[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?
From: |
Rainer M Krug |
Subject: |
Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving? |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:00:07 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin) |
phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk (Phillip Lord) writes:
> Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:
>>> That's hard to measure. One way for estimating popularity is Debian's
>>> automatic popularity contest.
>>>
>>> http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=emacsen-common%2Cvim-common&show_vote=on&want_legend=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1
>>
>> Thanks for that picture.
>> It confirms my personal hunchy feel that 20 years ago emacs-vi were kind of
>> neck to neck; whereas today emacs is increasingly in the category:
>> "Whazzat??"
>> for young programmers.
>
>
> Not sure that this is a good conclusion. I have vi installed on every
> linux box I use, but Emacs on only some. But I use Emacs far more than I
> use vi.
>
> The other point to remember is that there are more programmers now than
> 20 years ago. I would be shocked if Emacs popularity as a percentage had
> not dropped.
Not only more programmers, but also more IDE, source code editors (in
the widest sense) - i.e. alternatives to emacs.
I love emacs and will stick with it (even if I am the last one using
it), but I see the difficulty to sell it to new programmers. By the way:
I see the same problem with vi.
Rainer
>
> Phil
>
>
<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
--
Rainer M. Krug
email: RMKrug<at>gmail<dot>com
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Emanuel Berg, 2013/10/04
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Rustom Mody, 2013/10/06
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Evans Winner, 2013/10/06
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Emanuel Berg, 2013/10/09
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Teemu Likonen, 2013/10/10
- Message not available
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Rustom Mody, 2013/10/10
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Andreas Röhler, 2013/10/10
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Bob Proulx, 2013/10/10
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Andreas Röhler, 2013/10/11
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Phillip Lord, 2013/10/10
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?,
Rainer M Krug <=
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Peter Dyballa, 2013/10/10
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Phillip Lord, 2013/10/11
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Christopher Ritsen, 2013/10/12
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Phillip Lord, 2013/10/14
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/14
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Christopher Ritsen, 2013/10/14
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Phillip Lord, 2013/10/15
- Message not available
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Emanuel Berg, 2013/10/15
- Message not available
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Emanuel Berg, 2013/10/14
- Re: Is Emacs very alive, active and improving?, Bob Proulx, 2013/10/15