I have to admit, I am one of those people that never felt comfortable with Emacs. I'll use it if I have to, but that is about the extent of it. Overall, the whole concept of Emacs add-ons almost seemed a bit like the new version of web apps where end users are generating the content and driving traffic to the site. In this scenario, it is the open source developers and some end users of the application that are developing add-ons that are being rolled into the source tree.
I liked the way in which Emacs handled the buffers, frames and windows isolating the complexity of screen refreshes from the add-on developer. Only having to focus on the core "business logic" of the macro is a big plus.
I think a big reason for Emacs success is in its flexibility and ease with which its base functionality can be expanded upon. It reminds me of two separate systems that I have worked with in the past. Both systems contained screens with a bunch of buttons that could be used to carry out various tasks. One of the systems exposed an object model and allowed users the ability to link the button presses to custom javascript functions. These javascript functions could then manipulate the DOM as desired. The other system was identical in purpose, but the logic for the button actions were compiled into the application binary. Any changes to the button press functionality would require modifications to the application. One of these applications was successful and the other was viewed by many as a failure. Do you want to guess which one was successful?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment