[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora 12: Emacs is not for software development

2009/11/29 Gregory Hosler <ghosler redhat com>:
Hash: SHA1

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/28/2009 02:32 AM, Debayan Banerjee wrote:
2009/11/28 Rahul Sundaram

Why? It's just shows your personal preference for a editor. Emacs is
certainly not needed for software development.
Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs
have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the
distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess
both vim and emacs should be available.

First of all, I don't think we have enough data to determine which
editor is being used by developers. How did you come up with the roughly
50/50 estimate?  I am sure we need a editor for development but I might
be using Eclipse or even Anjuta? IMO, it can be listed as a optional
package in the group and not more than that.


emacs is more than just an editor. Advanced users of emacs use emacs as a shell
from which they

       - edit the source
       - invoke the compile/make process from WITHIN emacs
       - run the application from WITHIN emacs
       - if the application crashes, then the debugger comes up WITHIN emacs,
         and allows them to debug the application, look at the source code,
         etc. All from within emacs.

While I readily admit that most emacs users probably don't use these advanced
features of emacs, I would argue that emacs DOES belong in the development
group. Those that leave it out of that group are simply unaware of what emcas
can and does do...

From my point of view, a development tool is something like make, or a compiler. Just because your editor can interface with it, that doesn't make it defacto a development tool.

From that perspective, emacs should not be in a development category. It should be in a "Kitchen Sink" category.

The real truth is that this is just semantics, and i'd rather see labelling and tags over predefined groups. But show me a real usability study that shows that this group division is causing trouble to users and that they are having trouble getting their work done. Then show me that the one time effort of installing a package on a fresh system is so important compared to daily activity that we really need to bother with this. Then we can discuss which category emacs should be in. Our personal intuitions won't give us the right answer.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]