Page 1 of 2

Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:41 am UTC
by dii
Ok, which one is the most Serious Internet Business?

We all know that <war I care about> is actually important and meaningful and the result of it will change billions of human lives and potentially feed all the orphans / destroy the world, while <war you care about> is just irrational ranting / pointless geekery.

So let's have a Religious War about Religious Wars. A Religious War to end all Religious Wars. A Meta-Religious War. I've tried to collect as many of them as I can think of in a poll (in no particular order or categorization) but you can feel free to suggest any others in the thread. Have fun. No punches below the belt.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:58 am UTC
by lalop
Rather than QWERTY vs Dvorak (which is not very interesting; just inferior standard layout vs optimized niche), probably Dvorak vs Colemak - other layouts also allowed.

You actually get into some intricacies that way.1 Also, Dvorak predating computers becomes very apparent, not only in obvious things like shortcuts, but also in rolls (which were a lot less practical on typewriters) vs hand alternation.

Can't say it would change billions of lives, however. Once you get into any optimized layout, the tradeoffs between them are relatively minor.

1. as a bonus, far fewer articles written by economists with obvious agendas.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:45 am UTC
by Jplus
The religious war to end all others! Hilarious! :D

I kind of missed the "Java vs C++" thing, but I wouldn't have voted for it so it doesn't matter.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:23 pm UTC
by dii
I'm kind of surprised there's 3 votes for "Octopi vs. Octopuses" but no one has voted for "Firefox vs. Chrome" yet. Clearly people have their priorities in order...

Jplus wrote:I kind of missed the "Java vs C++" thing, but I wouldn't have voted for it so it doesn't matter.


Well, there's C vs C++ and Java vs. C#, if you combine those you can probably get the same effect.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:08 pm UTC
by hotaru
dii wrote:I'm kind of surprised there's 3 votes for "Octopi vs. Octopuses" but no one has voted for "Firefox vs. Chrome" yet. Clearly people have their priorities in order...

shouldn't it be "octopodes vs. octopuses"? "octopi" is just silly.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:10 pm UTC
by Jplus
dii wrote:Well, there's C vs C++ and Java vs. C#, if you combine those you can probably get the same effect.

Are you trying to start a religious war?

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:27 pm UTC
by scarecrovv
There's a very important class of religious wars missing: coding style. Do you indent with tabs or spaces? How many spaces? How wide is your tabstop? Where do you put braces? Should multi-line lists be written comma first or comma last?

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:30 pm UTC
by lalop
Coding style should really be irrelevant - each person's editor ought to display the code in the way he or she most prefers. Don't IDEs automatically format code already? Such a tool would be all that's needed to standardize the different formats for versioning systems.

Heck, maybe syntax even stops mattering so much. It's not much of a stretch from there to conceive of an editor frontend that adds in the braces for you. Have a macro system for common boilerplate. Eventually, the deficiencies of the language start going away through shared macros.

The end result: a completely personalized language system that compiles into some common language. Does all this sound familiar?

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:50 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
I like that three people have voted for "this one." It's kind of inherently self-defeating.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:21 am UTC
by dii
Jplus wrote:Are you trying to start a religious war?


Well... yes? I thought that was obvious.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:01 pm UTC
by WanderingLinguist
scarecrovv wrote:Do you indent with tabs or spaces?


Real programmers indent with \u3000\u2000

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:18 pm UTC
by dii
Android vs. iOS seems to be pulling ahead. A real black horse in this race! Who'd have thought?

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:02 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
Vi vs. Emacs now.

I chose ARM vs. x86, not because there's any competition between the platforms, but because of everything else that comes with them at the moment.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:34 am UTC
by dii
Intel is going to try to compete with ARM, and I hear the new intel chips are getting pretty good in power consumption / heat. But they probably can't compete with ARM in price. Their big advantage is compatibility, there's loads of legacy x86 software that can be ran on x86 only.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:39 pm UTC
by lalop
As far as I'm concerned, the best outcome in that sort of war is to maximize the number of viable ecosystems. That would prevent any stagnant platform from remaining dominant solely through its "legacy" support, limit the proprietary strongarming/EEEing of any one platform (since that solution would not work for the others), and be a boon to open-source, since that model is able to delegate the increased bug-fixing of multiple platforms to the users of those platforms.

The actual vi vs emacs religious war wasn't even all that interesting. They essentially target different people. Maybe it's not as big a deal nowadays than during the height of the editor wars.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:01 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
lalop wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the best outcome in that sort of war is to maximize the number of viable ecosystems. That would prevent any stagnant platform from remaining dominant solely through its "legacy" support, limit the proprietary strongarming/EEEing of any one platform (since that solution would not work for the others), and be a boon to open-source, since that model is able to delegate the increased bug-fixing of multiple platforms to the users of those platforms.

Sure. Diverse platforms cause a little trouble for consumers, but the benefits in the long term greatly outweigh the difficulties. I'm not convinced at the moment that there's anything Intel can do that ARM can't, and if it was a matter of just the architectures independent of the software actually running on them, everyone would eventually benefit from a gradual switch to ARM. But ARM is also Microsoft's way out of the antitrust case decisions on Windows, such that Windows on ARM can block sideloading and Windows RT devices have bootloaders that can't be unlocked, the same as all Apple and some Android ARM devices, and it's roughly associated with the "post PC," computer-as-appliance concept. So it has almost nothing to do with software at all, but the outcome seems closely linked to whether or not users will retain any control of the software on their devices at all.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:45 pm UTC
by dii
Copper Bezel wrote:I'm not convinced at the moment that there's anything Intel can do that ARM can't,


Well so far, we don't have any ARM chips that can give the same performance per core that intel chips can. The downside of x86 is all the legacy cruft they have to support, making the cores bloated and expensive, but they still do have the advantage of performance. Whether this advantage will be mitigated in the future, who knows, but right now you still can't get ARM chips with anywhere near the performance of desktop x86 chips.

Of course this doesn't matter at all on most consumer devices, such as tablets and laptops (apart from "gaming laptops"). Also, as computing is, in many areas, moving away from single-core-solutions and more into parallel computing, GPGPU and multithreading, there's only so much benefit you get from a faster CPU - even now, we're already at a situation where you can play even most new games with hardware that is a couple years old, because the extra CPU power really doesn't make that much of a difference. We're getting to a point where it doesn't really matter if your CPU is 5 years old, as long as you have a sufficiently powerful GPU, games run fine. Moore's law is slowing down, and we're soon going to hit a wall where it's no longer possible to make the transistors any smaller. 5nm is probably a hard limit.

Oh, and want to mix it up a bit? Throw in MIPS... so we now have at least 3 competing architectures.

Oh and IBM's POWER might be trying to move in to consumer markets... so that would make it 4 competing archs. Enough diversity yet?

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:04 pm UTC
by lalop
Copper Bezel wrote:ARM is also Microsoft's way out of the antitrust case decisions on Windows, such that Windows on ARM can block sideloading and Windows RT devices have bootloaders that can't be unlocked, the same as all Apple and some Android ARM devices, and it's roughly associated with the "post PC," computer-as-appliance concept. So it has almost nothing to do with software at all, but the outcome seems closely linked to whether or not users will retain any control of the software on their devices at all.


Was it actually due to antitrust? I'd always thought that MS was just trying to emulate the Apple model, and saw the lack of legacy programs on Windows RT as their chance to do so. Little did they see, however, that Windows is probably the foremost example of those platforms mainly dominant through legacy.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:37 pm UTC
by dii
lalop wrote:Was it actually due to antitrust? I'd always thought that MS was just trying to emulate the Apple model, and saw the lack of legacy programs on Windows RT as their chance to do so. Little did they see, however, that Windows is probably the foremost example of those platforms mainly dominant through legacy.


Windows simply isn't competitive on mobile devices - they don't have the same vendor lock-in / inertia they have on the desktop, and they don't have the brand loyalty of Apple customers, which allows Apple to get away with murder as long as they bring out a new model that has some fancy new gimmick...

Anyway, the poll is tied between x86 vs. ARM and Vi vs. Emacs. We've discussed x86 vs. Arm here a bit, so in name of fairness, we should discuss Vi vs. Emacs somewhat (at least until the poll result changes again).

So... what are the ups and downs of Vi/Emacs? I know there are a lot of users of both editors here. Personally, I mostly use nano and Geany, but that's okay cause I'm not a Real Programmer.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:57 pm UTC
by ahammel
dii wrote:So... what are the ups and downs of Vi/Emacs? I know there are a lot of users of both editors here. Personally, I mostly use nano and Geany, but that's okay cause I'm not a Real Programmer.
Emacs will give you carpal tunnel syndrome, insanity, and cholera (you know, probably).

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:22 am UTC
by Copper Bezel
lalop wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:ARM is also Microsoft's way out of the antitrust case decisions on Windows, such that Windows on ARM can block sideloading and Windows RT devices have bootloaders that can't be unlocked, the same as all Apple and some Android ARM devices, and it's roughly associated with the "post PC," computer-as-appliance concept. So it has almost nothing to do with software at all, but the outcome seems closely linked to whether or not users will retain any control of the software on their devices at all.


Was it actually due to antitrust? I'd always thought that MS was just trying to emulate the Apple model, and saw the lack of legacy programs on Windows RT as their chance to do so. Little did they see, however, that Windows is probably the foremost example of those platforms mainly dominant through legacy.

At least a part of it is due to the restrictions put on Microsoft, yes, and all of them apply, as I understand it, only to the x86 platform. That's why Windows RT can disallow alternate web browser (while Windows 8 on x86 actually makes special concessions for running them in the Metro environment.)

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:37 am UTC
by lalop
Emacs is more configurable, to the point that there's an extensible vim layer that has.. it's hard to tell, but let's say at least 80-90% of its editor features. (Not [yet?] including extension features like reading .vimrcs.. but that's probably the wrong way to do itTM anyway.)

vim extensions are (obviously) better targeted toward its features, though.. there are comparatively few that target evil, making it in some ways a second class system. Despite that, evil compatibility is very good. I submitted a bug-report and in less than a day they'd fixed a rare ace-jump behavior. The only big incompatibility I know of is with multiple-cursors.

vimscript is likely easier to understand for beginners, but from what I heard, it's pretty painful when scaled to extensions. elisp is considered a lot better (and I enjoy it myself, as it gives me an excuse to use a lisp) but far from perfect.


Copper Bezel wrote:
At least a part of it is due to the restrictions put on Microsoft, yes, and all of them apply, as I understand it, only to the x86 platform. That's why Windows RT can disallow alternate web browser (while Windows 8 on x86 actually makes special concessions for running them in the Metro environment.)


Sounds like rubbish. Despite my earlier statements, I think I have to cheer against those platforms that restrict the user to in-house programs. Those lose many of the benefits of competition.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:46 am UTC
by troyp
hotaru wrote:
dii wrote:I'm kind of surprised there's 3 votes for "Octopi vs. Octopuses" but no one has voted for "Firefox vs. Chrome" yet. Clearly people have their priorities in order...

shouldn't it be "octopodes vs. octopuses"? "octopi" is just silly.

An octopi is approximately 25.132741228718345, also known as the Musical Chairs Constant. There's nothing silly about that! *outrage*

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:15 am UTC
by dii
Vi vs. Emacs has gained the lead now. So ok, let's talk about that.

I posit that Emacs is made for people who use key combinations as their primary means of communication, and also, Vi developers don't understand modern concepts like "cursor keys".

5..4..3..

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:46 am UTC
by Copper Bezel
How y'all feel about gedit, then?

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:06 am UTC
by ahammel
dii wrote:Vi vs. Emacs has gained the lead now. So ok, let's talk about that.
Do people still use vi by preference? As in, vim or even elvis is available, but they go with vi instead? The mind boggles.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:16 am UTC
by EvanED
Copper Bezel wrote:How y'all feel about gedit, then?
Freaking casuals

:-)

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:07 am UTC
by lalop
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Server: Emacs/24.3.50.1
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 03:06:58 GMT

Paradoxically, it's too easy for a standard CUA-user to become comfortable when using a familiar program like gedit, and never learn how to use any of its higher functions. With comfort-breaking, limited-default editors like emacs and vim, you're forced to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. All of a sudden you awaken and have powers over the editor you had not dreamed of previously.

Anyway, that's more a behavioral than technical observation. I don't know how configurable gedit really is (though I read, strangely enough, that to change keyboard shortcuts you modify a lisp file ~/.config/gedit/accels.. I wonder why that is).

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:15 am UTC
by troyp
lalop wrote:I don't know how configurable gedit really is (though I read, strangely enough, that to change keyboard shortcuts you modify a lisp file ~/.config/gedit/accels.. I wonder why that is).

Is it Guile? That would make sense.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:59 am UTC
by ahammel
troyp wrote:
lalop wrote:I don't know how configurable gedit really is (though I read, strangely enough, that to change keyboard shortcuts you modify a lisp file ~/.config/gedit/accels.. I wonder why that is).

Is it Guile? That would make sense.
Guile-gconf integration is a thing, and gconf is (used to be) a dependency of gedit, so maybe something to do with that? Image

FT: it seems like there should be more ack vs. grep religious wars than there are.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:32 pm UTC
by dii
I honestly expected that more people would have voted Firefox vs. Chrome, but I guess the big browser wars are over...

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:15 pm UTC
by EvanED
ahammel wrote:FT: it seems like there should be more ack vs. grep religious wars than there are.
Well, ack is superior enough that there there's nothing really to war about. 8-)

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:41 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
lalop wrote:Paradoxically, it's too easy for a standard CUA-user to become comfortable when using a familiar program like gedit, and never learn how to use any of its higher functions. With comfort-breaking, limited-default editors like emacs and vim, you're forced to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. All of a sudden you awaken and have powers over the editor you had not dreamed of previously.

That's fair. The fact is that little of what I use gedit for has anything to do with coding, since I don't code. It's necessary to have a text editor that can strip text formatting and for editing config files and so on, things that everyone ought to be able to do if they're using a computer, and gedit serves nicely for those tasks. If I were coding, I wouldn't want to use anything incapable of soft indention (so I'd need to switch to Kate,) and I've not played with the deeper config options of gedit. I do appreciate the inclusion of whitespace characters in the Replace function, since matching formats for lists of numbers or e-mail addresses or something when one is comma separated and another uses linebreaks should not have to be done manually, dammit. (Again, not a coding application.)

So, yeah, really only trolling, but I do find it surprising that people really do still make extensive use of things like Vim and Emacs when a terminal app's interface functionality seems to be a subset of what's available to a GUI app. Presumably everything is being managed from the keyboard anyway, as it well should be (any interface element in a text editor that requires pointer input is wrong,) so there's not a lot of advantage to a graphical app interface. Still, in a broader sense, I'd think that an editor built from the ground up for contemporary purposes would still be capable of greater functionality than one designed within a legacy context.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:01 pm UTC
by EvanED
Copper Bezel wrote:So, yeah, really only trolling, but I do find it surprising that people really do still make extensive use of things like Vim and Emacs when a terminal app's interface functionality seems to be a subset of what's available to a GUI app.
FWIW, as an Emacs user I'm almost always using its GUI rather than from the console. (Maybe 95% of the time on Linux and 99.5% of the time on Windows.)

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:05 am UTC
by Copper Bezel
Several things suddenly make much more sense.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:04 am UTC
by lalop
Copper Bezel wrote:in a broader sense, I'd think that an editor built from the ground up for contemporary purposes would still be capable of greater functionality than one designed within a legacy context.


emacs and vim definitely have some legacy issues. In practice, however, the native GUI apps have promoted a culture of overdependence on the mouse and visual elements, making most of them less useful off-the-bat.

GUIs are like a suboptimal path of least resistance (which humans really love: see QWERTY). For the new user, it's easier to search for and click on a visual element than to read a tutorial or TFM - and that's great, user-friendliness is not innately a bad thing. The problem starts when users never graduate from this stage. When you move to and click on GUI elements to do something once, maybe that is faster than RTFM, but when you do it a hundred times, not so much.

What's worse in the long-run is that these GUI actions are inherently limited. They are generally not composable (when the user is required to click on multiple elements to execute certain actions, he generally cannot combine those actions into a single clickEDIT) nor customizable for the user's specific needs. This forces the developer to try to provide every option for the user to start with, leading to bloated, inflexible programs.1

Finally, a new generation grows up thinking these programs are normal, and that vim and emacs are outdated legacy.


Now, there are editing programs that sort of toe the line between the two paradigms, and they can become very popular in their time. gedit probably counts as one, textmate, sublime text. In order to survive long, one will probably have to be:

  1. Free and open-source (or else you're at the mercy of the developer, both limiting adoption and leading to mass exodus in the event the developer stops responding)
  2. Powerfully and easily scriptable
  3. Encourages the user to learn that scripting, otherwise it'll just end up as another notepad for most of them. Ideally, there should be some middle-ground between vim/emacs' jump-into-cold-water2 and being so user-friendly that almost no one ever bothers. Every additional scripter effectively becomes another dev, and that's necessary in order to keep up the momentum.

I look forward to the arrival of the next vim/emacs. Whichever program succeeds them will have learned a lot from the mistakes of the last 30 years, hence will probably be better than both. The problem is that most potential successors would have "learned" from the GUI-era as well, and that is most often a detriment.

1. Honorary mention goes to Java, the ultra-verbose language that's good for quick scripting, right? being used as plugin language. That's not going to discourage user-customization at all...
2. I think being as alien as vim is actually an advantage here, due to an uncanny valley effect: it's harder to categorize it with the other text editors, thereby getting annoyed at its unfamiliarity and ragequitting. Emacs, on the other hand, resembles contemporary text editors just enough that "why don't my shortcuts work, stupid outdated program!!!1"



EDIT: I realized afterwards that this is not exactly what is meant by composability, though it's related.

Composability is, rather, the ability to use the results of an action as the inputs to another action. For example, vim's/evil's "daw" (delete all word) takes "current word and surrounding spaces" and uses the delete operator on it. Of note are also "di(" (delete inside parentheses), "ci"" (change inside quotes). You can also define your own text object and send that to delete. Conversely, you can define an operator and send any text-object to that operator; I created one that changes the text object to be unicode-struck-through, and modified the delete operator slightly so that it would instead comment/uncomment the text object.

More complicated example: g/haz/ "selects" all lines with the word haz. This can be composed with s/cheeseburger/hamburger to replace cheeseburger with hamburger on just those lines. Or it can be composed with m42 to dump all those lines at line 42. Or it can even be composed with my comment operator from earlier. With composability, the possibilities (not those you could feasibly enumerate on any GUI) are nearly endless.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:25 am UTC
by troyp
Copper Bezel wrote:So, yeah, really only trolling, but I do find it surprising that people really do still make extensive use of things like Vim and Emacs when a terminal app's interface functionality seems to be a subset of what's available to a GUI app. Presumably everything is being managed from the keyboard anyway, as it well should be (any interface element in a text editor that requires pointer input is wrong,) so there's not a lot of advantage to a graphical app interface.

Emacs and Vim are usually used graphically, except for special purposes. So they have GUI functionality. I sometimes use the mouse to position the cursor when I have to delete a bunch of scattered characters/words, for example (if there's not a quicker option, like a macro). In some cases I might use the mouse to select a region as well. Really, though, the GUI doesn't give you that much more.

The reason people still use such legacy-burdened applications is simple: there's nothing better. Also, there's a huge collection of extensions (providing a lot of the value) that an incumbent ecosystem would need to match.

Still, in a broader sense, I'd think that an editor built from the ground up for contemporary purposes would still be capable of greater functionality than one designed within a legacy context.

Oh, I agree with that, completely. But the reason isn't so much to duplicate the functionality of modern GUI apps as to extend it. I would love a modern emacs that lets you script GUI widgets as easily as emacs lets you script textual interfaces. Wait for some extensions to emerge and you'd have a programmable IDE. (Emacs can kind of do graphical stuff now, but it's really not what it's made for.)

lalop wrote:GUIs are like a suboptimal path of least resistance (which humans really love: see QWERTY). For the new user, it's easier to search for and click on a visual element than to read a tutorial or TFM - and that's great, user-friendliness is not innately a bad thing. The problem starts when users never graduate from this stage. When you move to and click on GUI elements to do something once, maybe that is faster than RTFM, but when you do it a hundred times, not so much.

What's worse in the long-run is that these GUI actions are inherently limited. They are generally not composable (when the user is required to click on multiple elements to execute certain actions, he generally cannot combine those actions into a single click) nor customizable for the user's specific needs. This forces the developer to try to provide every option for the user to start with, leading to bloated, inflexible programs.

Yeah, IMO, it's ridiculous to tie program actions to specific GUI actions. Have the actions exposed in a scripting API and let them be associated with either keyboard shortcuts or menu items/gui widgets. Having functionality that can't be added to a script or macro just doesn't scale, especially for something like a text editor. Having functionality that can't even be keybound is even worse.*
* Although it's not surprising. If you don't have some kind of API, you end up having some enormous options dialog with a thousand actions where you set the keybindings - and have to add every new action to it. No wonder they decide to trim it down. Better to just expose the functionality directly and have a single mechanism to bind any action to any keybinding (or other trigger).

Now, there are editing programs that sort of toe the line between the two paradigms, and they can become very popular in their time. gedit probably counts as one, textmate, sublime text.

I can't help thinking that most people who use these (especially programmers) would be better served with a newbie-customized emacs/vim. Like Cream for Vim (which is great*) or one of the "emacs starter" configurations.
* Mind you, one thing Cream doesn't do that it should is provide "text drag and drop". (Actually, I don't see why emacs/gvim don't do this in the first place. I've been meaning to look for an emacs minor mode for it.)

I look forward to the arrival of the next vim/emacs. Whichever program succeeds them will have learned a lot from the mistakes of the last 30 years, hence will probably be better than both. The problem is that most potential successors would have "learned" from the GUI-era as well, and that is most often a detriment.

I have some hope that Light Table may evolve into a modern emacs alternative in time.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:21 am UTC
by Jplus
troyp wrote:The reason people still use such legacy-burdened applications is simple: there's nothing better. Also, there's a huge collection of extensions (providing a lot of the value) that an incumbent ecosystem would need to match.

BBEdit/TextWrangler easily beats them. Admittedly that software has been around for quite long as well, but some of the killer features have been added relatively recently.

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:23 am UTC
by troyp
Jplus wrote:BBEdit/TextWrangler easily beats them. Admittedly that software has been around for quite long as well, but some of the killer features have been added relatively recently.

snortrofl...BBEdit? Okay, I'm not a Mac user, so I haven't used it, but...BBEdit?? A proprietary editor that works on a single (proprietary) flavour of unix? Yeah, that has a future. Still, it must be great for scripting, because it has almost twenty user-created extensions!
</RW-mode> M-x RW-minor-mode-off

Re: Which Religious War is the most important

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:06 pm UTC
by Pingouin7
Octopi > Octopuses