> Should we have frozen tech in 1998 with our 28.8kbps modems
We had Ethernet and high-speed networks in 1998. The rest of the world has just caught up, that’s all.
> Why did you switch to this emacs fad when you could have stuck with ed(1)?
Emacs is an improvement over and above vi & ed. No other current editor is an improvement over and above Emacs. The only improvement Emacs is lacking is Common Lisp extensibility.
> I think it's great that people are advancing the state of the art.
But they’re not — they’re reimplementing the decades-old art. Why waste time using worse technologies to extend worse editors when one can invest one’s time using better technology to extend a better editor?
To encourage people to use Emacs (or vi).
> Should we have frozen tech in 1998 with our 28.8kbps modems
We had Ethernet and high-speed networks in 1998. The rest of the world has just caught up, that’s all.
> Why did you switch to this emacs fad when you could have stuck with ed(1)?
Emacs is an improvement over and above vi & ed. No other current editor is an improvement over and above Emacs. The only improvement Emacs is lacking is Common Lisp extensibility.
> I think it's great that people are advancing the state of the art.
But they’re not — they’re reimplementing the decades-old art. Why waste time using worse technologies to extend worse editors when one can invest one’s time using better technology to extend a better editor?