Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/28/2009 02:32 AM, Debayan Banerjee wrote:
>> 2009/11/28 Rahul Sundaram
>>
>>> Why? It's just shows your personal preference for a editor. Emacs is
>>> certainly not needed for software development.
>>
>> Well one does need an editor for development. Assuming vim and emacs
>> have roughly equal user bases, chosing emacs over vim for the
>> distribution shows Fedora packagers' personal preference too. I guess
>> both vim and emacs should be available.
>
> First of all, I don't think we have enough data to determine which
> editor is being used by developers. How did you come up with the roughly
> 50/50 estimate? I am sure we need a editor for development but I might
> be using Eclipse or even Anjuta? IMO, it can be listed as a optional
> package in the group and not more than that.
Um...
emacs is more than just an editor. Advanced users of emacs use emacs as a
shell from which they
- edit the source
- invoke the compile/make process from WITHIN emacs
- run the application from WITHIN emacs
- if the application crashes, then the debugger comes up WITHIN emacs,
and allows them to debug the application, look at the source code,
etc. All from within emacs.
While I readily admit that most emacs users probably don't use these
advanced features of emacs, I would argue that emacs DOES belong in the
development group. Those that leave it out of that group are simply
unaware of what emcas can and does do...
I completely agree with you ONLY if you agree that kdevelop, qt-creator,
anjuta, eclipse, netbeans, monodevelop and etc. should be added to the group
because all of them can do what you have described. It will be a funny group -
usable for everyone ??? I doubt it.
Alex
All the best,
-Greg