It's super easy to hack on and contribute to.
1. Develop tool. It's small and fast and minimal! Woo!
2. It's easy to modify because it's so small! Woo!
3. Look, there's a budding ecosystem of packages! Woo! (Let's
not talk about the fact the packages exist precisely because
the original product wasn't big enough.)
4. Oh dear, some of them conflict, a lot of them suck. Well,
here's some winners, let's pull them into the core. Now the
base system is that much better! Woo!
5. Repeat 3 and 4 a few times.
6. Crap, this tool is all bloated and slow. I'm going to go
create a small, fast, minimalist solution!
See also: "minimalist web framework", "minimalist Linux distribution", "minimalist programming language".
First, whatever you don't use, it's not even loaded in memory.
Second, bloated is all about having tons of options you don't need or use. Not about adding stuff you DO need piecemeal.
Third, bloat is mostly a UI thing, not a "number of add-ons" or "too many lines of code" thing. Programs don't get slow because they are "bloated" with extra code (if it doesn't run, then it has 0 effect on their speed). They get slow because they are badly programmed (e.g. loading one big text file all at once in memory instead of having a paging system).
The availability of tens of thousands of packages hasn't made Emacs "bloated", much less Vim or ST. Or even installing those packages doesn't make those editors feel bloated.
Whereas something like Eclipse was bloated from the start -- because it was a very heavy design with tons of abstractions layers, ton of built-in options and visual clutter etc, created on a GCed language with frequent stops on larger codebases etc. That's even without any third party plugin added, just the Eclipse Java SE core packages.
... no? Hate to dismiss your entire message that way (I mean that seriously), but...
People appear to be assuming a great deal more universality than I could possibly have implied, since I don't believe it's a universal problem anyhow, and never addressed scope. It's just a cycle that definitely exists in some domains.
It's gotten to when I see something described as "minimal" I tend to just roll my eyes and move on. Especially when combined with accusations, veiled or otherwise, that something else is "bloated", which at this point I tend to just assume is a meaningless feeling word with no real technical content. Yes, that includes when used in the context of "cycle of bloat"; this is a cycle endlessly recurring, yet has very little technical content. Mature text editors are, to a first approximation, all the same. (Yeah, there's some differences, but, meh.)
For example I use vim, and when I tried Atom I threw on two Haskel add-ons and my system was unusable. Then I removed the add ons and my 7 year old desktop on OpenSUSE just lagged away. I than went to my other old desktop all in one and that lagged away just at typing (This was a month ago) and adding anything to Atom slowed down so much that typing was lagging let alone any feature.
What's an example in the wild of this "cycle of bloat" in which people complain about it?
Emacs? Yes. Absolutely. Emacs once stood, humorously, for “Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping”. That is a valid complaint that people have made.
First it was lean. Then it grew and became bloated. Then people complained. And then available resources grew so fast that it didn't matter.
I didn't say emacs is too bloated to use, so your entire comment is a little off base. I said people have complained about emacs getting bloated in this same way for the same reasons. And they have. Historical fact.
Atom exists because ST3 was seen to stagnate, ST3 exists because TextMate was seen to stagnate etc. They start as simple but incomplete tools that are moving fast and blah blah - its just the software circle of life.
In terms of performance, stability and extensions this doesn't even hold a candle to Eclipse Mars.
1. Small, fast and minimal.
2. Easy to create plugins.
3. Budding ecosystem and explosion of plugins.
4. Conflicts ensued and some plugins got pulled into the core project.
The cycle of bloat doesn't always take hold if your team is disciplined and dedicated to keeping it small. You simply can't expect to your 3.0 to be as small as your 1.0 because it's very unlikely you're going to know upfront how people are going to use your software.
Combining a DOM manipulation library with an AJAX library and a Promises/Deferred library is and has been a pain point for me.
Also some of those size reductions have been at the cost of features (in particular by reducing the target browser set)
Its a great project. I use it a lot but I'm not sure its a counterpoint to bloat.
You're missing my point. I'm not claiming jQuery is not bloated, what I'm claiming is jQuery hasn't bloated (grown) a lot since it was first introduced. It started out as a single one-stop-shop library to handle DOM manipulation, AJAX and event handling and the scope/size of the project hasn't really grown beyond that.
Even if it's not actually true (as you've said, it literally is not bloated wrt filesize) people still think it's true.
At what point does software become bloated? I disagree that you can approach measuiring size bloat with absolute file size as the only factor.
I rather tend to think of bloat in terms of comparing the solution to other options to achieve the same result. In that sense, if I use jQuery for something that I might as well use plain DOM for, e.g. waiting for the document to load fully before selecting an element to change its content, the level of bloat the additional 30k adds to do the same is ridiculous.
Of course, if you take into account the whole stack of software running from the bare metal up to your browser window, 30k might appear negligible, but when you have a few tabs open with sites that all load hundreds of kilobytes of badly generated CSS, JS frameworks and pictures, and the actual rendering and execution of these consume orders of magnitude more run-time memory, it all adds up.
If you have limited time use it, but you'll spend more time later trying to remove it again. Building and then marketing a library that lists jquery as a dependency is somewhat of a blight these days, isn't it?
Don't recall claiming everything is under the "cycle of bloat". The fact that I gave specific examples was a pretty big clue that it's not all equal.... and jQuery isn't in any of them, either.
Edit: Sorry, is there something wrong with my pointing out that I didn't ever claim the things being imputed to me?
I can make lists too, if that's all we're doing.
1. Get a cat.
2. Cat requires playtime or they ruin your stuff and can be annoying.
3. Repeat 1 and 2 a few times.
4. You are a crazy cat man.Chrome advantages for me: - install pages as apps (Mozilla prism isn't supported anymore)
Chrome disadvantages for me: -Missing all the most useful plugins
But by 5 o' clock when I've got three windows with twenty tabs of docs / bugs / reproduction / etc. Chrome bears the weight much more gracefully.
Of course not. It's categories of software that have the cycle of bloat. I named three, by implication "text editors" are a fourth.
Based on the way people seem to be blinded by the word "bloat" naming specific examples would be seen as an attack, followed by vigorous defenses of how it's not "bloat", which, at least as far as I'm concerned, is a total waste of time because as you can see in other messages I consider the whole "bloat" concept a joke anyhow, so why stir up the conversation like that unnecessarily?
Naming the specific instances is irrelevant, because it's not about the specific instantiations. It's not the software, it's the cycle. Pretty much every text editor ever has started out as a "lean, fast" text editor. And then they grew. And then someone claimed that all the existing text editors are "bloated" and set out to make their own text editor.
Not Notepad. http://notepadconf.com
> .TXT: NoSQL before it was cool
> Advanced Notepad developer and VIM opponent.
> Hacking Notepad.exe : Using a hex editor to change the blue icon and more
> Workshop: Integrating Spell Checking Into Notepad. Attendees should bring a copy of Notepad, and a dictionary.
What I disagreed with was the way you characterized and described the growth of pluggable software. You might not have intended it, but a reasonable reader would have interpreted your post as a, "This is what happens to software with an extensible plugin system".
If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that people are finding your responses unnecessarily adversarial and pedantic. So the guy misinterpreted your comment as overly broad, you could try to understand his point and continue the conversation rather than simply "winning" by pointing out that you didn't say exactly what he implied.
FWIW I agree that the cycle exists. Especially in enterprise software, except there it's usually less about pulling in plugins and more about directly adding features to core to support more use cases/customer requests until the whole thing is a giant mess (in terms of UI, codebase, everything) and ripe for disruption by a "lightweight, fast-moving, focused" competitor.
So for what it's worth, I'm very unconvinced that "bloat" is the automatically-bad thing that whoever is saying #6 says it is. There are things that are just crappy amalgamations of whatever, sure, but there are also a lot of big things that solve hard problems, and part of the implication of the cycle is that every time a #6 pops up and starts a new project, (s)he is inevitably beginning on a journey of discovery in which (s)he will discover why the previous tool got big. Big problems require big solutions. And it turns out that "text editing" looks really simple, and gets really not simple really fast. Same for the other two things.
I've literally lost count of the minimalistic text editors with great plugin interfaces that have paraded by me at this point.
(And... uh... how can I put this delicately... writing a good web framework is actually a non-trivial exercise. The web is complicated to do it right. If you've got a 250-line web "framework", odds are what you've got is 250 lines that sorta kinda work as long as nobody tries to hack it and nobody cares about actual compliance with all of the implicit and explicit standards embedded in HTTP. It may be suitable for your blog, it may be suitable for a 3-call API, but it's probably not suitable for anywhere near as many things as you'd like. And it's probably brutally insecure somehow.)
Text editing is really simple. The problem is that plain text editors are mostly only used by coders. (Non-coders who want to write text use Word.) And coders want features like syntax coloring, autocompletion, split views, multi-file management, etc. Features that would be of no use to someone writing a quick email or jotting down a cake recipe. Basically, what coders want is a program that looks as simple and feels as lightweight as a plain text editor, but gives them many of the features of a full fledged IDE.
For your step 6, it just means disable all packages and add them back only as needed.
The amount you need to be able to do to just load a basically-plaintext webpage now is absurd.
I think the web has stabbed that one dead, though... ship a proper HTML5-compliant browser engine, and, well, you're already looking at a whackload of startup time and tons of functionality. The size of the chrome is hardly an afterthought nowadays. A really "minimal" browser can hardly browse the top-ten sites anymore.
(Wikipedia's still looking pretty good in Lynx, though... just checked.)
My all time favorite reply about bloat: "X is big because your needs are big" (in the article X = Mozilla).
Basic things like https://atom.io/packages/find-and-replace
Facebook's nuclide project replaces a bunch of core features like the tree-view and the quick file opener.
> let's pull them into the core
That doesn't actually happen. They may adopt a package or publish a more official version of a package, but all major functionality is in packages.
I can't access it, but I bet even my WIFI router, tv and PS4 have a vi somewhere laying around, ready to help with debugging in case a corresponding core developer comes around to take a look.
I'd love to promise I'll never do it again, but I'm tempted to try to draw the poison out, too. Bloat ought to be a technical concept, not a political one.
Might be time to work on some tutorials and examples to make Emacs easier to hack on and contribute to...
Have any experienced Emacs users found that Atom makes them more productive in any dimension? I want to like it but I can't see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Emacs has much more commands for simple text manipulation than any other editor (ofc, excluding Vim). No editor that I know of implements all the Emacs commands for even simple things. For example for marking and navigation in a text (mark-, backward-, forward-). Indentation and newline behavior, searching and replacing in a file (search- and replace-*; also occur-mode). And more.
I'm sure all editors will, sooner or later, get most or all of those, but using them right now would be inconvenient. I don't want to have to record macros to deal with such simple things!
And then of course is a matter of Emacs plugin ecosystem. It is enormous and includes some neat stuff, like Magit, Org, Helm, Undo-Tree, multiple cursors, Paredit, Minimap, Speedbar and so on. Some of those are "outside of scope" of the new editors, but some would be very welcome in them. I suspect that they will appear in time, but right now I wouldn't have access to them at all if I used some other, new editor. (By the way, in my experience as both Emacs and Vim user, these two are interchangeable in terms of available plugins. Emacs seems to have a little more of them, probably because Elisp sucks a little bit less than VimL)
No. Emacs is far and away superior. It doesn't have a flashy web UI, but it is better in every way that matters.
Random example from my user.el file:
(set-cursor-color "White")
(setq blink-cursor-interval 0.5)
But I just can't be bothered anymore.
Seems like Atom is having an easy time beating Emacs on this front, and I'll probably switch over for good the next time something breaks in my .emacs.d folder.
Go read the manual. I mean, I know it's not cool to read books, and manuals at that, but the Emacs Lisp and Emacs manuals (available in info format for viewing directly in Emacs, among other) are well written and there's a wealth of information there. Even relatively low-level stuff gets explained quite well. And also, try using the help system/apropos tool. It's great for finding functions and variables. Lastly, you can always issue "find-function" or "find-library" which will take you directly to the source code.
> With some trial and error, I could find out if `(setq cursor-color "White")` works.
Use iELM session for this (M-x ielm). You'll get Elisp REPL, where you can write expressions and it'll show you their values. In this case:
ELISP> cursor-color
*** Eval error *** Symbol's value as variable is void: cursor-color
> Or see if `set-blink-cursor-interval` exists.
In ielm:
(symbol-function 'set-blink-cursor-interval) ;; (no, it doesn't)
> Or look up why `set-cursor-color` exists in the first place when surely it's more consistent to just modify a config variable.
Don't know why is is so, but you can possibly find some explanation in the source code. `set-cursor-color` is defined in /usr/local/share/emacs/25.0.50/lisp/frame.el.gz on my system on line 1223. You can get there with M-x find-function.
> Or find some best Emacs lisp practices online.
Does it really have to be online? There is a full book for this: "Writing GNU Emacs Extensions". It's old, but solid. [EDIT: and also https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/pdf/eintr.pdf]
> Or figure out why I could never get working my one attempt to write a custom function to scratch my own itch.
Sorry to break it to you, but if it's not working it's because you coded it wrong. All my defuns do work...
BTW, do you know that you can one-step Elisp code with a built-in debugger? Just find a defun, eval it via C-u C-M-x and you'll get breakpoint at the defun entry.
Don't think so. Atom is still a toy compared to Emacs (but awesome compared to almost everything else except for Vim).
However, it has enormous potential and, given enough momentum, could reach parity with Emacs.
For example: http://tullo.ch/articles/modern-emacs-setup/
- Cross-platform editing - Built-in package manager - Smart autocompletion - File system browser - Multiple panes - Find and replace
Is it me, or most of these are so basic that of course any text editor would have at least this set from the start? Right, autocompletion came in several steps for Atom, but .. I have used Atom for a while and it seems to understate the real advantages over other editors, such as: it's a GitHub product!
Which brings me to the part where I couldn't stand Atom: I should be able to do any git operation strsight from Atom, no configuration files needed, with a default plugin! Instead, we are left with many community plugins, like git-diff and atomagit. I hope things will evolve in a way similar to autocomplete.
This pattern is also not uncommon. There are many high quality linux modules and distributions built on the linux kernel.
It is likely atom will take a similar architectural approach. Make it easy to build and add plugins and let the community shepherd them.