[IggleSniggle]

It's an interesting example, because the fact that it is js makes it trivial for most developers to make modifications to it by opening the Chrome DevTools. Even if you're not a js dev, you probably occasionally write some js.

I'm arguing that it's successful because any of its users can trivially hack something on top of it and distribute it, including things the original devs never intended or think is a good idea. In that way, its success mirrors Excel.

[skydhash]

> I'm arguing that it's successful because any of its users can trivially hack something on top of it and distribute it

Emacs and Vim are way easier to extend.

[btreecat]

Vimscript and elisp suck, but Lua isn't bad despite being 1-indexed.

But in terms of access, JS wins hands down.

[skydhash]

You may not like the languages, but it's way easier to add a new feature to these editors than doing the same in VSC. Especially extending a plugin.

[btreecat]

I think with out a working definition of "easy/hard" it's all hand-waving.

From a documentation, examples, accessibility, tooling, and number of people you can get help from, JS wins.

What other metrics should we consider when comparing, API complexity, LOC for average plugins, google results?

I think if we had a reasonable baseline for comparison, it would be helpful.

[skydhash]

> From a documentation, examples, accessibility, tooling, and number of people you can get help from, JS wins

Maybe as a general purpose language, but for this specific comparison (extending editors). Elisp and Emacs wins. Vimscript is not the best plugin language, but the interation process is way better than VSC.