Sunk Cost Fallacy!

[removed]

Technically there’s no sunk cost in Emacs because there’s always new ways of doing thins..

The new user thing is probably because the overwhelming majority of new users don't need it. The question is, what then is the "rational" alternative? Vscode? If you don't mind using Microsoft funded software with a GUI focus, there's nothing stopping anyone. Nano would suffice for the overwhelming majority of Linux day to day file editing. It's like saying "I tend not to recommend doing your own complex mechanical maintenance at home". Probably smart for most people, it's a waste of their time to learn how to maintain a riding lawnmower that they use sparingly. However, similar arguments can be made for Vim, the overwhelming majority of users just don't need to use it. But there are those who want to do complex editing tasks, and there are those who use a riding lawnmower everyday of their lives at work, and it would be very helpful if the complexity of how to maintain it was explained to prevent constant outsourcing maintenance. Emacs allows for serious scriptability of tedious tasks. The upfront load required is usually not too much for people who want to do serious programming. There are people using emacs who don't need it, and in one sense that could be considered "irrational". But by that logic so is camping in the woods. You mention this briefly, but preference matters, and is only irrational if you don't recognize it as the reason you participate. The preference being foss and text centric is one not just "easily" replaced. Foss is easy to understand the advantage, text centric is a little harder, but really revolves around reducing mouse usage in my opinion, not too much mental gymnastics.

[removed]

Original: https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/opx6mb/sunk_cost_fallacy/

I don't think everyone who recommends or keeps using emacs succumb to the sunk cost fallacy. From the link, "a sunk cost is a sum paid in the past that is *no longer relevant* to decisions about the future." In the context of emacs usage, I understand this to be: no matter how much time I spend on emacs, the things I want to do never become significantly easier. However, this is not the case. There's only an initial high barrier pertaining to lisp, parentheses, keyboard-not-mouse, and knowing all the things that make life easier (describe-function/key, buffers and windows, other useful modes) and once you are over that barrier, things do become *significantly easier*. But indeed, if someone finds that no matter how much time they spend on emacs, things never become significantly easier, then yes, emacs might not be the right tool for them! For me, customizing emacs has actually been a plateauing rather than a never-ending process. Although honestly, I'd want to track my .emacs to see the amount of changes I have made each day/week over the years :D, to base my claim on proper evidence.

A new user’s perspective: I have been studying CS for about 2 years and have been an emacs user for more than a year. When I started learning CS, I used whatever editor the class recommended to expose myself to various editors and to make it easier to follow along. A class (Programming Languages Part A on Coursera) recommended emacs. So I tried it. I started with Doom emacs and fell in love with it, particularly because I could seamlessly go from programming to note taking and could even evaluate code blocks in my notes. Just this feature kept me using emacs. Very soon I found using Doom’s macros confusing when consulting other emacs resources and decided to make my own config from scratch, using System Crafters. This also enhanced my learning of CS. Programming for a practical use rather than a project taught me a lot of things about programming and how computers work that would have probably taken longer to learn otherwise, or maybe I would have never learned them. To me, emacs may not be the most feature-full editor, but it has been an invaluable learning tool and a lot of fun. I have been using neovim lately just to combat sunk cost fallacy. I also use other IDEs from time to time. I still think there is nothing like emacs, and it has a lot of practical value not easily replaced by other apps.

All you have to do is to try alternative ‘modern’ editors. You’ll find some good, fairly shallow features that are enticing but if you are a technical person, you’ll quickly notice and feel the pain from the lack of organized key sequences, ability to control windows and frames with desired buffers and placement of the text therein, instant completion frameworks like ivy, dired directory manipulation, Org editing and all the other largely consistent applications that people run every day within Emacs. The instantly easy-to-use solutions almost never represent interfaces that those concerned with productivity or more expert-level usage should choose. But shiny sells and that is why Emacs is introduced to but a subset of the potential user base. You have to make a choice of what is important to you and be open to non-intuitive interfaces/techniques to move beyond the average.

Hmmmm, that's not what OP means.

i've seen this point (sunk costs fallacy) a lot on here. i don't suffer from it at all. my mind does not work that way. if i see a superior tool, i use it. PERIOD. i need to use the best. that is why i fell in love with Emacs

So is OP a bot? Looking at their post history, it looks entirely random.