Editing Talk:1823: Hottest Editors

So Randall is saying that in 2005 Vim as the most popular editor, and no Emacs user bat an eye? I came here to see why, highly disappointed
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.230|108.162.229.230]] 00:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR, a procaryotic immune defense system that, coupled with Cas9, has been used by molecular biologists as a technology for precise edition of a the genome of virtually any organism.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.216|141.101.105.216]] 14:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC) LinVl

So.. the M-x crispr command? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.172|172.68.51.172]] 15:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)ZZ
:You mean `ESC:crispr` ?  [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.183|162.158.62.183]] 13:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
::Do you spend all of your time in insert mode? {{User:PoolloverNathan/Signature}} 00:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The first editors are not for machine-readable Text. But for sourcecode which is human-readable.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.192|162.158.90.192]] 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
:Well, the compiler or interpreter can hopefully read your source code, so in some sense it's machine-readable :P. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.112|172.68.54.112]] 18:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

i noticed the article fails to mention the comic declaring vim as the winner in 2005... kind of a huge oversight. mayhaps there is bias in the author of this wiki? mayhaps the author is a huge emacs fan?
:Maybe he's alluding to this with CRISPR-VIM in 2025.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.51|162.158.74.51]] 22:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
:As a 30+ year Emacs user, I too wanted to know why vim was declared the winner.  Is there some sort of objective basis for the declaration, or is it just a joke in the context of Emacs versus vi debate STILL going on?  [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.100|172.68.54.100]] 19:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised no female name is included. I mean, there must be lot of newspapers with female editors and some of them are likely hot. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Could CRISPR being the hottest editor refer to DNA computing? https://www.britannica.com/technology/DNA-computing

"Sublime Text is the current "most popular" text editor according to Randall[citation needed]". Citation needed? Someone should link that phrase to this comic then, LOL!

And I want to mention, this site has been looking all wrong and messed up on my iPad 1 for the last week or two. The entire left side is missing, being relegated to looking wrong below, the logo is gone, the buttons are in some different Times-looking font, and this comment text box is only using the centre half of the screen, horizontally. It's like a style sheet got corrupted. Or it's been made prejudiced against older devices and OSes. :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 03:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

:Have you tried turning it off and on again? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.46|162.158.114.46]] 21:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A modal editor with a modal modem : In the days of Hayes modems, using "+" in vi to move down a line (similar to "j") would not always work because "+++" sent in a short time period changes the modem from data mode to command mode. One could imagine a future Tesla having a debug mode entered through a similar key sequence.

: "Vim will make a comeback in DNA editing, thus having 'won' the battle with Emacs" - Why would Vim only win the battle with Emacs in 2025, when, according to the chart, Vim already was the hottest editor in 2005 (which Emacs never was)? --[[User:YMS|YMS]] ([[User talk:YMS|talk]]) 15:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

So CRISPR _was_ the hottest editor in 2020 all right. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.246.73|172.68.246.73]] 17:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm from the year 2020 to ask: ARE THERE ANY BAGELS LEFT?!?! But seriously, CRISPR is not the hottest editor of 2020. Maybe in 2025? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.57.55|172.68.57.55]] 19:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)