The first time I read Pragmatic Programmer (a future classic) it strongly emphasized that programmers choose one good text editor and learn it well. This got me thinking about how important a good text editor is if you write code for a living. I am of the school of thought that code is design. I want to increase the speed by which I write code so as to match my thoughts. Code is the concrete extensions of my thoughts on how to implement software. This means that code should be easy to manipulate and thereby be malleable and fluid in nature. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me why the book discusses the virtues of using a good editor.
At the time of my first reading PP, my text editors were Visual Studio (the default IDE for .NET developers such as myself) along with the plain vanilla Notepad. Inspired by PP, I went on to use Notepad2 and then eventually moved on to the more robust and extensible Notepad++. However, I recently re-read PP because it is one of those book you need to keep referring back to make certain you are headed down the right path as a programmer. (Also, you tend to miss out on tidbits of good info due to faulty memory.) This time around I noted that one of the text editors they recommended was Emacs.
What is Emacs (and VI)?
After researching about Emacs, I immediately got the impression that this is one of the text editors that serious, hardcore programmers, may, I dare say, hackers use. If you want to become one of those (or at least aspire to) then you might as well use what those individuals use because they obviously must know something, right? Emacs has been around since the 1970's making it one of the oldest text editors with active development still current as of today (2008). So, once again, something must be good about it, right?
I noticed that another editor was consistently being referenced on most things I read about Emacs. That other text editor was VI (or VIM). Not surprisingly, just like a lot of things in the world of programming a long running rivalry exists between Emacs and VI. Now, unlike Emacs, I was, surprisingly, already familiar with VI since I had learned to use it in a technical class I took early in my career. Guess what? At the time, I hated it.
My dislike for VI centered on the fact that I was weaned on more modern text editors such as Notepad and other Windows applications that using VI felt so foreign to me. I could not understand how anyone could even be efficient with a tool such as VI. Why couldn't I simply use the arrows keys, delete key, etc.? Why must I memorize and use some other combination of keys? In addition, the mode switching also confused me which entails the fact that editing text was not quite the same as reading it.
VI reminded me too much of a word processing program I had used in the late 80's on my home PC (a Tandy if I recall). This made me view VI as being a relic that should no longer be needed in the modern world. Also, at the time (and prior to that) I hated having to learn and memorize command names and was not fully enamored with text-only, console-like environments (Microsoft did a really good job of making me dependent on GUIs and my mouse).
Of course, I no longer hold any of what I now consider to be quite ridiculous and silly attitude and opinions regarding VI. I have completely repented and now understand how deeply wrong I was. Hey, what do you expect from a newbie programmer back then?
Choosing a New Text Editor
Now, which one do I use? Emacs or VI? Truthfully, I really don't know. Just like most things each have their pros and cons.
However, I made my choice and decided to learn to use Emacs. I was swayed by the fact that Emacs as compared with VI has (1) so much more features (although might never use them all ;-) ) and (2) it is extensible. One long running criticism of Emacs (particularly from the VI community) was that it is very slow to load up and run (due to it using its own dialect of Lisp, an interpreted language and, as we all know, interpreted languages tend to be slower than compiled ones). Well, fortunately with modern systems this is no longer the case whatsoever (if anything more modern IDEs like Visual Studio are slow in comparison to Emacs)
Probably the most difficult thing to using Emacs at first will be the same reason why I originally did not like VI: learning all of its essential commands. But now it's different because I want to learn it because I fully understand it's rewards. It will indeed be tough at first but, from what I read, once you do (at least the basic ones) your productivity should start to increase. To me it will be no different than when I first started learning the fantastic Visual Studio add-in, ReSharper, a refactoring tool. With Re#, I made the very deliberate effort to learn the keyboard commands instead of relying on the mouse in order to code faster. Typically, this is now a very common approach I take with most new development tools and applications that I start to use. Learn to use as many key commands as possible.
One quick mention regarding setting up Emacs on Windows. If you want Emacs to be truly installed on your PC (meaning adding it to the Windows registry, adding a shortcut to your start menu, etc.) then I recommend running the file 'addpm.exe' found in the bin folder from the zipped file for Emacs . This is completely optional and you can obviously run and use Emacs without it. However, it does help to integrate it a bit more with your Windows environment.
Emacs and Visual Studio
The book "Pragmatic Programmer" seems to imply that a text editor should be your main IDE. However, primarily being a .NET developer my primary IDE is, of course, Visual Studio. Therefore, I can not truly have Emacs as my primary. If I did, I'd miss out on some the features built into VS such as Intellisense. But, my main problem is really missing out on the sheer power of ReSharper.
But, wait, not all is lost. Believe it or not, as it turns out, Visual Studio actually natively supports changing your key bindings to use Emacs! Now, I potentially might have the best of all worlds: VS + Re# + Emacs. Although VS does not obviously have all of Emacs' features, at least, I can continue to use and develop my Emac specific editing skills. Who knows? Since one of Emacs' greatest assets is extensibility it maybe possible to add some of the Re# features lacking into Emacs itself. (This would imply my learning ELisp but doubt it :-)) Perhaps some add-ins for Emacs already exist and I just have to find them.
It turns out that Emacs is not the only thing that can be supported by VS. In addition, I recall reading earlier this year how Jean-Paul S. Boodhoo started using VI with Visual Studio. (He also has some more recent posts on his experiences particularly VI with ReSharper) This was an early indication to me that perhaps maybe I was wrong about my opinion regarding VI and that it was, at the time, a very "green" programmer like myself just not understanding the power of a development tool and the inefficiencies of relying on a mouse. Perhaps down the road I might give VI a try as well.
I will certainly have future postings on my experiences with Emacs. In the meantime, I have to make sure to avoid "Emacs Pinky".
Voron on Linux
7 hours ago