|
I have intention to understand ideas underlying different editors and how to progress creating the next editor of course taking best features of all already existing ones. Awesome. Another next editor, also amalgamating the "best features" (surely, something trivial to objectively measure /s) of all that have come before. Guaranteed to make all of us troglodytes opine "how could I have wasted my life editing text with stone tools like 'vi'...all is dust now". I guess it's that time of the week. IMO...people don't choose an editor because it has the most checkboxes in the 'cool feature' column; most people use the editor they got used to (for many reasons) and invested in learning. Outside of navel-gazing, things like modal v non-modal aren't something to be proven 'best' or 'worse', they're 'what you are used to'. For a lot of us, we're used to vi. For others (the heretical ones), it's emacs. I hear there are others. Changing editors, relearning all those habits, is hard, or at least time consuming. I guess there are people who switch editors like socks (or fad programming languages), but I can't imagine taking that kind of downtime from real work. For me, I've been using a vi-ish editor since the mid-80s. It's second nature, muscle memory for 90% of my text-slinging needs, most efficient for me at getting text out of my head and into the computer, and mostly just out of my way. I'm not going to switch to another editor because it has shiny new 'abstractions', because it has a cooler scripting language, and gawd knows not because of what anyone on youtube thinks. If you create a better 'vi', which works exactly like my brain/fingers expect 'vi' to work, but somehow rocks my world better than the incumbent, then maybe I'll take a peek. Otherwise, don't be surprised if the reaction is something like "oh...new buzzword packed editor that doesn't work like the one I use every day. Quaint. Have fun with that.". |