns) that require a bit more care to use but are much better.
There is a place for test lights (that anyone can touch to a wire to see if there's voltage). But we can also buy voltage meters of increasing complexity and capabilities. They start to require a little bit of understanding of volts and amps and ohms, but they are so much more useful. But yes you need to learn a little to use them. There are also things like oscilloscopes which an untrained person wouldn't stand a chance to know how to use at first sight. But of course they are vastly more useful once you learn the tool.
Just one random example of thousands. Yes, good tools absolutely require training.
And that’s before you go into all the other technologies invented that are evolutions of the hammer, from nail guns to jackhammers.
I use spectrum analyzers to identify partial discharges in high voltage equipment. Sometimes I use a hammer. One of them require deep knowledge, with the other one I just give the equipment a whack with to see where the fault lies.
> Wrong. Good tools don't require that.
So any tool that is complicated enough to use that it requires more than 5 minutes to understand can't be a good tool? That is just false.
Obviously vim is not the tool for you (and emacs probably isn't either). You don't like the way they work, so don't use them. They are not bad tools. They are both very good tools. They are just not tools that fit your preferences. They do fit other people's preferences.
I tried editing a txt document in vim one time. After gazing at the UI for much to long I had to ask for help because it wouldn't let me edit the txt.
I'm sure your average vim wizard can see no wrong in forcing new users to learn how to engage edit mode by pressing 12 keys simultaneously.
They simply dont get that our brains are like bookshelves that take only n books. If you push more than that onto the shelve other books are falling off on the other side.
I could certainly learn some of vim's functionality but there would be very little disk space left to write the software. I'm seriously more productive using MS notepad or nano. I can totally see myself forget how to engage edit mode in a week or 2. I'm having visuals of picard ordering enterprise to engage
All i need is a shuttle!
The edit mode feels like a child safety feature where I'm the child.
Human children flying Vulkan space ships, think about it.
If non of this makes sense, that is the whole point.
Have you considered that their tool is not necessarily made for you? You'd shudder at emacs yet there's still people there that really want it over vim and are more productive with it than most vim and vscode users.
>I'm sure your average vim wizard can see no wrong in forcing new users to learn how to engage edit mode by pressing 12 keys simultaneously.
it's 1 key. It's not intuitive by default tho that's very much true.
>They simply dont get that our brains are like bookshelves that take only n books. If you push more than that onto the shelve other books are falling off on the other side.
If you use a tool every day you're often expected to know a bit about it regardless of which one you use. The previous poster compared it to a hammer and someone else mentioned a nailgun. Similarly a an ax is simple but a chainsaw used more plenty by my father...but he knows how to replace and fix the chain, And even beyond that a nailgun and chainsaw are simple simple machines compared to the tooling you'll find in many workshops. If you processed wood professionally you'd use room filling machinery instead to make boatloads of planks and whatnot in no time.
The thing is. Much of these issues one would encounter with em and things to know them are relatively simple and easy on their own... But seem difficult if you don't know. They're pretty easy to forget if you do it once. But if you've done it dozens of times you just know. Knowing these things doesn't impact the person's ability to learn other related things much. How a new kind of wood to cut behaves or whatever in the same way that remembering that new face and name doesn't obviously directly makes me forget my existing coworkers.
of course it could always be more conplex but there is no need to expose that in the ui by default
I don't feel like i have proficiency in a language until i have forced myself to speed run a few projects in it. The ideas are important, but it is the ingrained habits that keep the code clean and consistent.
I mean if you don't want to spend so much time studying a given profession, of course. But the neural positioning of generating this text, or transform this text' is different than the neural positioning of 'should this call to this new to me gRPC server be blocking? Timeout? Retries?'
The latter takes thorough focus. the former can be done by muscle memory with practise, and the limit is more on how many new things your fingers can learn in a month, the total of learned things can be quite high.
1) VSCode is very UI heavy and doesn’t allow consistent keyboard and text navigation. I want my text editor to be text-based, and it slows me down to have different types of windows (some of which seem impossible to hide permanently) with inconsistent forms of navigation.
2) The terminal window is its own thing, even if you open it in an editor window, which is then ignored by anything that interacts with the terminal. This is more what I want but is very limited and immature:
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=jeffgran...
The lack of an infrastructure like Emacs comint mode also means there’s no good text-based database mode either. I want the same navigation, search and editing functions in every single window I have to interact with.
3) Where analogues to Emacs modes exist, they are universally less featureful, often because of fundamental limitations of the VSCode extension API. REPLs do less and offer less programmability. Edamagit is a fine and welcome effort but not as good as Magit.
If people want an editor with a little bit of auto completion and some squiggly lines to tell them they’ve typed something wrong VSCode is great. I have many mostly happy VSCode users within my organisation. But I think every individual programmer, like every team, should have a regular little retrospectives with themselves. What work did I do today, what would have made it flow better? In every case, I can build that in Emacs, but it’s much more friction in VSCode. This is partly immaturity and partly the APIs not offering as much. Long term I’m rooting for VSCode because it’s snappy and has undeniable market share. But it’s never quite been there for me yet.
The only time I ever had to use vscode working with other programmers was for pair programming, using the vscode sharing thing. Apart for that, not being able to use emacs would be a deal breaker - using other editors is like wading through quicksand for me.
It's not just the code, we'd want everyone on the team to use the appropriate toolsets including debugging and error checking support. They can set it up in Vim and Emacs if they want but it saves time for the team as a whole if we all use a standardized set of tools.
It takes weeks (at least) using emacs/vim until text editing/movement starts to pay off. There's no learning curve for `M-x package-install`, but if there is some variable that needs to be customized, like the path to an executable or something, that's a whole rabbit hole to go down, and at some point you need to learn lisp or you'll waste a lot of time being confused by errors.
During the only programming course I took in college, one in which emacs was required, I spent as much time learning emacs as anything else (it was also the most valuable thing I learned so I'm grateful in the long run).
Completely agree: the entire company should be on a common, future-proof, extensible, free platform: Emacs!
I honestly don’t understand why anyone bothers wasting effort on any other editor.
Then again, I might pre-date the which editor to use and how to configure it era.
My point is you could configure all this stuff in Vim or Emacs but it's not as straightforward plus it wastes time when onboarding. We'd rather have an IDE like experience.
Same with Emacs. `M-x package-install`, type, RET.
Not to mention IntelliJ which I can’t help but keep coming back to after repeatedly getting frustrated enough trying to adopt VSCode. The git tooling in VSCode’s marketplace is a far cry from what’s available for some of these other tools. Fortunately for me, Fleet (new editor aimed at VSCode segment) is maturing at a rapid enough pace that I’ll likely be able to migrate to it in months/weeks and hopefully have a more zen experience.
For me you are 100% correct. In either vim or emacs I am at least 10 times more productive than I would ever be in VSCode. No comparison.
> Not to mention that VSCode has countless other productivity boosters built in which would require plugin hunting or fiddling with configuration files for Vim and Emacs.
First, there are distributions of both vim and emacs that come bundled with sets of plugins, if that is the sort of thing you like.
Second, some people enjoy customizing their editor to work exactly the way they want to. You obviously prefer the "set up out of the box" experience, and that is totally fine. Others boost their productivity by customizing their tools. Different people work differently.
Everyone else is not like you. That doesn't make their preferences invalid.
I have known many developers over the years who use both editors, and are extremely productive using their tool of choice. I am certain many of them would not be more productive using VSCode - it simply does not offer them anything significant enough to them to make that big of a difference.
I've seen some old timers on ACME who dislike even the "distraction" of syntax coloring with modern editor such as vim. I wonder how they would fare with something like MS VSCode.
Also known as "spitzensparken blinkenlichten"
Their constraints were much harsher, but the fact of the matter is the end result was rather simple by today's standards.
I think just the Bluetooth stack in a modern OS contains as much code as an entire Unix kernel from any time up to 1990 or so.
Some code running at CERN or NASA was far more complex than a bluetooth stack, yet was also written with teletypes or ADM-3A style terminals.
I've worked on 30+ year old systems where the code base is absolutely immense, but the <complexity density> of this stuff is very, very low on average compared to the magical bullshit that happens on a simple UI render of some template react app in 2022.
Folks had very little in the way of abstractions at their fingertips, and the languages themselves weren't nearly so helpful in helping you manage complexity, so applications were usually long, shallow, and operating under a litany of fixed boundaries that define and drive a significant amount of behavior for you.
The biggest source of complexity was having to manage your own unique `personal operating system` of bespoke resources at any given time, where each developer was carved into an incomplete walking repository of both business processes and software practices with the passing of each year.
Yes, the glue on top might be trivial, but even that frequently isn't.
And if anything breaks down, the humans at the top are normally expected to handle it, no matter where in the stack it is.
I'm not saying that NASA or CERN people were dumb or anything, they were probably smarter than the average dev today. But even a genius can only go so far with limited tools.
An elite slinger from the Roman times will probably lose at least 8/10 against a Russian mobilized soldier with 2 weeks of training, armed with an AK-47.
That's how progress works, we both learn ourselves, and more than that, we make powerful and accessible tools.
1) They have a strong preference for keyboard only operation
2) It serves as a cultural cachet, or shibboleth, to signal how elite and pure a developer they are
3) they wish to continue working in the same environment they have been for years or decades, and learning new key binds, trying to find equivalent features and testing new features isn't worth some potential benefit
Everything else, like differences in RAM consumed, total install size, etc seem like post-hoc metric seeking for folks who have already decided what they like.
In my experience, the only situations a colleague has been slowed down in a significant way by their choice of editor seem to boil down to two categories: - Haven't put in the time to actually learn the tool (i.e. using vim purely in insert mode, or VSCode as a plain text editor, constantly going back to a file manager to find and open files) and get stuck in a particularly horrible workflow. - Burn hours daily fiddling with their setup, chasing perfection.
Neither of these are typically caused by the tool itself. At the end of the day... I'm confident most devs can be quite effective using just DOS EDIT or Notepad if pressed.
As for me.... unless I'm doing something specialized, I catch myself trying to eke out that last 1% productivity boost from my editor and ask myself... is this really the best thing to be messing with? Usually, it's not. Honestly, writing documentation or doing a quick prototype is much higher return.
Sounds like having a strong preference for keyboard only to edit text and code is the natural way.
I don't think most vscode user are using mouse a lot either and if they do that, they are doing it the slow and inefficient way as vscode can be entirely piloted with the keyboard as well.
Very minor feature. It is not usefull unless you are constantly hunting for new languages.
>Not to mention that VSCode has countless other productivity boosters built in which would require plugin hunting or fiddling with configuration files for Vim and Emacs.
This is only true if you are comparing default vim/emacs to VSCode, which would be quite unfair. Compare it to some vim/emacs distributions and list the differences.
Moreover it is supported out-of-the-box in emacs: `M-x list-packages`.
I think `:packadd` or something may be the equivalent for vim.
FWIW you _can_ get emacs to launch as quickly as, say, vi, and to respond to input as quickly as just typing in the terminal (but in my experience the default GUI doesn't have noticeable input latency):
* `emacs -nw` will launch emacs in a terminal rather than a OS-native GUI window. This has surprisingly little impact on the interface or usability, but it does make cosmetic tweaks like font-rendering more difficult.
* `emacs --daemon` will start an "emacs server" process running in the background, and `emacsclient` will connect a UI instance to it (so you don't need to re-process all your .emacs stuff each time)
That said you can probably introduce a lot of input latency by hooking a slow method to the keypress event, but that applies to Atom and VSCode as well as emacs. But all three of them seem to do OK suggesting auto-completions of one kind or another, which must be handled on keydown or similar, so maybe that's not as critical as I assume.
I usually have a text editor open all the time anyway (recently Atom, lately VSCode) so the time-to-launch isn't that big of a deal in practice (and isn't _that_ large to begin with) but I am disproportionately, irrationally annoyed every time I need to wait for the editor to start.
Or just use the menu; click on "Options” → “Manage Emacs Packages”. No need to scare people with “M-x” weirdness right out of the gate when it isn’t necessary since the option is right there in the menu.
But seriously you raise a good point. The OS-native menus in aquaemacs and similar go a long way toward making emacs more accessible and explore-able.
No joke, it is legitimately hard for a newbie to figure out how to close emacs, which is pretty ridiculous. (It's `C-x C-c` btw, but I honestly don't know how a first-time user could figure that out on their own without a menu. You need to be _told_. It's absolutely crazy that you need to consult the manual to know how it exit the program.)
EDIT: It looks like this thread is too deep for me to post a genuine reply, but just to respond to the "it's just plain emacs too" comment. Good point, and I was aware of that but I didn't know what to call the plain-vanilla Windowed/GUI-enabled emacs. I guess it's just "emacs". I actually hesitated on naming aquaemacs for exactly this reason, which is why I hedged with "or similiar".
> Very minor feature. It is not usefull unless you are constantly hunting for new languages.
The big advantage isn't just installing but keeping them up to date without any actual effort. I used to know vimscript, used to understand how the vim package managers I used works and all. With VSCode I don't even know in which language are extenssions written.
I work mostly on golang, and now the environment is certainly more stable, but I remember that in order to have go extensions working on vim I used to have to be updating manually the extensions pretty much every release and it was some effort. Now I update the golang version and things just work.
Most of that is because the Go ecosystem moved ahead. Five years ago something like vim-go would depend on maybe 15 different binaries that operated on the source code. Automatically updating all of that is possible, but somewhat slow and tricky (especially because there were no modules yet, so had to "go get -u" all these different binaries to check for updates).
Now, it's basically just gopls. You don't even need vim-go any more; just Vim + $any_lsp + gopls gives a very similar experience.
But VSCode is also less responsive, more resource heavy and ultimately less flexible or extensible. Vim and emacs have more of a learning curve, and their configuration is more fiddly, but the biggest hurdle is probably that the interfaces they use for this predate modern GUI conventions. Notably the "search by keyword, click install, done" workflow for adding extensions is definitely standard behavior in emacs (and vim too, I assume).
Configuration fiddling aside - and that shouldn't be a daily activity - "Vim and Emacs cannot compare to VSCode when it comes to productivity" is a claim that does not hold up to scrutiny. In the hands of an expert user, emacs (and again, I assume vim too) is definitely more capable and productive than VSCode. I'm fairly confident this could be demonstrated objectively. They just _do more_ and can be made to do it _exactly the way you want_ them to. The learning curve for vi/vim and emacs represents an investment, but one that can pay off handsomely.
The topic of this thread is actually a perfect example of one of the major advantages of these "classic" editors. Atom - and countless editors that have come before - has been sunset. And it will eventually happen to VSCode too. Your Atom customization skills (and mine) are wasted. Now we need to pick up a new editor and climb a new learning curve. But vim or emacs mastery is a skill you'll literally be able to use for the rest of your career.
It's absolutely valid to decide that learning how to use these esoteric tools well is not worth the effort to you personally, but there _is_ a reason these tools have been around for nearly half a century.
People handle their Emacs config files like little shareable babies. That is not even on the same level as 'click and ready' fully unpersonalized environments.
I am a lazy atom, soon sublime user tho.
I think Emacs also has a lot of stuff for extensions and such built-in, but I'm not too familiar with Emacs. With Vim it's a bit more manual, but really not all that much work. Basically search "Vim $my_language", usually click the first link, "git clone" in your ~/.vim/pack, and you're ready to do for most plugins, which will work out of the box. That you need to spend "hours" on this is just nonsense.
And the last time I tried VSCode with Go I had to spend some time fiddling around with things to make it work too.
What it comes down to is personal preference. Some people prefer A, others B. I strongly dislike VSCode's default settings and need to spend quite a bit of time fiddling with that too. But ... I don't pawn off my preferred way of doing things as somehow objectively superior to anyone else's. There's just one person why needs to use your editor: you. So ... whatever works for you, ya know. I can't believe it's 2022 and we're still doing this "editor war" bullshit.
(corrected for you)
That is true but not in the way you think ;)
There are tradeoffs to using software that has different shortcuts for similar things you might do in other software. Uniformity is nice, but I don't find it to be so essential that there is no room for any different ways of working.
> It's a mystery to me why people just accept that in their (terminal) text editor, copying text uses a different shortcut than it does in their web browser.
I don't think they "just accept" it. In the case of emacs (and I believe vim also), you can enable a CUA mode if you wish, and have keybindings that are more like the system. However, in my experience, users of both of those text editors (and indeed, I use both) often choose to use the normal keybindings of those editors intentionally. In my opinion, it doesn't "consume brain cycles for no good reason". There are two very different approaches between those two editors, both are perfectly reasonable and valid. The fact that "modern alternatives exist..." is not necessarily relevant. People have been using both of those editors for years, and they are well versed in how they work and can be very efficient using them. Suggesting that they should just switch to a modern alternative makes some broad assumptions. 1) That they would be happier using some "modern alternative". 2) That whatever value they get from using those editors with different keybindings pales in comparison to what they would gain from switching to an editor with bindings more consistent with the system.
I don't believe you can assume either of those things for most of the people who choose to continue to use either of those editors after working in them for a significant amount of time.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your viewpoint. It's just that not everyone finds that uniformity to be as important as you do.
I also think it is important to point out that both vim and emacs are in active development, so it is not as if either of them has been "mothballed". So while their user interface conventions are very different from much "modern" software, it is not as if they are abandoned -- both are still being developed. They obviously both have significant value to a lot of people.
On macOS there's an extra set of keys so Cmd-v is paste and Cmd-c is copy.
I think I committed that to muscle memory so long ago that I never really think about it unless someone asks.
Not sure about Windows as I haven't used it professionally since 2006 but I'd guess it's the same as Linux.
Except just as you noted the conventions change across platforms, contexts and over time, so they aren't really uniform at all.
If you're moving between Windows, macOS, and Linux, or between GUI, command line and remote shell (either within or across any of these) you're already context switching on a regular basis. And if you stick around long enough an OS upgrade will come along that moves the window controls and menu buttons around so you need to retrain your muscle memory (and update your end-user documentation).
If anything some of the long-established, old-school conventions are probably _more_ uniform and consistent. E.g. in vi/vim `:w` will save and `:n` will jump to line n - always and everywhere. In a terminal `find . -name foo` will search the filesystem - (almost) always and everywhere.
That sort of thing isn't comprehensive (i.e. it doesn't cover action you'll need to take) but it's kinda nice when it's available. Maybe we'd be better off if select-then-middle-click worked for copy/paste everywhere.
M-x cua-mode resolves this in Emacs. I don't use it, because I've been using Emacs for slightly longer than the CUA has existed.
And there are good reasons to prefer the gui version: https://irreal.org/blog/?p=5835
"I use Linux. One of the libraries that Emacs can use to communicate with the hardware."
Because that sounds way better than any of the options I'm aware of.
To be clear, I don’t care either way about vim or vscode. I use vim mode in vscode right now, but I might use something else later. All I care about is being able to work pleasantly.
What I meant is that numbers of people doing something is not proof for something being better.
For instance: How many people listen to Justin Bieber and how many listen to The Doors?
2022 edition says 74% of respondents use VSCode regularly, 23% use Vim regularly, and 4% use Emacs regularly.
https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2022/#section-most-popular-t...