Kind of, but there are some subtle differences in my opinion. Oracle is top-to-bottom evil, whose business model basically boils down to screwing over their clients and everyone else at every possible opportunity, comparable to the likes of McKinsey or Accenture.
IBM is a bit more nuanced. My wife grew up in an IBM town and a lot of her family and her friends’ families used to work there in the 70s and 80s. People, especially the engineers, used to take pride in their work there.
I agree in principle that absorbing the best from the ecosystem is good. However, anything pulled into core should have a long lifetime and be considered part of the API. This deserves careful consideration, and plugins work really well until it is clear there is a reason to pull something in.
Not to talk about the other side of the holy war too much, but one of the things I appreciate about GNU ELPA is it's treated as part of the Emacs distribution and needs to follow all the rules of Emacs proper as a result.
I believe we are thinking about different time horizons, and your language and comparison to <modern editor> reveals a lot about unsaid about your reasoning.
I don't think comparison to other editors is a good basis for deciding what should be pulled in. The vi ecosystem was and remains weird to those outside, but in a way that is internally consistent to the usage patterns of its own user over decades.
Also, percentage of users using X feature is also a bad selection criteria for pulling a plugin provided feature, unless that number is 100% and there is little deviation in configuring it. There is very little friction in pulling in a plugin as a user.
So what are some good criteria for absorbing plugin functionality?
- extensions that provide an API for entire ecosystems (plenary, lazy.nvim)
- plugins that add missing features or concepts that are to useful, and timeless to ignore
- plugins that would benefit themselves or neovim by moving to native code
Honestly, the bar for absorbing plugins should be pretty high. There should be a real benefit that outweighs the cost of more maintenance, coupling, and ultimately cost.
The cost of installing plugins is pretty low, and they are great at keeping the core software simple.
What is 'over' is the idea that AI assisted coding is only hype that will go away. It is clear that software development is going to be different in ways we've not seen before.
Same tired argument from when compilers couldn't unroll a for loop, or from when photoshop was new. Did you think you would become that guy when you were young?
Today I faced an unexpected challenge in a high-pressure environment. I experienced a rapid loss of structural support (my trousers), which led to a complete pivot in my physical trajectory. I didn't just fall; I deep-dived into a new ecosystem (the toilet).
This experience taught me three things about resilience:
1. Always ensure your foundations are secure.
2. When you hit rock bottom, make sure it's a splash.
3. Failure is just an opportunity to wash off and start fresh.
Grateful for the growth. #Resilience #GrowthMindset #Agility #LessonsLearned
There are a few things I take away from this post:
1. If you care about the physical manifestation of a product, maybe Amazon.com is not the place to be shopping for it.
2. If the product as it arrives is substantially different from that ordered, it seems dishonest of the seller.
3. While the physical book is a source of joy for me as well, I feel lucky to live in a time where I can own a copy of a book that only a handful of people value, for a reasonable price.
He implied replacing nano was the first step, before using it for more complex (software development) tasks. First use it just for quick one-off edits of /etc/blah.conf then graduate to using it for longer editing sessions.
No, nano is not my daily driver. It's what I use when I want to quickly edit a file with root access because, funnily enough, I'm not in the habit of running my primary editor with superuser permissions :) Nano is a low-hanging fruit that was the first of many tools I gradually massaged the editor into replacing.
It's funny. When I have a topic I am interested and passionate about, and want to find an improvement or solution, I welcome the chance to have my ideas questioned. To explain them, to in turn question the alternatives others put forward.
In their frothing haste to put down my heresy here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47307056, not one single commenter took just a second to understand what I actually wrote. Most of the responses aren't even coherent on their own, much less address my questions. I did not advocate for the status quo, I did not even assert OP was wrong. I invited them to provide some reasoning for their proposal. Quite troubling, even cultish behavior.
I try not to assume malice (i.e. Hanlon's Razor) when it happens to me. Unfortunately the mob rule seen on other user-curated sites seems to be infectious.
I try to gently call it out here when I see it, though, because HN is the one user-curated site where I still feel that people come to get to 'truths' versus 'agendas'. I want it to stay that way!
I came here to say that if you want to understand Oracle's value, think IBM with less history.
reply