Different types of systems attract different favorite sets of editors. Lisp-like languages end to encourage Emacs usage, Rails users often favor Textmate, Java users are often praying to the JetBrains IntelliJ IDEA gods. On occasion though, worlds collide and bizarrely unpleasant face distorting feelings of Religion and Tool Chauvanism rear their ugly heads. People want to fight about editors. Team members who’ve sunk a lot of time and attention into tweaking their dot-files and honing their skills at navigating at Ludicrous Speed don’t want to hear about ctrl-p, e-lisp or paste rings — they want to hate your tool and with it, your face for believing differently.
To quote someone with a lot more than me to say about objective truth: “you have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
Should we still debate and argue knowing that there is no singular editor worthy of our complete and undivided dedication? Is there any point to getting competent at using a singular tool at all? Why become competent in anything if sinking that time into competency is just an exercise in manifold futility?
In my youth I was convinced vi{,m} was the one true editor (I mean, it fit on a floppy boot diskette while Emacs didn’t) and I could fly around my buffers using a cryptic and mentally internalized mapping of keystrokes. After spending some time in the JVM based language gulag archipelago I was convinced of the JetBrains tools efficacy due to commercial tool curation of features.
After spending time with different editors in a few different languages as hobby and work tools, I began to experience decision fatigue about a year ago. I couldn’t screen in and out of a remote IntelliJ session, I couldn’t customize Vim without crawling face-first into hell, I couldn’t navigate in Emacs efficiently without inducing tinnitus in my ear-drums from the pounding of keys. All hope seemed lost.
I’ve come to think about editor debating as more than bike shedding, more than a bunch of people trying to trolls/flame/peck and annoying each other. It is (when done fucking respectfully) a form of spiritual exercise. Pierre Hadot, the historian of philosophy specializing in ancient western philosophy had the interpretation that ancient philosophy was a form of spiritual exercise. The way philosophy was taught at the academy, to Hadot, was specialized and detached from everyday life. Academics would try to take the knowledge of antiquity and formalize it into a linear series of unavoidable conclusions, ultimately leading to an academically acceptable “oh, I get it,” moment that indicated your understanding of a corpus of knowledge.
Stripping editor debates down to their conceptual content is missing the point. We should hate other editors, have a favorite, have a least favorite. Disagree and strive to prove each other wrong.
“For Aristotle,” as for others, Hadot says, “the discussion of problems was ultimately more formative than their solution.”