Every time you are looking for a text editor, no matter what language you are using, vi and Emacs are hall-of-famers.

However they are ancient, and we have better alternatives (at least I hope we do).

Why are developers stuck on these two editors? Shouldn't we drop them and try to invent or look for something new?

(I have full respect for Emacs and vi fans).

  • 19
    Actually I prefer Vi, I can't stand Emacs :)
    – Chiron
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 1:14
  • 29
    Obligatory XKCD reference: xkcd.com/378 Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 1:37
  • 37
    The list of alternatives is tellingly absent. :)
    – snakehiss
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 4:46
  • 25
    just another "new is better by definition" example... so wrong, as always.
    – jwenting
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 5:55
  • 27
    and we have better alternatives (at least I hope we do). If we do, I am not aware of them. Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 12:47

20 Answers 20


The main reasons why I prefer a terminal-based editor over a full-fledged IDE:

  • Remote access. I can ssh to whatever computer I need to be on, fire up Vim and start working away. In a day-to-day basis, using screen session and Vim allows for easy access from any location.
  • Keystrokes. There are so many keystrokes saved once you can utilise Emacs or Vim to a decent extent. Moving my hand between the keyboard and mouse annoys me...

IDEs are nice to throw classes around within your project, but for me, my productivity is orders of magnitudes higher using Vim.

  • 7
    +1 forgot about remote access, and I use that every day.
    – Jeff
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 1:19
  • 7
    I know of a number of GUI editors that can remote-access files via ssh (scp, sftp), with the UI running locally.
    – geekosaur
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 1:20
  • 14
    I wonder if the amount of time saved by learning the keyboard layout make up for the massive amount of time it takes to get used to such a weird scheme? That is the #1 thing that turned me off to VI. Tools are supposed to make me more productive, not force me to learn some strange keyboard layout so that I can be slightly more efficient 6 months to a year down the road. Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 1:48
  • 2
    That said, I have seen some VI wizards do some amazing things, I just don't have the time or need to become proficient at it. Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 3:01
  • 43
    @Ed S., how long do you plan to be a programmer? I learned VI 30 years ago. Believe me it's paid off (though of course these days I use VIM). Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 3:16

Programmers are notorious for using the tools that helps them get the job done in the most efficient way possible. These editors are ancient yet still being used because they are good, solid editors, proven by time. If they get the job done and get the job done well, why should we drop them in favor of something else?

  • 17
    +1 - programmers are terrible like that. Everyone knows that new things are always better. NOT! :-)
    – Stephen C
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 7:07
  • They're also installed by default on *nix systems and the Windows PCs to access those systems are often locked down by policy, so vim and emacs are really the only things we've got. Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 17:57
  • 3
    Wish i could upvote this more than once! Vim gets things done, ...fast! Commented Aug 27, 2012 at 22:11
  • 2
    "nano" is a good "I just want to edit a file and do it NOW" tool. Beyond that you have a learning curve. Commented Oct 28, 2016 at 12:40

You assume they don't evolve. Emacs continues to grow by leaps and bounds; and, while vi was getting kind of hoary, Vim has rejuvenated it and if anything it's growing (feature-wise at least) faster than Emacs.

But when it comes down to it, it's what you work best with that matters. If you're most productive in Eclipse, more power to you. Same if you prefer Vim.

  • 2
    How exactly is Emacs "still growing"?
    – user1249
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 6:15
  • 13
    @Thorbjørn: The core is fairly static, but it doesn't really need to change; when it comes down to it, Emacs is a core Elisp interpreter with interfaces to window systems and terminal environments, augmented by a huge number of libraries. (Take a look sometime at how much of basic Emacs is written in Elisp.) I see a fair number of Elisp packages extending its functionality appearing regularly, as well as updates to existing packages to e.g. add new refactoring mechanisms. (The same is going on with Vim.)
    – geekosaur
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 6:28
  • 5
    It is, BTW, a testament to the design of Emacs that most of the changes to the core are adding support for the latest new libraries for X11 etc.; Elisp is powerful enough already that most new features at that level can themselves be implemented in Elisp, rather than requiring changes to the core.
    – geekosaur
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 6:37
  • 2
    If I recall correctly the only reason Emacs is not written 100% in Lisp is that the time critical segments was rewritten in C.
    – user1249
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 10:00
  • 4
    @kevin, the major difference between Emacs and almost everything else is exactly that you can redefine PgUp, or Ctrl-X PgUp, or Mouse-2 PgUp to whatever you want.
    – user1249
    Commented Apr 11, 2011 at 20:08

Many (most?) of the best programmers I know despise IDEs and rely solely on Emacs. I am not quite so diehard, and use both Eclipse and Emacs, but there are a couple of reasons I prefer using Emacs:

  • Consistent experience with ANY language - Support in Eclipse for some of the newer languages (Scala, Clojure, etc.) is inconsistent at best, and subpar at worst. The plugin authors are hard at work improving the experience, but I often run into little things that feel janky. Sure you can always switch to another IDE which has better support for that particular language, but now you are juggling IDEs. I've never felt this way while working in Emacs.

  • I dislike IDE "magic" - IDEs tend to do a lot of stuff automatically in the name of convenience. This is great...until something breaks. Then it can be a frustrating or even infuriating process getting things back on track.

I've been toying with the idea of switching to Redcar editor. It's extensible like Emacs, but instead of Emacs Lisp you use JRuby. It's lightweight, and definitely not a full blown IDE. If you are into TextMate, it's compatible with TextMate bundles, but it has the benefits of being free and open source. Definitely a tool worth checking out, especially for Ruby developers.

  • +1 dislike for "IDE magic". I'm still learning, I want to know how things work under the hood, not have it all hidden from me! (This isn't true when I'm in a time crunch & learning is a distant secondary goal - then the rule of "whatever tool works" applies)
    – Beekguk
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 17:07
  • If a programmer do not use an IDE for Java programming, I fail to see how they can possibly be one of the "best programmers". Modern IDE's like IntelliJ do so much work for you that simply keeping up with that takes quite a bit of time. Commented Oct 28, 2016 at 12:42
  • @ThorbjørnRavnAndersen My opinion on this has shifted in the last 5 years, and these days I use Intellij for all my java and scala development. In my defense, 2016 Intellij is not at all comparable to 2011 Eclipse (which is what this answer is referring to). I still use emacs when I write Clojure, and in general I find IDEs a lot less useful when working in a language with dynamic types.
    – dbyrne
    Commented Oct 28, 2016 at 14:28

shouldn't we drop them and trying to invent or looking for something new?

tl;dr: Many people don't want to learn a new editor

The full answer:

A UNIX wizard hears cries of torment from his apprentice's computer room where the apprentice is studying, and goes to investigate.

He finds the apprentice in obvious distress, nearly on the verge of tears. "What's the problem?" he asks. "Why did you cry out?"

"It's terrible using this system. I must use four editors each day to get my studies done, because not one of them does everything."

The wizard nods sagely, and asks, "And what would you propose that will solve this obvious dilemma?"

The student thinks carefully for several minutes, and his face then lights up in delight. Excitedly, he says, "Well, it's obvious. I will write the best editor ever. It will do everything that the existing four editors do, but do their jobs better, and faster. And because of my new editor, the world will be a better place."

The wizard quickly raises his hand and smacks the apprentice on the side of his head. The wizard is old and frail, and the apprentice isn't physically hurt, but is shocked by what has happened. He turns his head to face the wizard. "What have I done wrong?" he asks.

"Fool!" says the wizard. "Do you think I want to learn yet another editor?"

Immediately, the apprentice is enlightened. http://neugierig.org/content/unix/

  • 1
    Please inline answers so they are self-standing.
    – user1249
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 6:16
  • 1
    I don't think it is nice to copy and paste just like that from other people's website... So I add a tl;dr version instead.
    – Hery
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 7:28
  • 2
    It would appear that the apprentice went on to write emacs. vi instead made it more convenient to interact with the other tools.
    – intuited
    Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 21:28
  • 1
    That anecdote is same as the propagation idea behind the "Standards" comic strip in XKCD, but switch standards with text editors.
    – Spoike
    Commented Nov 9, 2012 at 14:02

I think the IDE's (Visual Studio, Eclipse, IntelliJ) are fit to solve another class of problems than the ones you solve with emacs / Vim.

When you have a large platform to code on, with lots of libraries and high integration between all elements (sounds like Microsoft), an IDE will prove it's worth. Some will refer to this as "sticking libraries together" and don't suppose it to be "real code". It will help you greatly though when catching errors early (in a way even Emacs can't).

When you develop end-user applications for (say) Android, you can actually do it without Eclipse. However, with all sorts of files that need to be added before deploying, Eclipse will help you a great deal by automating those tasks for you.

So if you're an application developer working on only one platform with lots of libraries (developing Enterprise-class applications in Java EE, .NET etc.) an IDE will be an "improvement" in your workflow. However, as soon as you have to work regularly in a terminal environment (on Unix-servers, for example) or you're using lots of different languages, No IDE can measure against the qualities Vim / emacs.

One last thing is that working using Vim / emacs forces you to understand at least a bit of a platform / language before using it. Many IDEs allow you to operate in a language without knowing what's going on; so using Vim / emacs will force yourself to gain some insight in what you're really doing.

  • 7
    I've always considered IDEs to be more of a build environment than a development environment.
    – TMN
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 17:25
  • "working using Vim / emacs forces you to understand at least a bit of a platform / language before using it. Many IDEs allow you to operate in a language without knowing what's going on; so using Vim / emacs will force yourself to gain some insight in what you're really doing." -- This is absolute rubbish. It's as if you don't even know what programming languages and editors are.
    – Jim Balter
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 4:33

In the course of some 40 years in computing, as student and professional, I have used at least fifteen (15) different editors and IDEs. Of all of them, emacs was by far the best, then and now.

First, I spend too much time bouncing around among multiple files and multiple places inside individual files to have a good experience with any editor that refuses to let me see more than one file at time, or more than two at one time. Emacs is the only editor or IDE I have seen that lets me see everything I need at once. (Some years back, while exploring a legacy system, I routinely had eight (8) panes open in an emacs window. Even today, I routinely have three or four panes open, and sometimes I will have two or three invocations of emacs open, because I need multiple shells, and I need to copy and paste results among them.)

Second, I'm still only human, and I do occasionally make mistakes. Every other editor I have ever used was perfectly happy to let me shoot my foot off, WITHOUT WARNING, with no ability to recover, leaving me wanting to commit unspeakably vile, violent acts against the author of said GDPOS. (The ones that got me weren't QUITE as bad as the crock that almost got Charles Simonyi lynched while he was at Xerox PARC, before he went to Microsoft and inflicted Hungarian notation on the world - an act for which lynching is entirely too soft a punishment.) Emacs has never done this to me; it has never irrevocably destroyed anything without giving me a BIG warning. Back when I was still new to emacs, I would occasionally go "What just happened?", and I invariably figured out what I'd done in a few seconds, and knew how to repair it just as quickly.

There is no such thing as an editor that actually ENHANCES productivity. The best you can get is minimal degradation of productivity. The metric, for me, is "How bad does this thing slow me down?" Compared to emacs, on the kinds of things I normally do, everything else is far worse.

My ONLY gripe with emacs was that it was not available for Oberon, when I was playing with Oberon quite a few years ago.

  • Intrigued by your 15 IDE experience: why don't you add some wisdom on VIM ?? Commented Apr 25, 2017 at 8:21
  • Let me put it this way. I am a trained hypnotist. Hypnotists are taught the importance of precise, clear language. When I say "every other editor I have ever used", I mean EVERY other editor I have ever used. When I say "Emacs is the only editor or IDE I have seen that lets me see everything I need at once", I mean that it is the ONLY such editor or IDE. That specifically includes vi. I haven't used VIM, specifically, but it is my understanding that it is a vi clone, which leads me to expect it to share vi's deficiencies. Commented Apr 25, 2017 at 15:15
  • Ever watched someone open more than 1 file in vi/m ? Open file, open other file, open new terminal, ... Maybe vim has a better solution for that problem, but if so, I've not observed anyone using it. Agree on the multiple files, but I think customizability is key, and I'm sure vim can be made to have buffers :)
    – bytepusher
    Commented Feb 2, 2020 at 10:41

Aside from a little bit of BASIC as a kid, I learned programming on Unix. The Unix philosophy is to have many smaller tools that interoperate, but that each focus on doing one job and doing it well. Hence, it feels natural to me to have separate software for editing, compiling, source control, and debugging. Interestingly, IDEs are "integrated," but you still can't fit all that functionality into one window all at once, so you end up with things like perspectives, where you are essentially switching modes between those different tasks anyway, albeit with some overlap.

I could turn it around and ask why people tolerate painfully slow non-vim editing. The best way I can describe the feeling of watching someone edit code that way is that it feels like when you get stuck behind a car going 10 mph too slow because he's on the phone, or like watching a relatively fast hunt-and-peck typist. They're going fast enough to get the job done, but at the same time slow enough to be maddening.

A lot of people say they spend most of their time thinking anyway, so a little bit faster editing doesn't make much difference. In that case, typing is an interruption, and a few extra seconds of editing can make the difference between keeping your train of thought or having to regain it. Also, if you're a long-time touch typist, you know that your fingers type common words without you even consciously thinking which keys to hit. When you're a long-time vim user, that kind of fluidity comes for things like moving lines and words around. In the time it takes to say "delete" in "delete those 2 lines" my fingers have already done it and my concentration is completely unbroken.

Vim is also extremely customizable, and your installed plugins and vimrc evolve as your work evolves. When something starts getting in your way, you look up a better way to do it, and incorporate that into your configuration or commonly used commands. I learned vi in 1993, and still make customizations when my needs change. Just this week I changed my tab filename completion to work more like bash's, because my workflow changed to do a lot more of that recently and the default behavior was getting on my nerves.

Also, I disagree about it not being worth the time to learn. It took way longer for me to learn to touch type than to feel productive in vi, for a similar boost in code editing speed, but you don't see programmers complaining about how long it took to learn to touch type. And you can learn at your own speed and add new commands to your repertoire as you have the inclination. If you start out with set im in your vimrc (stands for insertmode, but I affectionately call it idiotmode for when a colleague needs to type at my desk), you might not even realize you're using vim at all!

  • 1
    +1 I learned emacs back in 1991 - my alternative at the time was the Sunos Notepad. Yuck. I vowed to give myself 1/2 day to learn the basics of emacs and if I could not pick it up in that I would give it up. Well, 20 years later I'm still using emacs, and like you I have slowly gathered a list of tailorings and cusomisings - but only when something irritates me. I can do things FAST in emacs. I use IDEs as well, and thins like not having multiple source files open alonside each other, or split file panes drives me crazy! Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 6:11

I'm a Vim user.

I have to use IDEs due to the projects that I'm working on, you can't circumvent that sometimes. I'm quite proficient at using Code::Blocks and Eclipse, however, whenever possible, I like the user interface of said IDEs to work like the one from Vim.

I have my own color scheme for Vim and I want the text editors of other IDEs to work in exactly the same way.

I'd wish for an IDE, that's missing the text editor, and where I can plug-in the editor I want. Wouldn't it be nice, If I could plug in my standard Vim into Emacs or Code::Blocks, but having the rest of the IDE around it?

It somehow escaped the scope of IDE developers, but I secretly wish for it almost always, when either I'm using only Vim and Makefiles for larger projects, or an IDE and its cumbersome text editor.

  • 1
    Supposedly, NetBeans+Vim can do that. Vim even has some built-in features specifically for NetBeans integration. (I haven't tried, as I've never needed NetBeans' features.)
    – greyfade
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 21:07
  • github.com/jaredpar/VsVim and viemu.com Commented Sep 15, 2011 at 17:44
  • 1
    Emacs has EVIL - Extensible VI Layer for emacs.
    – user12345
    Commented Sep 10, 2014 at 23:31
  • 1
    Eclim allows you to use Vim (actual Vim, not just Vim emulation) as your editor in Eclipse and similarly enables Vim to take advantage of some of Eclipse's features.
    – 8bittree
    Commented Nov 13, 2015 at 19:13
  • 1
    Looking back at this question and my answer, it's kind of a non-sequitur. I know that there are usually options to make the stock editor of whatever IDE to work like either Vim or Emacs. The general idea that most users of Vim and Emacs have, when having to work with an IDE all of a sudden, is they can't use their favorite editors. I've recently come across this, as I know have to use Vivado, a VHDL IDE.
    – polemon
    Commented Nov 15, 2015 at 7:30

My IDE of choice is Linux. Heck, it can run other IDEs, serve websites, execute programs in a variety of languages, and by combining stuff (the pipe) it can run programs together that were written in different languages as though they were one. That thing is awesome. Oh, and it can connect to the internet and do all sorts of interesting things with it too, including spawning other versions of itself. Coolio!

Don't settle for an IDE when you already have linux.

  • Unfortunately "vi" is standard on Unix systems so you cannot get rid of it.
    – user1249
    Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 21:20
  • 2
    vi is fine. it's a text editor. Commented Apr 11, 2011 at 15:49

I use Emacs as my primary editor. The only other editors I ever considered seriously were vim and TextMate. IDEs (and I tried a few including Eclipse) have not had the features I needed.

I actually had this conversation with a coworker of mine not to long ago. He was telling me how much better IDE are while he was using his mouse to click a bunch of buttons and menus. That just made me laugh.

I'll try out any editor with the following capabilities (all of which are critical the way I develop).

  • all commands can be executed by customizable key-bindings
  • allows remote editing with ssh (yes Emacs has remote editing)
  • allows on the fly macro creation and reuse
  • tightly integrated programming language
  • code and execute using the programming language on the fly
  • tight integration with GBD and family
  • multi-language syntax highlighting in the same buffer
  • autocompletion of keywords, variables, functions, etc

I also tend to do meta programming which often renders auto-refactor tools useless; the one area I think IDEs do tend be good at.


Others editors with a similarly rich heritage (and controversy) have been invented, and maybe it's just a matter of time before we switch from tools first written in the 1970s (vi/Emacs) to one from the 1980s (Sam) or even one from the 1990s (Acme).

"Sam is the preferred text editor of many eminent computer scientists; it replaced ed as Ken Thompson's favorite text editor, and he still uses it to this day. Sam is the text editor used by Bjarne Stroustrup and Brian Kernighan. Others, like Dennis Ritchie, have moved on to use Acme instead." Here's the Sam article from Wikipedia.

But what do I know, I'm still using Vim.

  • Nitpicks: Vim is from the 1990s too, and GNU Emacs (which is not that similar to the original Editor MACros) is from the 1980s. Neither are really from the 1970s. And I agree that Acme should be remembered more often.
    – rsenna
    Commented Nov 14, 2013 at 4:09

Am I the only person who still uses ed occasionally?

(And for those folks who think code bloat is relevant ...

$ size /bin/ed 
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  42160    2300       0   44460    adac /bin/ed
$ size /bin/vi
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
 692378   27796   13884  734058   b336a /bin/vi
$ size /usr/bin/emacs
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
2033257 4692020       0 6725277  669e9d /usr/bin/emacs


Another advantage of ed is that you can run it on a teletype ... or the dumbest of dumb terminals.

  • Note that pure binary size isn't everything. That emacs binary has quite a lot of its supporting library dumped in, so you may want to compare the size of the full "standard" macro library as well. essays.hexapodia.net/emacs-large is a comparison from 3 years ago
    – Vatine
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 13:10
  • +1 for using ed. "When I was growing up we didn't have interactivity and we liked it that way!"
    – snakehiss
    Commented Apr 4, 2011 at 17:00
  • @Vatine - my point is not that emacs is large. My point is that ed is small. I don't need to show how large emacs really is to make that point.
    – Stephen C
    Commented Apr 5, 2011 at 5:44
  • 8
    Only person? Probably not. Only person doing so voluntarily, probably so.
    – user1249
    Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 21:18
  • 4
    When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!! Not a “viitor”. Not a “emacsitor”. Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!! - gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html
    – user1249
    Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 21:19

"Better" is a subjective word. If i am happy and productive using a text editor, who is X or Y or Z to say "drop it and use something else"? If it is a corporate policy or such that makes it a can't-but situation then we have no choice though.


I supposed I am an odd duck, but I actually use different editors, depending on the situation.


When I am connected (ssh'd) onto a distant server (for example looking at the logs) and I want to quickly edit a file and make some tweak. Much faster than navigating to the same folder (SAN hosted) from my local desktop.


About the same situation: for a quick edit, but this time when I just don't want to wait for Eclipse (corporate IDE) to load.


It's the corporate IDE where I work. We have some in-house plugins to be able to launch the build from Eclipse on a remote machine directly... and most importantly a plugin to locate the libraries produced by other teams and that we're working with (and replicate the headers in local for fast indexing). Since I am talking a good thousands of libraries... it's really useful ;)

OpenGrok / Doxygen:

More code browsing than edition proper, but still very useful! My browser is configured to navigate, so it's put to good use here.

As a conclusion: I just tend to use whatever editor allows me to accomplish the task with relative ease and decent speed.

  • 1
    +1 For different editors depending on the situation. I'm pretty much the same.
    – Spoike
    Commented Nov 9, 2012 at 14:05

I'd rather eat my own hands than use either one of them. I loved Visual Studio when I was doing C++. Eclipse is meh. IntelliJ IDEA is excellent. I used to love JBuilder too, but I haven't used it for years.

  • JBuilder hasn't been around for years (at least in any meaningful sense). It's been so far outclassed by IntelliJ and Eclipse that there is no reason to try to go back. Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 13:10
  • ah well. never tried Net Beans tho I've heard good things about that. Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 17:37
  • 2
    hmmmm, finger food :)
    – snakehiss
    Commented Apr 10, 2011 at 23:24

Sometimes I'll be working on mostly bare systems, where the only installed editor is vi. For cases like those, it really helps to know at least basic vi commands.

vi and emacs are also very extendable, so much that they indeed can be full functioning IDEs with the right amount of plugins. For me, I can edit files much faster in vi, as I don't have to take my hands off of the keyboard to move a mouse around. It also has features that I haven't seen in some IDEs (although I admit I haven't looked much), like being able to edit columns of text, storing multiple "cut" words into multiple buffers for pasting, etc.

The editors take some time to learn, but they are also really powerful. And yes, they're not for everybody.

An interesting somewhat related read is Why should I use an IDE?

  • +1: Knowing the standard editor on bare systems by heart will save you (or your job) some day.
    – user1249
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 6:17

I stick to vi because it was the first editor I learned in school and it is the one that I'm the most productive with today. I work with a lot of unix variants and it is available on all of them (and it works the same way regardless of environment). It does what I need it to do, so why change for the sake of changing.

I do use an IDE for my java work (now Intellij Idea), but I spend a lot of my time using vi.


Are there better alternatives? Just the other day I had a list of schema names that I had to shorten (thanks, Oracle!). At least half of them ended in the word "Test". I decided to drop the "Test" from the end and prefix the name with "T". In vi, this was a simple regex search-and-replace, are there any recent editors that can do this?

  • A few. I know NoteTab, TextMate, e editor, and several others have regex search/replace. But none really make it as accessible as Vi. :)
    – greyfade
    Commented Mar 25, 2011 at 16:06
  • Visual Studio, which seems to be everyone's favourite "bloated IDE" has search-and-replace with regex and reasonably discoverable too. Commented Mar 27, 2011 at 20:40
  • i would probably drop back to teh command line and do it as a perl or awk one liner, but vim would work as well
    – Zachary K
    Commented Apr 5, 2011 at 14:08
  • 1
    Emacs has a search-and-replace with regex, you know.
    – mrr
    Commented Apr 30, 2014 at 11:07

Right now, I'm finding myself working half the time in, of all things, nano, simply because it's the tool that fits the job - editing small scripts on the commandline over ssh. Using Eclipse for that would be like a waiter using a turbo-powered infomercial-style slice-dice-chop-and-blend food processor to grind pepper over my salad.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.