We can all agree that the UNIX philosophy is powerful. Having a uniform interoperability mechanism (e.g.: stdin/stdout/stderr, exit codes) helps integrate different tools easily. I use shell commands to get things done often.
But that doesn't necessarily negate what I said: having a complete toolchain with a complete set of capabilities is the end goal. How you achieve that is means towards an end. If you achieved it with a TUI editor, good.
But there's a subculture in the TUI editor world where the end goal is often the prestige of being a TUI editor user rather than how capable the tooling makes you. And the situation in the wild is that most of these TUI users have a sub-optimal development experience that causes them to push more defects, because even though you could integrate LSP, a linter, etc... a lot of them don't.
With respect to when vim was invented, you have a supercomputer now. You may be solving a performance problem you don't have.
If editing with a minimal experience is a deep part of who you are, yet you are not going to pay for the cost of detecting and correcting preventable problems which can cost the company thousands to millions of dollars... maybe you are not acting in the best interest of your development org, your colleagues, your career or your family even. What do we call a person that exhibits that behavior?
> because even though you could integrate LSP, a linter, etc... a lot of them don't.
I think you overestimate the amount of work needed to get these things working… With Vim, for example, you can install a single plugin “ALE”, and it will autodetect and integrate every known LSP server, linter, and formatter that is in $PATH. For Emacs, you won’t even need a plug-in: “Eglot” is included in Emacs itself, and autodetects and integrates LSP servers in $PATH when you turn it on. Turning it on can be done by clicking a discoverable menu bar item.
> yet you are not going to pay for the cost of detecting and correcting preventable problems which can cost the company thousands to millions of dollars... maybe you are not acting in the best interest of your development org, your colleagues, your career or your family even
This is a bit of a stretch, isn’t it? If a single dev turning off their linter can cause millions of dollars worth of problems and bankrupt your family, then your org has deeper problems.
- If you’re working on critical code where one wrong line can bring down the planet, it is your organization’s responsibility to adapt. This means thorough testing before you roll it out to production, code review, etc.
- If you’re convinced that linting, testing, etc. is essential to prevent calamities, it shouldn’t be up to individual developers IDE choices to use these. Then it’s again up to your org to centralize and mandate those tools, e.g. by adding autoformattets, linters, and test coverage checks to their Git precommit and code review. This is an organizational issue.
- If we take a step back from these calamities, and claim that an IDE just makes people more efficient… Isn’t it again up to your org to promote and pay the efficient developers more, and gradually the top positions will be filled with IDE users and that becomes the company culture if your hypothesis is right?
In any case, I strongly disagree with your angle that not using an IDE is “irresponsible”. I have my reasons for sticking with a terminal-based workflow, but respect and understand why other people might find an IDE better.
But that doesn't necessarily negate what I said: having a complete toolchain with a complete set of capabilities is the end goal. How you achieve that is means towards an end. If you achieved it with a TUI editor, good.
But there's a subculture in the TUI editor world where the end goal is often the prestige of being a TUI editor user rather than how capable the tooling makes you. And the situation in the wild is that most of these TUI users have a sub-optimal development experience that causes them to push more defects, because even though you could integrate LSP, a linter, etc... a lot of them don't.
With respect to when vim was invented, you have a supercomputer now. You may be solving a performance problem you don't have.
If editing with a minimal experience is a deep part of who you are, yet you are not going to pay for the cost of detecting and correcting preventable problems which can cost the company thousands to millions of dollars... maybe you are not acting in the best interest of your development org, your colleagues, your career or your family even. What do we call a person that exhibits that behavior?