Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> We have an .editorconfig file[0], which is a cross-editor file that can be >> used to specify these settings. It is supported by many editors out of > ... > Also, we don't have to support configurations for every editor under > the sun, that's a slippery slope fallacy. > > We can stop at 1 editor: the most widely used editor by developers by far [1]. > > Cheers. > > [1] https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/packages#query=vim It shows 71% (for vim-runtime), that is a lot higher than ~20% for emacs. Amusingly, https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/packages#query=nano tells us that nano clicks at 80%, which makes it the editor with the largest number with your yardstick ;-) [*2*]. In any case, I think it is a worthy goal to ship a sample set of "vimrc" entries that people can readily accept for their use. It also is a reasonable "feature request" to consider doing something similar to "editorconfig" to give other editors similar convenience. [Footnote] *2* In other words, I doubt these graphs are depicting "how widely is an editor used by developers". It is just showing how often it is installed, and I know the primary workstation I use daily has vim and nano installed without me choosing to have them, as opposed to emacs I had to manually install, and I only use vim once every month and nano once every quarter. Note that I do not doubt vim is popular. It is popular and it makes sense to include it in the set of "first class" editors that deserve priority treatment when we allocate engineering effort to support. I just do not think these graphs are the best supporting material for the claim you made "the most widely used editor by developers".
