[jrockway]

I don't do multi-file changes in emacs, but they are pretty trivial with "perl -pi -e ...". You have a lot more flexibility with this method. I often create a new branch, spend a few commits getting the rename right, and then squash the commits and apply it to my real branch. (Sometimes I apply the changes to the index instead of applying it as a commit -- this way I can change other things in the same commit.)

Anyway, the automated tools sort of fake this workflow, but sometimes the real thing is nicer.

[kevinpet]

I've always had this nagging suspicion that I could become more productive, if only I truly learned how to use emacs. But this post has just finally convinced me that the only people who cling to emacs for large scale development are true believers who will never be swayed.

The automated tools don't fake your workflow. A refactoring tool performs code modifications that it can prove make no change to the semantics of the code. You can sort of fake this, in a painful way using perl, but as you've just stated, your system is so unreliable that you create a branch to do something I may do a dozen times in an hour when I have some time to go back and clean up.

[jrockway]

But this post has just finally convinced me that the only people who cling to emacs for large scale development are true believers who will never be swayed.

Yes, judge thousands of people by one person. That has served society very well over the years.

Anyway, in Eclipse, every non-trivial rename "requires preivew" and often requires cleanup. If you just want to change the name of a class, the GUI is fine. If you want to do something more involved, you end up doing it manually anyway.

For trivial renames in Emacs, I have a function called "rename-this" which is mode-sensitive and Does The Right Thing for languages I actually use (Perl, Haskell, and Lisp). (Most things are non-trivial, though, as dependencies on a class name are not always in the form of the class name in the source code. "${prefix}::Foo" is hard to detect, but occasionally appears. Refactoring works well in Java because there is no possibility for syntactic abstraction, and it must be a function of your text editor. That approach is why I avoid Java.)

Edit: BTW, if you get to make a snide comment, so do I:

"Your post has finally convinced me that the only people who cling to IDEs for large-scale development are true believers who are more comfortable clicking buttons than writing software." Tool building is an important skill that IDEs actively discourage.