I jotted down some thoughts on the future of editors like #Emacs and #Vim in the age of AI https://batsov.com/articles/2026/03/09/emacs-and-vim-in-the-age-of-ai/
I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on the subject as well.
I jotted down some thoughts on the future of editors like #Emacs and #Vim in the age of AI https://batsov.com/articles/2026/03/09/emacs-and-vim-in-the-age-of-ai/
I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on the subject as well.
@bbatsov I'd mainly want to discuss on the basis of the chapter »Do you even need a “power tool” anymore?«.
You write »all of it is in service of making the human more efficient at the mechanical act of coding« — but that's not the point: it's to give the human a faster way to put their thoughts to canvas, thus reducing interruption of those thoughts, and to give them more time to /have/ thoughts.
Put that way, I don't see how LLMs help at all, and frankly, I actually do believe they don't.
@bbatsov You write: »Cursor can scaffold an entire application in an afternoon« — but it can't. It can throw together random existing snippets that look like they might plausibly work, and iterate on them until it compiles and, if it is nothing innovative, might even resemble something you expected too.
Imagine a random PO send you some code with the note »hey, I just made this, can you put it into prod?« — aren't you shuddering? This is just automated script kiddies with even less props.
@bbatsov These two assumptions — about the goal of an editor, and about the quality of LLM output — are just two facets of the misconceptions that lead some people to actively drown the world in slop.
No, the job of actually understanding will not go away. But a lot of people will get hurt on the way to understanding that.
I believe that it is our job not to casually spread or tolerate such misconceptions, but to try to mitigate the damage.