As a long-time Emacs user, I obviously disagree. Here are my points.
I’ve been using Emacs for over two decades now, and at this scale it really starts to be an investment (especially that I write and edit a lot).
Even if it were not net positive in terms of time, there are other, less tangible benefits. One is reducing friction. When I do something in an objectively less efficient way, but such that it gives me a feeling of efficiency, it reduces my general frustration and thus helps me keep focus and stay motivated.
Another one is even more important. Doing things in a way which may be less efficient but is more Emacs-wizard-like gives me a tremendous satisfaction. Like the previous point, it gives me joy and helps to motivate me.
Of course, these are not really measurable, but I’m convinced that working in a way which gives me more joy is beneficial even if the work takes a bit more time.
Ah, nice. I can’t argue with this (de gustibus non est disputandem). Although I almost feel like you’re making my point for me. For those for whom the ineffable joy of Emacs wizardry isn’t a factor, learning such wizardry is an investment that’s unlikely to pay off. But that’s an empirical question. The joy might even be effable after all, making the whole question empirical: Will you maximize your utility by embracing or eschewing powerful text editors?
I don’t actually have a very strong prediction. I just wanted to make the points that repetitive mindless editing is less costly than it seems and the wizardry is more costly than it seems (modulo the intrinsic joy, as you say). In fact, I just thought of an analogy: the mindless repetitive editing is like doodling during a lecture; creating a macro or other wizardry to avoid the mindless editing is like texting during a lecture. The former leaves your brain engaged with the topic at hand and the latter engages it elsewhere.
You can say that in this analogy it would need to be particularly life-affirming texting. Again, I can’t argue with that. I’m just highlighting the cost. If the cost is worth paying, that’s fine.
As a long-time Emacs user, I obviously disagree. Here are my points.
I’ve been using Emacs for over two decades now, and at this scale it really starts to be an investment (especially that I write and edit a lot).
Even if it were not net positive in terms of time, there are other, less tangible benefits. One is reducing friction. When I do something in an objectively less efficient way, but such that it gives me a feeling of efficiency, it reduces my general frustration and thus helps me keep focus and stay motivated.
Another one is even more important. Doing things in a way which may be less efficient but is more Emacs-wizard-like gives me a tremendous satisfaction. Like the previous point, it gives me joy and helps to motivate me.
Of course, these are not really measurable, but I’m convinced that working in a way which gives me more joy is beneficial even if the work takes a bit more time.
Ah, nice. I can’t argue with this (de gustibus non est disputandem). Although I almost feel like you’re making my point for me. For those for whom the ineffable joy of Emacs wizardry isn’t a factor, learning such wizardry is an investment that’s unlikely to pay off. But that’s an empirical question. The joy might even be effable after all, making the whole question empirical: Will you maximize your utility by embracing or eschewing powerful text editors?
I don’t actually have a very strong prediction. I just wanted to make the points that repetitive mindless editing is less costly than it seems and the wizardry is more costly than it seems (modulo the intrinsic joy, as you say). In fact, I just thought of an analogy: the mindless repetitive editing is like doodling during a lecture; creating a macro or other wizardry to avoid the mindless editing is like texting during a lecture. The former leaves your brain engaged with the topic at hand and the latter engages it elsewhere.
You can say that in this analogy it would need to be particularly life-affirming texting. Again, I can’t argue with that. I’m just highlighting the cost. If the cost is worth paying, that’s fine.