[Frondo]

I think that's pretty crummy you're getting downvoted for this kind of remark.

I myself tend to agree with you, as a former Emacs user of maybe 10, 15 years. For the things I used to use Emacs for (C, make files, only crude version control integration, etc) I'm sure it'd still do fine. What I found, though, is that my workflow and habits changed, and Emacs couldn't keep up. Or rather, there are good-looking, easy-to-use tools that support my workflow out of the box, and having to spend a day futzing with my editor just to get the same workflow functionality lost its luster a long time ago. Visual Studio Code, for example, it does great intellisense and Git integration without having to do a thing. And I don't really mind having to use the mouse more, because, frankly speaking, I type a lot less than I think these days; I just spend less time on the mechanical act of typing lines of code than I used to, so keeping my hands on the keyboard is less important than it used to be for me.

So for me, Emacs is, as you said, a historical artifact. The tools I use today simply work better for how I work, and even though Emacs could be molded in just about any direction, I no longer feel like it's worth the trade-off. Tools like VSC are good enough, right now.

[qwertyuiop924]

Well, what about when you want to refactor Java, or get syntax highlighting on Scheme code, or want autocompletion in your Python?

I'd rather learn one tool once, than re-learn text editing every time my requirements change.

[Frondo]

Hey, that's great, I'm glad that works for you. I'd rather pick the best tool for the job, and learn it, than try to make was was for me a mediocre tool less mediocre.

If I were, for example, editing Java at any great amount, I'd probably look to one of those popular Java editors (I've heard good things about, I think it's called, IntelliJ?). I'd wager money it's more finely tuned for working in Java than Emacs will ever be, just because there's people who want to keep making money to write it.

And so on.

Like I said, if I were still just writing code like I used to, in an earlier stage of my career, I'd probably be satisfied with Emacs. I moved on, though, and do different things. When faced with a choice of learning new, good tools and trying to hold onto my old mediocre tools, well, I'll pick the learnin'. I think I've ended up more productive, anyway.

[qwertyuiop924]

...And I think the phrase "mediocre" is where we disagree. Java is perhaps the worst example, but there are languages whose emacs modes are simply unbeatable. The lisps, in particular, but there are others. And if the tools aren't good enough, they can be improved.

Give a man an IDE, and he'll have the tools that IDE provides. Give a man Emacs, and he'll have whatever tools he wishes.

OTOH, you may well have ended up more productive for the kind of work you do. Your tools, your choice. I am willing to respect your decision.

[Koshkin]

Showing respect for the subjective deserves, well, respect. But it is the insight into the objective that is interesting, and I think that it should be recognized as a law of Nature that if something (or someone, for that matter) is trying to be good at everything, it (or they) is bound to be not very good at anything in particular. I am not seeing, for instance, how emacs can come even close to what IntelliJ has to offer to Java developers - short of having a faithful IntelliJ clone written in elisp, of course.

[qwertyuiop924]

Ouch. I did my best... I shall try harder next time.

My point was that while Emacs certainly isn't as capable as IntelliJ is at the moment, It's possible to build those features upon IntelliJ. An attempt to build Emacs's featureset on IntelliJ, OTOH, would crash and burn.

Emacs doesn't try to be good at everything - not in the conventional sense, because Emacs is a platform. There's a lot of software built atop it, but they're all really good at one thing: Paredit isn't Org, which isn't Geiser, which isn't Flycheck, which isn't etags.

[Frondo]

FWIW, I've thought this whole exchange was both useful and respectful, even though we obviously disagree. :)

IntelliJ is a good example, because you're right, you could extend Emacs to have a looks-and-works-exactly-like-IntelliJ mode. But now you've got two jobs, writing your Java and developing and polishing up your editor in elisp.

Or, for my current favorite editor, Visual Studio Code, immediately upon launching it you get intellisense via Omnisharp, really decent git integration, all the integration you'd need with dotnet core, and a ton of convenient stuff like search/replace across the whole project, refactoring that works well for C# project, etc.

Could this all be reproduced in elisp? Absolutely, I have no doubt. Has anyone put together a package to do so? Nope, though of course there are disparate packages to solve/simplify/address these things. Will anyone create one package? Nah. Will anyone bring it up to the level of polish that VSC provides out of the box? Definitely not.

Much as I like Emacs, and I really did, when I started trying out new modern editors I felt like I'd been living in a cave.

Actually, just writing this all out has made me realize that the biggest dealbreaker for me is the lack of polish. Seeing what a modern dev experience is like, I couldn't go back.