Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?

[Emanuel Berg]

Christopher Ritsen <chris.ritsen@gmail.com> writes:

> Right now, that is strictly org-mode for emacs, and
> vim for most of my text-editing and coding.

Yeah, that would be one division that is possible (and
even sensible, if there isn't anything like org-mode for
Vim), but I think the "gosh wow" reaction is of *mixing*
Vim and Emacs for *the same type* of task, or tasks that
are very similar (e.g., two programming languages).

And I think that is a bad move. If we (humans) lived for
400 years, perhaps.

In general, isn't it true that "what works" is obvious
from day one, and then it is much better perfecting it,
than jumping between different things? Even a king of
Ithaca, that is so creative in solving the island's
zillion problem, for the same task, I think he uses the
same method every time, as long as it works.

> I'm not planning on dropping one for the other, but my
> assumption is that most people wouldn't want or have
> the time to configure both (especially if it's not
> possible to use either at work) and lose objectivity
> about using the best tool for the job.

Yeah, but it is not *only* the tool, is it? It is the
*hands*, *eyes*, and *brain*, as well. If those are as
good for any tool, yes, but isn't that unrealistic,
perhaps even impossible?

Am I making any sense here? :)

-- 
Emanuel Berg, programmer-for-rent. CV, projects, etc at uXu
underground experts united:  http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573