mustermannBB

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

Correct me if I'm wrong but a big part of the value proposition these days for Erlang/Elixir would be that it comes build in with a lot of the tools that other runtimes would require. For example a message bus is kinda integrated in the BEAM runtime or Erlang, while most other runtimes would have to use something like Kafka or AWS SQS etc. Or caching and some other things. Of course I'm not sure how good all the inbuilt solutions are compared to dedicated tools, overall or usually IMHO I prefer dedicated tools as opposed to all in one as the dedicated tools/services usually are more flexible. On the other hand of course it is also much overhead.

mustermannBB

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

All fair. I suppose my point is that I think people do actually have a decent sense of what value proposition there with emacs but simply don't agree that its strengths are worth the steep climb and or a the much better that their current tool needs replacing.

mustermannBB

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

Problem with Hare is that it is (or at least was last time I checked) Linux/Unix only and so by design. That kinda makes it DOA for many.

mustermannBB

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

I think it is way simpler than that. IMHO, for many people young or old the value proposition of emacs simple is no longer there and/or worth the huge learning curve. For most things people would use something like emacs the alternatives are simple good enough and some cases better. By better I mean mostly more accessible, less complex and with a better ecosystem. One tool that does all, also simply does not resonate with everyone nor do many people feel the need to make their almost their lifestyle (not saying you do, I'm speaking in general to the Emacs runs my life folks). Another thing to consider often is that when working in a group or team at work for example it can be the easiest path forward to use the tool the company officially uses and your teammates do. If your team uses for example slack to communicate why go through the hassle of setting up some most likely cumbersome workaround to target it via emacs instead of just using the slack.

mustermannBB

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

Are you comparing Elixir with a framework as extensive as Phoenix to Go and "just" its standard http library? If so I'm not sure that would be a good comparison then.

mustermannBB

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

Or they simply think or know that vscode does what it needs to, for them to get the job done. In the end the best tool is the one you can be productive in. No need for gatekkeeping about something as trivial as ones preferred editor or IDE.

mustermannBB

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

To some vscode probably is good enough and that is OK. I don't see why this would be an issue.

mustermannBB

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

To be fair the importance for devs/programmers to touch type is often very exaggerated. Not saying it is not a benefit but is is far from a "must" or something that is a detriment to producing quality work. In the days where secretaries were typing out memos from their boss touch typing was much important or needed.

mustermannBB

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

I mean it depends what one use Vim or their editor of choice for. For example I do think that efficiency gains when for example developing in Java are marginal if there at all. Or for people who do not hate the mouse, or people who can't touch type and probably many more examples. Also with how integrated vscode is these days, it is no surprise that many prefer it.

mustermannBB

2 lata temudiscuss

What real world application is there, where in 2024 Lisp(s) is the definite better tool vs the dozen of established languages that are used in its place. Yes, technically Lisp is also established but still. Besides that I also think that Lisp has a readability problem similar but not severe of course as APL for example. And of course just like APL part of that is familiarity but that is only part of it IMHO.

mustermannBB

2 lata temudiscuss

Thank you, too for the friendly discussion.

mustermannBB

2 lata temudiscuss

I don't think neovim is as strong as emacs when it comes to extensibility. It also has no self documenting like emacs. If one is committed to the philosophy of using emacs for everything or almost everything neovim would probably leave one wanting. I do agree however it has come a long way. It is good there so many strong options these days. And I will cede one thing about emacs and vim (neovim). They most likely still be around after whatever next big editor replaces vscode.

If you do try neovim again maybe check out (in case you may have not heard of it) https://github.com/Olical/conjure It was (is) pretty nice last time I used it.

mustermannBB

2 lata temudiscuss

Again I agree that Emacs is powerful and can be an excellent tool. Never disputed that. But it still, again, to me is clunky. I dislike its defaults, its interface, the ergonomics. Also I have no use for many of its offerings. Could I configure it to something I find tolerable, I could but to me the return is simply not worth it. I simply would use emacs as (sourcecode) editor and for that other offerings provide me with what I want and need with only a fraction of the cost and investment needed and my hands thank me to boot. I tried Doom Emacs (and Prelude and Spacemacs) as well, it just made realize I could just use neovim if I wanted vim bindings. I tried Emacs and gave it an honest go multiple time and simply did not like it or like it enough to invest further into it. The alternatives for me simply do better job for what is important to me. And just like you I have zero Fomo with my decision.

mustermannBB

2 lata temudiscuss

To be fair some of these are subjective. People of course should never sell their opinions as objective or facts. Which btw, I don't think the person you responded to did.

mustermannBB

2 lata temudiscuss

That's why I said IMHO. I tried Emacs in 2023 and 2024 and to me it is still way too clunky, gets in my way all the time and has , what I consider, bad defaults and to me very bad ergonomics. It literally negatively impacts my hands. And performance was nothing special either for me. It is however very powerful, I agree with that.

mustermannBB

2 lata temudiscuss

As long as most Lisps and Schemes rely so heavily on Emacs as part of their tooling, it will never reclaim its status from its heydays. Emacs is just too clunky in 2024. Just IMHO of course. Also Common Lisp, while a great lang with fantastic implementations such as SBCL, really do need a better or standard packet manager, Quicklisp is a great effort but still in beta, and saying "well it is technically still beta, but basically ready or good for use" is simply not cutting it. Quicklisp also still, as far as I know, does not do https and the communities opinion on that seems rather "oh well" on it. I guess where I'm going at is that Lisp's tooling has some serious limitations or gaps compared to most modern languages.

comments