Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Editors that are geared towards advanced users, i.e. they allow mostly or completely keyboard-driven interaction (to increase precision of actions), editors that are rich in the way that they understand and navigate text, i.e. they offer multiple paradigms of text navigation, be it by structure, by line, by mini-map, the "jedi" style. Editors that allow substantial automation and extensibility without a massive effort on the user end, possible ad hoc, rather than requiring a full-fledged programming project. Editors with multiple existing integrations with third parties, but also allowing for a relatively easy addition of such interactions. Editors that aren't overly reliant on third-party software to function (i.e. can function when X-Server isn't available, or when Web isn't available).

Some anti-features that are preferably be missing from good editors: unnecessarily constraining user to the choices the editor designer or the editor administrator deemed necessary. Excluding particular functionality from automation or requiring substantial workarounds in order to automate particular aspects (eg. having functionality associated with a button that can only be clicked by positioning the mouse cursor over it, or, even worse, functionality that is only available through drag-and-drop). Reliance on modal windows. Automatic editing and formatting of editor-related configuration files in a way that doesn't preserve user's edits and formatting.

In other words, it's possible to take a decent editor, like Emacs or Vim and turn it into a bad editor like VSCode or IDEA by doing bad things to it because the base is very extensible. But, in general, excluding the administrative / repackaging component, editors like Emacs or Vim will win in this contest.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: