For me, Wunderlist is well done in offline access, super fast sync and a battery-friendly Mac app. I sometimes work in some place that does not allow internet connection, e.g. warehouse where phone signal is screwed, or some meeting rooms just block the signal due to their privacy.
In many years I still cannot find an alternative. May be Evernote(?)
And me too. Meteor becomes my most favourite development framework in 2016. The ability of offline and data sync are some-kind of "by default" once I start a project, or just a simple test on idea.
Plus, packing it into a desktop app is lightening fast. It is a "wow" factor for potential clients.
Talking about the "Digital Hub concept", I heard that from a Microsoft guy in 2005(?) introducing the concept of Microsoft Home Server. We were considering anything to cooperate (actually, it is only in marketing way). However, I was afraid that web 2.0 was the true future. Home user didn't need a home server product.
I love Mac, no doubt. But I do think Microsoft create a lot of great concepts and do test it on market. Apple is not the first eveb on consumer market (remember the WinCE products and XP Tablet Edition?)
In my opinion, Microsoft is pioneer of electronic products. Although they often made their final products "unusable", I would hear about what they "are going to do". It is worth to project the future.
People said V8 is power hungry and drain the battery so much. A few days ago I forgot to bring the power adaptor, so I have no choice but run on battery. Then, I try again today. And here is the result:
I didn't disable any packages and extensions, because I need them for daily work. So the result represent what I actually need. I also intended to avoid activities other than coding and checking email.
In short, Sublime Text and Safari survive longer. But Atom and Chrome are usable, at least.
For me, I will continue to use Atom and Chrome. Because Atom is more direct and user-friendly to me, and I feel much better on Chrome Dev Tool (sorry but feel better than Firefox). Another reason is that I can show others who want to learn programming. The licence for ST is not cheap for them.
I know 2-days testing is not enough, so would try again if I can.
First time to comment here. Sorry for bad English.
No. It only lasts for 5.5 and 6.5 hours at 28% battery.
The machine was in sleep mode in day 1, but I forgot to put it to sleep mode before closing the screen (I hate this the most at OSX 10.10) in day 2. You can see that there is a little bit different between 2 charts.
This machine is MacBook Air 13" 2013. The battery goes down to 86% design capacity (7150 mAh) according to coconutBattery.app
I'm only half joking. In its graphical incarnation, it's not exactly pretty, but fairly user-friendly, minus a few relatively easy-to-learn keyboard shortcuts. Within month it'll be second nature to them.
my major gripe with emacs and vim is that the keyboard shortcuts (out of the box) are completely alien. This really fucks with my muscle memory and actually slows me down. I'm sure this is fixable with complex config files, but that sorta defeats the purpose of emacs, where you should be able to edit files from the command line anywhere without messing about too much.
Spacemacs fixes a lot of the discoverability problems of Emacs and is generally more ergonomic.
I don't know anyone that learned it as a first editor (everyone already knew vim or emacs) but it seems like it could be a much better experience for someone new.
Ah yes, spacemacs. Not a fan, myself (I like to know what my configs are doing), but some people swear by it.
Personally, I don't think it would be good to introduce the newbies to modal editing right off the bat. They'll most likely have to learn a whole new set of keyboard shortcuts. Don't make them learn a whole new editing paradigm, too: they'll have given up before you can say, "which mode am I in now?"
That's... really unfortunate. Have you looked into customization to potentially make them usable for you? It's fine if you don't want to, but I'd hate to see somebody unable to use such useful tools due to a lack of finger dexterity.
I took a career assessment test about 20 years ago through this organization => http://www.jocrf.org. They said I tested in the bottom 5% of all people they've tested for finger dexterity. My fingers are just clumsy. I knew it, and they provided some validation for that.
At this point, using Atom (or any GUI IDE) provides me with 80%+ of the functionality I need when coding. If I get to a point where my IDE mojo starts becoming a blocker for me, then I'll revisit optimizing my IDE skillz.
My only issue with Emacs is the out of the box experience and given its pedigree, when looking at a videos from Genera or papers from Xerox PARC, there is always this idea that it could have been so much better.
Still nowadays, I only use it when I cannot use my favorite set of IDEs, usually Clojure or being in a space constrained place.
However, the out of the box experience is pretty decent, and if you're focusing on the out of the box experience above all else, than you still don't understand what makes Emacs Emacs.
Then again, I never really got on with IDEs: Too complex, too hard to customize, too specific to one language (for the most part), too big a learning curve with not enough benefit.
It was the only thing that I somehow could use to try to get an IDE like experience during university days (comparing with my usual Amiga/Mac/Windows tools), on our UNIX environments, initially AIX and DG/UX workstations.
Eventually coupled with DDD for a sane debugging experience.
...Which I could tell from how you phrased your comment. I was merely speaking generally, I assure you.
However, I must say that if I was asked the question "Emacs or IDE?" The answer would be "EMACS!" said rapidly and with great force. I never really understood why people like IDEs. Maybe I've just been using the wrong ones. It might have something to do with the fact that most of my IDE experiences is tied to Java, a language I find so unpleasant that I have to cleanse myself with Lisp, Python, Ruby, Haskell, Rust, or some other, equally pleasant language to get the bad taste out of my mouth after using it.
It also could be that the support for the Lisps in Emacs in unbelievably good. It's not as good as the Lispms or some of the proprietary IDEs, or so I've been told, but I can't afford either, and those only work with one dialect of Lisp, whereas Emacs works with all the popular ones and a few that aren't.
I got to use Turbo Pascal (MS-DOS and Windows), Delphi, Borland/Turbo C++, C++ Builder, Smalltalk, Oberon, Hypercard, Visual Basic, DevPac, Visual Objects, and a few others before Java was announced to the world.
The thing, is that Emacs doesn't offer many of the tools Lisp environments offer, is like trying to judge Smalltalk developer experience by using GNU Smalltalk instead of Squeak or Pharo.
Well, then, that would explain it. We have our tastes: there's nothing wrong with yours.
Your last sentence was a bit scrambled, but I gather you're saying that other Lisp development environments are superior to Emacs. That may be true, but most other Lisp environments are either in the Emacs family (Edwin, Hemlock), not superior to Emacs in any way (Dr Racket), or really expensive, so I know nothing about them (LispWorks, etc.).
So in conclusion, I'll take arguably inferior but really really good over allegedly superior but very very expensive.
So, are we talking about far ahead of emacs's default (which I can see), or heavily ahead of the heavily extended emacs most emacs users actually run (which I'm having trouble seeing, honestly). Either way, how so?
Regardless, I don't see myself using either or their descendants any time soon: Emacs is a very good environment, and I don't have several grand to spare.
YOu can extend GNU Emacs as much as you want, it is always single threaded. For a start. The UI is interestng, but fucked in many ways. That's how it is.
Yes, the UI is awkward, but I've never really had any issues with it. It's functional.
Yes, Emacs isn't multithreaded. And yes, this can sometimes get annoying, although it's quite rare for me to actually have trouble with it. And slave processes, while expensive, are cheap enough.
In any case, threading support is on the todo list, so it may be done sometime this century.
You seem to be misinterpreting me quite often. It's ONE issue. A development environment which is not multithreaded, is not very advanced.
> it's quite rare for me to actually have trouble with it.
No surprise: Blub paradox at work. Your tools limit your thought.
If my Lisp Machine would be single threaded, it would suck.
> Yes, the UI is awkward, but I've never really had any issues with it. It's functional.
Most Lisp-based development environment have much better UIs. For example in LispWorks or on a Lisp Machine the keychords are shorter. The Dynamic Windows UI of the Lisp Machine is still light-years ahead of anything GNU Emacs.
Here I made a demo how the documentation system works on the Symbolics. It uses Zmacs (the Emacs editor on the Lisp Machine, which Stallman used before he developed GNU Emacs) a component to write documentation records. This stuff had been developed in the mid-end 80s...
>You seem to be misinterpreting me quite often. It's ONE issue. A development environment which is not multithreaded, is not very advanced.
Seriously, give the comma a break! It's starting to actually confuse me.
Anyways, on the subject at hand... A lot of the work Emacs does is either 1) manipulating text onscreen, where multithreading doesn't matter, or 2) communicating with subprocesses, which is usually pretty close to multithreading in any case. MT would be nice, but it's not as important as you think it is.
>No surprise: Blub paradox at work. Your tools limit your thought.
Oh, it totally sucks that there's no MP, it's just that there's usually a workaround: This is Unix, not DOS: we can spawn processes if we have to.
>Most Lisp-based development environment have much better UIs. For example in LispWorks or on a Lisp Machine the keychords are shorter.
If I want shorter keychords, then I'll bind them myself. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the rest of us don't have Knight keyboards at our desks: We have to make do with what we've got.
>The Dynamic Windows UI of the Lisp Machine is still light-years ahead of anything GNU Emacs.
You keep saying that, and have yet to show an adequate example. This seems to show that Emacs's UI is adequate. And for editing text, the thing I use my editing environment most for, it is.
>Here I made a demo how the documentation system works on the Symbolics. It uses Zmacs (the Emacs editor on the Lisp Machine, which Stallman used before he developed GNU Emacs) a component to write documentation records. This stuff had been developed in the mid-end 80s...
It's a bit nicer than Emacs's, I'm willing to admit, but it's quite close, actually.
>Here Kalman Reti gives a demo of a Lisp Listener on the Symbolics and debugging mixed Lisp/C code:
That is actually genuinely cool, but it's not something we can have anymore: Most of us are on UNIX platforms, which don't really allow for this kind of debugging quite as well as the old Smalltalk/Lisp systems. But Emacs does have GDB integration, which is the next best thing.
Edit: Attach an image to explain why: https://twitter.com/Edditoria/status/1043481201443368960