Live data from Hacker News

Emacs 26.3

lists.gnu.org

21–30 of 165 posts

Re: Emacs 26.3

#21

NEWS: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/news/NEWS.26.3

This page is being rendered as DejaVu Sans Mono on my Debian Firefox. This font apparently does not have the Form Feed character [1], so I am getting a bunch of nonrendered characters, once before every * heading (but not before ).

Incidentally, my emacs font face is also the same, so I am also getting a bunch of ^L in emacs C-h n.

[1] https://unicode-table.com/en/000C/

Re: Emacs 26.3

#22
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Windows version is complete unusable for me because of how slow magit is on Windows (though that's not the fault of magit or emacs). I haven't yet tried WSL (I run Windows on a work issued laptop), so my emacs sessions run in a Linux VM to get acceptable performance.

> how slow magit is on Windows I am relieved, though, that it's not just me.

From my experience, Anything that launches subprocesses is slow on Windows.

Re: Emacs 26.3

#23

NEWS: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/news/NEWS.26.3

This page is being rendered as DejaVu Sans Mono on my Debian Firefox. This font apparently does not have the Form Feed character [1], so I am getting a bunch of nonrendered characters, once before every * heading (but not before ). Incidentally, my emacs font face is also the same, so I am also getting a bunch of ^L in emacs C-h n. [1] https://unicode-table.com/en/000C/

Is Form Feed ever a character that a font renders? It’s whitespace, after all. And (hard to be certain on the phone) this “website” is likely just a text file. Maybe Firefox just does not like form feed in general.

That emacs displays form feeds as the Control character ^L (which it is) is also normal, and if you just curled the file confirms that it’s just a plain old text file.

Re: Emacs 26.3

#24
I'm sick of managing 5-6 different installs of language server protocol servers. A couple are installed with my package manager (clangd), some are installed with pip (pyls), some I just have symlinked into ~/.local/bin (microsoft/python-language-server). It's overly difficult to get right.

If anyone is aware of a better way, especially for emacs users, I'd appreciate it. Is this something where docker or snapd might fit in well?

Re: Emacs 26.3

#25

I'm sick of managing 5-6 different installs of language server protocol servers. A couple are installed with my package manager (clangd), some are installed with pip (pyls), some I just have symlinked into ~/.local/bin (microsoft/python-language-server). It's overly difficult to get right. If anyone is aware of a better way, especially for emacs users, I'd appreciate it. Is this something where docker or snapd might…

I just use spacemacs and it handles that for me.

Re: Emacs 26.3

#26
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a long time Windows users, I could not understand why anyone would love emacs. It's slow on Windows and locked up often for me. When I switched to Linux on the desktop though, I understood. Input latency in emacs is less than in gnome terminal for me. Never thought I would say that emacs feel snappier than vim, but that seems to be the case in my current setup. Also, I recently discovered magit and now I don't hat…

Emacs performance in general (not just Windows) has been a complaint forever. Back when Emacs was first launched, and machine memory was measured in megabytes, people joked it stood for Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping.

Only back then it was true. Now it’s only slow on Windows for some reason (and maybe not universally so, though I don’t use Windows enough to have bothered investigating).

Re: Emacs 26.3

#27
post #5

Any improvements for the Windows GUI ? I find it to work better with WSL and VcXsrv.

Where did you found Emacs 26.3 for Windows? The official FTP site has only 26.2 as the latest Windows binary.

Re: Emacs 26.3

#28
I recently tried to seriously use Emacs over my usual Vim. Mainly because I've got so used to the GNU readline emacs shortcuts in the terminal and quite like the idea of not having to switch between command and insert mode, but damn after looking into some configuration options it really is a massively complicated piece of software, I mean not to start using it, it's probably easier than Vim but just looking at all the various modes, plugins, the whole ecosystem behind it. Even emacs lisp doesn't put me off, with some albeit minor exposure to Scheme and Clojure in the past. Especially now that I have got comfortable with Vim having no plugins but knowing enough Vimscript to be productive, I really don't think I'll switch, it's too much of a commitment.

Re: Emacs 26.3

#29

Great job a very good example of programmable editor. Emacs had been my work horse since 2002 and never disappointed. In the meantime tried many ide only vim and emacs stayed with me. Sometimes do use nano and sublime text but then back to either emacs or vi. All those shiny IDE based on electron, Java or C++ are just too slow to be productive be it VScode, atom or eclipse or visual studio or kdevelop. I am forced to…

Testify, friend.

Re: Emacs 26.3

#30
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This page is being rendered as DejaVu Sans Mono on my Debian Firefox. This font apparently does not have the Form Feed character [1], so I am getting a bunch of nonrendered characters, once before every * heading (but not before ). Incidentally, my emacs font face is also the same, so I am also getting a bunch of ^L in emacs C-h n. [1] https://unicode-table.com/en/000C/

Is Form Feed ever a character that a font renders? It’s whitespace, after all. And (hard to be certain on the phone) this “website” is likely just a text file. Maybe Firefox just does not like form feed in general. That emacs displays form feeds as the Control character ^L (which it is) is also normal, and if you just curled the file confirms that it’s just a plain old text file.

You're correct: FF is not a printable character. But I'm seeing the same issue with Firefox on Windows (with some monospace font). I suspect that the issue is what Firefox complains about in the developer console: The file does not have a defined encoding. In fact, the Content-Type header is completely missing. I guess that those replacement glyphs are just Firefox playing it safe in the face of uncertainty regarding the character encoding.
Post reply on HN