The end goal of software is not to put everything in it, a flight simulator in your spreadsheet (fucking Excel!), a computer in your fridge for playing ads, a web server, email client, and text editor in your math program, a fucking NTFS miner in your MS Paint clone.

The end goal of good software is to do ONE THING. To do it fast, efficiently, and correctly, in the least resources you can.

Is emacs the original sin, or were there flotilla-of-shit programs before it?

Multics seems to have been pretty fat, but I haven't used it, or even seen a detailed description, except the joke that Unix is "one of whatever it's many of".

@mdhughes emacs is my preferred text editor because of the orgmode syntax and that the ux of using it specifically how i use it is good.

@mdhughes oh i posted the note about why i like emacs before reloading the thread and saying this. this situation is quite uncomfortable.

@SaulRS951 Ha ha! Yes, you have chosen entirely the wrong side for my rant.

Eighty Megs and Constantly Swapping is not a good program. It should be broken up by antitrust legislation.

@SaulRS951 Whatever. But you'll have to justify your horrendous waste of electrons.

@mdhughes i do not give two shits about "the purpose of software", as long as it does something i want the way i want it without being unreasonable, its good software. the things in your "bad software example post" are EXCESSIVELY unreasonable which is why they are bad.
but lets look back a emacs. it does what i want (edit org-mode and other files), it does it the way i want it (good ux (using doom)), and it starts up and runs as reasonably quickly given my hardware. 1/2

@SaulRS951 The emacs UX is available in micro-emacs in <1% of the resources, and starts up in nanoseconds; now we have computers that can start emacs in seconds instead of tens of seconds or minutes, but that's boiling the ocean to get there. Or every NeXTstep & Mac OS X text area has had emacs keys for ~36 years.

Stuff like org-mode is just a task manager, which can run as a focused program in much less resources.

@mdhughes wait hold on responding to the second half of my rant whats micro-emacs.

@SaulRS951 Among other things:

I started using "me" (later uemacs) on the Atari ST ~35 years ago. As little overhead as possible, it's a great editor. Haven't done well at shifting back to it, I'm permanently Vim in terminal and BBEdit for GUI it seems.

@mdhughes though when something can best show it's use case by stating what language it interprets, things may have gotten off track a tad. however, this points to whats actually going on here. emacs isnt a "text-editor". comparing emacs to any one software is like comparing steam to any one video game. emacs just creates the environment to launch the real programs, which are (counter-intuitively) the modes. if this goes against your personal philosophy, fine. just dont use emacs.

@SaulRS951 Or: If I tell you that using emacs is destroying the world and polluting everything, maybe reconsider using it.

@mdhughes i'd tell you that that seems like you are putting a lot of the blame for climate change on a single program when the vast majority of the pollution that contributes to climate change is caused by corporations, and not individual people and their programs.

@SaulRS951 BUT, editors aren't my specific point, the general field of flotilla-of-shit programs that can't focus on a single task are the problem.

@mdhughes i just realized that i mostly agree with you on the "software should do one thing" idea and am for some reason giving emacs a pass on this. huh.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Mastodon x = fun? A place for former ADN users - on the whole