Live data from Hacker News

Emacs is sexy

emacs.sexy

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: Emacs is sexy

#71
post #34
post #4

I've been using Emacs for over 15 years now and I do almost all my work in it. The two things that I still haven't found good solutions for in emacs are available out of the box in almost every editor today: 1. Autocomplete of methods, classes, variables etc 2. Auto import statement organisation Yes I am aware of JDEE for #2 and I am aware of emacswiki/autocomplete but none of those solutions are as smooth, well inte…

ESS for R in statistics. For me Emacs is spectacular here. So what you are longing for is possible. https://ess.r-project.org/

I actually switched back to Rstudio, which has everything ESS has to offer (eg helm style autocomplete) plus much better autocomplete for tidy verse pipes.

Perhaps I'm missing some killer ESS features?

Re: Emacs is sexy

#72
post #37

I'd love to use emacs as my primary editor. But it's too slow compared to sublime.

I'd love to start using that super power tool with interchangeable heads from Black+Decker, but damn - it takes long time to recharge the batteries. I would rather stick to my knife and hand screwdriver. I'm so fast and efficient in using them.

Re: Emacs is sexy

#73
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ESS for R in statistics. For me Emacs is spectacular here. So what you are longing for is possible. https://ess.r-project.org/

I actually switched back to Rstudio, which has everything ESS has to offer (eg helm style autocomplete) plus much better autocomplete for tidy verse pipes. Perhaps I'm missing some killer ESS features?

I have not really used Rstudio, so I can't compare. I tried RStudio first, but then I was up and running with ESS effortlessly and have looked no further. Its the integration of Emacs with other development enviroments that keeps my life simple :-)

Re: Emacs is sexy

#74
post #44

Yeah right. Elisp was dynamic-scoping-only until version 24.1. That means elisp code written before that (i.e., 99.999% of emacs code that's not in C) as well as most of the code written after that, has essentially the feel of hacky cruft which will drown a modern programmer into an abyss of cognitive pain and headache when (s)he attempts to understand, modify, or debug it. (not unlike GOTO ridden spaghetti) How many…

Have you ever programmed with dynamic binding in Emacs Lisp or are you talking out of your ass? Because it's sort of obvious to me that the latter is the case here.

For 99.999% of cases in Emacs, there is no difference between dynamic and lexical binding regarding how code reads & feels.

Not to mention that Elisp was not dynamic-scoping-only (sic) until version 24.1, there exist lexical-let & friends.

Not to mention that guile-emacs is basically a hack at this point in time that very few ppl actually care about, the vast majority of Emacs users being very happy with Emacs Lisp.

Not to mention that even if guile-emacs becomes viable and more popular, it'll still be running Emacs Lisp on top of the Guile VM.

For someone that can't even get his facts straight you sure have a lot of strong opinions.

Re: Emacs is sexy

#75

The page's domain and title are disappointing to me. Using sexualized language can create an environment that is unduly hostile to women, even if this is not intended. Many of the biases against women that such language provokes are totally unconscious, so even if the intent is not harmful, it can be bad regardless. More info here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment Wording in this comment borr…

Oh, please. Sexiness does not have gender. Is being human acceptable anymore? Yes, do we sex and find things and people sexy, sometimes even text editors.

Re: Emacs is sexy

#76
post #44

Yeah right. Elisp was dynamic-scoping-only until version 24.1. That means elisp code written before that (i.e., 99.999% of emacs code that's not in C) as well as most of the code written after that, has essentially the feel of hacky cruft which will drown a modern programmer into an abyss of cognitive pain and headache when (s)he attempts to understand, modify, or debug it. (not unlike GOTO ridden spaghetti) How many…

Have you ever programmed with dynamic binding in Emacs Lisp or are you talking out of your ass? Because it's sort of obvious to me that the latter is the case here. For 99.999% of cases in Emacs, there is no difference between dynamic and lexical binding regarding how code reads & feels. Not to mention that Elisp was not dynamic-scoping-only (sic) until version 24.1, there exist lexical-let & friends. Not to mention…

Anyone who is used to coding in a Lisp with closures will be handicapped by a lambda that is just code without an environment.

It only makes next to no difference if you're writing Fortran in Lisp: just block scoped functions with parameters and locals, but no expectation of function indirection that carries environments.

You know, even Wirth's Pascal lets you at least pass a functional argument downward, with its lexical environment ("downward funarg")!

Lambdas with no environment can sort of fake downward funarg, if nothing is dynamically shadowed on the way down. I.e. (some-function (lambda () x)) If nothing in the activation chain inside some-function binds x between here and the point where the lambda is called, then we're good: the x dynamically resolves to our x. If something binds x, we have a bug. Or worse; we don't have a bug: it's set up that way on purpose.

Re: Emacs is sexy

#77
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually switched back to Rstudio, which has everything ESS has to offer (eg helm style autocomplete) plus much better autocomplete for tidy verse pipes. Perhaps I'm missing some killer ESS features?

I have not really used Rstudio, so I can't compare. I tried RStudio first, but then I was up and running with ESS effortlessly and have looked no further. Its the integration of Emacs with other development enviroments that keeps my life simple :-)

Could you clarify what you mean by "integration with other development environments"? I assume you're in data science -- could you describe how Emacs solve your need?

Also, am I correct in thinking that ESS company-mode autocomplete does not autocomplete data frame's variable names when using tidyverse's pipe?

Re: Emacs is sexy

#78

WOW a guy/organization accused of being a sexist/bigoted decides to market software as “SEXY”! Really!? do you want your 12 yo daughter picking her text editor because it’s “SEXY”!

Notice that the site is not affiliated with Emacs.

Re: Emacs is sexy

#79

The page's domain and title are disappointing to me. Using sexualized language can create an environment that is unduly hostile to women, even if this is not intended. Many of the biases against women that such language provokes are totally unconscious, so even if the intent is not harmful, it can be bad regardless. More info here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment Wording in this comment borr…

Are you implying only females can be sexy?

Re: Emacs is sexy

#80
post #9

Emacs itself isn't sexy; the sole reason I use emacs is the power and extensibility offered by emacs lisp. If vim used elisp instead of shudders vimscript, I would use it in a heartbeat.

Alexander Burger, the author of PicoLisp, wrote vip as a proof of concept: http://picolisp.com/wiki/?vip Regarding extensibility, would it even be possible to embed Guile or ECL (or Lua or John Walker's ATLAST) into an existing editor? Perhaps not Vim, but maybe classic vi or nvi?

Vim has actually long had Scheme integration (in the form of plt-scheme and then racket). So you could actually script vim in Scheme. The problem is that virtually no one ever does.

Last I checked, almost all vim scripts were written in vimscript (with Python starting to make some headway). If any non-vimscript language is going to be the future of vim scripting, it's probably going to be python rather than Lisp or Scheme. So if you were going to start writing Scheme scripts in vim, you'd be pretty much the only one.

Compare that to emacs, where virtually the entire gigantic emacs ecosystem is written in Elisp. It's an Elisp ecosystem and community you'd be participating in were you to write in Elisp for emacs. Leveraging that enormous codebase and community is a huge win for emacs that you're not going to get in vim unless you program in vimscript or maybe to some extent in python.

So if you're interested in vimscript or maybe python, vim seems like a good choice, while those interested in Elisp or maybe Scheme would probably be much better off in emacs.

As for Lua, how many vim scripts are written in Lua? I would guess it's about as popular as Scheme is for vim, which is to say virtually not at all. In any case, it's not a Lisp, so I'm not sure how much interest there would be from the Lisp/Scheme communities in programming in it vs something like python, which seems to have more traction in the vim world. It would be a step up from vimscript, though, that's for sure. But, again, there is no Lua ecosystem for vim, so being the only one writing Lua scripts for vim is not hugely attractive for most people.

Just my two cents.

Post reply on HN