Open Thread, June 16-30, 2012

OpenThreadGuy

3Viliam_Bur14y

I tried Emacs and decided that I dislike it. I understand the reason why it is like that, but I refuse to lower my user interface expectations that low. Generally, I have noticed the trend that a software which is praised as superior often comes with a worse user interface, or ignores some other part of user experience. I can understand that a software with smaller userbase cannot put enough resources to its non-critical parts. That makes sense. But I suspect there later appears a mindkilling thread of though, which goes like this: "Our software is superior. Our software does not have a feature X. Therefore, not having a feature X is an advantage, because ." As in: we don't need 21st-century-style user interface, because good programmers don't need such things. By wanting a "Lisp experience" I mean I would like to experience (or falsify the existence of) the nirvana frequently described by Paul Graham. Not to replicate 1:1 Richard Stallman's working conditions in 1980s. :D A perfect solution would be to combine the powerful features of Lisp with the convenience of modern development tools. I emphasize the convenience for pragmatic reasons, but also as a proxy for "many people with priorities similar to me are using it".

Pavitra14y20

For a certain value of "the Lisp experience", Emacs may be considered more or less mandatory. In order to recommend for or against it I would need more precise knowledge of your goals.

vi21maobk9vp14y00

Well, I have a paid job where I write in Common Lisp, and I use Vim, and both statements (paid job with CL and Vim usage) are true for multiple years.

It is a good idea to know there are different options and have a look at them, of course.

It is a good idea to look at Cream-for-Vim, too - it has Vim as a core, and most mode allow you to use Vim bindings for a while, but default bindings are more consistent with modern traditions.