News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Emacs: The most successful malleable system by barrkel on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @11:17AM (#22878718)
Every IDE is alien when you come into it. It took me ages to get used to Eclipse, and even then I greatly enjoyed jumping ship to IntelliJ. Visual Studio deeply irritated me with its different key bindings and editor behaviour to Borland IDEs, I ended up writing a bunch of VBA macros to take care of some of the more subtle differences, until VS stopped integrating VBA!
Re:Emacs: The most successful malleable system by slightwinder on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @12:00PM (#22879325)
> Every IDE is alien when you come into it.

I don't think so. Most modern Apps follow established lingua and concepts on the fundamental and often middle levels. But Emacs is not even doing that. Simply because it was made long before this lingua and concepts were established. Vim is similar in that regard, though not much as worse as emacs, if we ignore the conceptional difference.

Any complex application has it's quirks and special parts. But with emacs you have on top that even the basic parts are special and full of quirks. So instead of needing to adapts to 10% or 50% new ground, it's more like 80% or 100%, and for many this can be too much.

Re:Emacs: The most successful malleable system by neutronicus on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @02:23PM (#22881188)
> Most modern Apps follow established lingua and concepts on the fundamental and often middle levels

This is not at all true of the IDE pair (Visual Studio / XCode) I use at work.

I do all my code editing in spacemacs and use the IDEs as heavyweight build / debug / code-search frontends (not for lack of trying to do these things in emacs, mind you). The process of doing each of those things is completely different between XCode and VS.

Re:Emacs: The most successful malleable system by ska on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @12:57PM (#22880080)

  Most modern Apps follow established lingua and concepts on the fundamental and often middle levels. 
You can repeat that statement in 2020, 2010, 2000, 1990 ... the only problem is that outside of a very small subset what is "established" has changed. And likely will again.