We’re not in the business of competing.
He is referring to competing with other editors and IDEs. Today I want to frame his comment in the proper context and discuss whether GNU Emacs should compete with the likes of Visual Studio and Eclipse.
Stefen’s comments come from a thread discussing the policy for packages in ELPA, the official Emacs package repository. In the
emacs-24 branch of the official repository, the Python mode has going through various non-bug–fix changes. Some people believe this should not happen. Changes to language-specific modes should adhere to the same feature freeze as everything else. Other people believe that changes to such modes should always be welcome, assuming that don’t break anything. One argument for this is that it helps Emacs stay up to do with editors that pump out new features, and this would help Emacs keep up.
And here came the, “We’re not in the business of competing comment.”
The Benefits of Not Competing
GNU Emacs has long done its own thing. Any long-time user will tell you that. This attitude allows the Emacs developers to focus on what interests them without being beholden to the trends and practices of editors such as Visual Studio. Granted—a lot of Emacs Lisp developers will simply ‘steal’ those features be re-writing them in Emacs Lisp, but that’s beside my point.
Decades of this attitude has created an atmosphere around Emacs where newcomers are expected to conform to the standards of Emacs, or to move on to something else. “Why isn’t Control+S ‘save’ instead of starting a search?” I’ve seen these questions a lot. Emacs fans tend to trot out three responses:
You can bind the keys to whatever you want. (Non-obvious to most on how to do that.)
Emacs was that way long before Control+S because the standard for save. (Clinging to the past in an effort to avoid change.)
You’ll get used to it soon enough. (The weakest of all rebuttals.)
It’s worth mentioning CUA Mode helps these issues. But then you have the long-term users who seem to view CUA Mode with the same disdain that the Brazilian national football teams has when it comes to guarding their goal against Germans.
Long Term Objectives
I saw the following quote in the discussion linked above. It in no way reflects the Free Software Foundation. That said, this is not the first time I’ve seen this?
They do not want to succeed in any of these criteria. Users, developers, and donations are nice to have, but simply not a priority of GNU and the FSF.
The only thing they really want to succeed at is freedom, and by their measures Emacs already succeeded in this aspect, being a free software project under a strong copyleft license, owned by a non-profit foundation.
And that freedom does not fade or decrease if Emacs fail to attract users, developers or donations. The license ensures that Emacs is going to remain free as long as our legal system persists, even if no one was left using or developing it.
The Hell…? As another poster succintly put it, “Freedom without people, that’s an interesting goal.”
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) cannot have an attitude like this. They must realize that they compete with other editors whether they want to or not. Many programmers seem to make their choice in editors after trying each for about fifteen to thirty minutes in my experience. Emacs should do whatever it can to rope in new users within that time frame. It’s esoteric behavior that made sense decades ago no longer stands against todays standards.
Now then, the power to customize Emacs is second-to-none. But there is no reason to expect a new user approach Emacs to even realize that. Even worse, some users feel like such new users are hurting the community. They would rather have Emacs as an inclusive club for people who have invested the effort in its arcane arts.
How to change this community culture? I will write my thoughts in the future. But I admit to having no simple answers. If you have any thoughts, ideas, or disagreements then please leave them in the comments.