RE: Emacs's popularity (was: Distributed Maintenance for Emacs)

[Drew Adams]

> >>> Sadly, vim outvotes all flavours of GNU emacs
> >>
> >> Hm. Dunno why that should make one sad. I would never use 
> >> vi or vim (unless I had to), but I don't see why I should
> >> be sad or bothered if other people find it useful. One
> >> person likes to live in the forest; another prefers the city;
> >> a third the shore.
> >>
> >> Why the need to make Emacs the most popular? It's good to 
> >> make Emacs better, but what's the popularity contest about?
> >> Perhaps Americans on average listen to Britney Spears more
> >> than Mozart or Muddy Waters. So what?
> >>
> >> On the other hand, info about the relative use of different
> >> Emacs versions is (mildly) interesting and might be helpful
> >> in some ways.
> >
> > Well said Drew. Agree 100%
> 
> There seems to be a tendency in emacs circles to take any suggestion
> which might make emacs more popular

No, not any suggestion that might make Emacs more popular. Suggestions TO make
Emacs popular. That's the difference. Improving Emacs might make it more popular
(or not!). No one has ridiculed suggestions for improvements.

It is the argument that Emacs _needs to win_ a popularity contest that I
contest. It is the goal TO make Emacs more popular than its "competitors" that I
think is misguided.

There is nothing wrong with some people using and prefering vi (or Eclipse or
whatever). Nothing. And nothing wrong if there are more of them than people
using Emacs. And nothing wrong if the ratio vi/emacs increases. The fact that
some people use vi is no reason to "modernize" Emacs by blindly copying vi (or
whatever else).

Each improvement to Emacs should be argued on its own merits, not simply by
pointing to what the others kids have. And as I said, it's always good to learn
from others. There is no contradiction here. Learning can mean copying, but it
does not necessarily mean copying. And seldom does just copying the popular kid
make you popular. The devil is in the details.

> as some sort of push to make it for thickies or dumb it down.

No one said that people who use other tools are thick or dumb. I don't think
that at all. I have a great deal of respect for those I know who can make fine
music with vi. The beauty and utility of an instrument (musical or other) is not
measured by its popularity. Violins and clarinets are not in competition.

> The Britney v Mozart rebuttal is a worn old
> war horse wheeled out frequently in such arguments :-;

Gosh, and I thought it was original. Funny how those old brains keep repeating
stuff.

How about Muddy Waters - is he wheeled out often? I'll have to modernize my
metaphors I guess. Which metaphors are the TextMate (vi? Eclipse?) proponents
using these days?

> Making something more widely used

Use how, why, by whom, for what? Making it so in what ways?

> can only benefit the whole community.

What community?

> People did not put man years into it for a small few. People
> like their work to be used.

Those who worked and played hard to make Emacs better did not do so to make it
popular, no matter how much they like their work to be used. They did so because
better is better, more helpful, more useful. I'm pretty sure of that
generalization, though I won't look to offer you proof.

When you add or remove a feature to improve Emacs for yourself and others, do
you think about making it more popular than vi (or Eclipse)? I doubt it. You
might be proud that your new Emacs feature is more useful in some way than vi,
but did you set out to make a vi-killer? I doubt it.

> So personally, I *do* care if I think emacs is losing share.

Why? Your argument above was for increasing popularity in absolute terms. But
your conclusion ("so") is in relative terms - it doesn't follow. Even if you
want more people to use Emacs, why do you care about _relative_ pie-slice size?
Grow the pie, if you are worried about growth in the Emacs user base.

Personally, I don't worry about either the absolute or the relative popularity
of Emacs. Couldn't care less. When I see a colleague try to use other tools to
do something s?he could do easier or better with Emacs, I steer the poor soul in
the Emacs direction. But _to help someone_, not to win market share for the
Emacs team.

Improving a product is about improving it, not about aiming to capture the whole
pie. It's true that in the business world market share can be important and even
become an end in itself, because of competition (survival) and the potential
perks of eliminating competition. That does not apply to Emacs, IMO. It does not
apply, in any case, to why I try to improve Emacs.

Emacs "losing share" is truly the least of our worries. Totally a dead end, IMO.

> If it is then something is wrong and people should consider ways of
> addressing it. The "I dont care as it works for me" attitude is somewhat
> anti the whole Open and Free movement IMO.

Why? You seem to be confusing several things. An Emacs "competitor" (e.g. vi)
could be free or not.

In any case, no one is arguing that Emacs should not be improved because it
already "works for me". Improve, improve; please improve.

But fuggedabowd popularity. Or not. I would even go so far as to say that if you
really want Emacs to win your popularity contest, then do _not_ aim for
popularity. Aim for improvement. And argue for particular improvements that you
endorse on their own merits - the-other-kids-all-have-one is not convincing.