Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life is 90% of my use cases for org-mode

stormrider.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 264 posts

Re: Life is 90% of my use cases for org-mode

#211

Post by abnry »

b112 wrote: post #165
abnry wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For want of a margin the kingdom was lost. I hate no margins and use the Goyo vim plugin to make my editing experience more pleasurable.

I am always looking for a better editing experience, who knows what I might be missing. Yet, after visiting Goyo's github, reading the README, looking about, I still have zero idea what this plugin does. How/what is made distraction free, by this plugin? How is vim distracting prior to its use? A shout out to all, in a thread where the word umwelt is used... actually explain to others, what your code is actually for.…

Make the terminal full screen then run Goyo for a distraction free experience. It adds margins on right and left like in Word to center the text, except in vim there isn't a toolbar on top or gray space on the sides.

Re: Life is 90% of my use cases for org-mode

#212

Post by codygman »

burntoutfire wrote: post #150
sverhagen wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that most companies would not find it adequate for the compliance regulations to be implemented "client-side". Mine would certainly answer your question: "how would you do the following in Sublime" with: "not at all", or: "please don't". As for your former point of configurability; all power to you; I think that there is a spectrum where many folks choose to be more on the end of the spectrum where there is p…

> I think that most companies would not find it adequate for the compliance regulations to be implemented "client-side". Mine would certainly answer your question: "how would you do the following in Sublime" with: "not at all", or: "please don't". Yep, exactly. The most natural solution to this problem is some kind of git hook on the git server. Nobody cares about the changes I make locally before I push them to a br…

The point is the level of configurability and that you can remove all sharp edges from within emacs.

Then when you sync your Emacs config to your laptop, those sharp edges remain gone.

Examples like this, especially those widely meaningful to everyone, are nearly impossible to craft.

It's like seeing different paths of movement before trying parkour and after training a few weeks.

Re: Life is 90% of my use cases for org-mode

#213

Post by ashton314 »

I was but a wee lad of seven years when my father took me to a closet in our family office/craft room space and gave me a login to a FreeBSD machine running there. He showed me how to use Emacs and mutt—I sent my first email via a TUI.

It's been almost two decades since then, and I still use Emacs every day. I only recently got into org-mode. Boy was I missing out. I felt like a wizard compared to my classmates and peers, but now I feel like I've seriously leveled up.

What motivated me to learn how to use org-mode was a nice solution that worked on mobile. My favorite org-mode client for mobile is beorg [1]. (No relation to the app, other than a happy customer.) For general note files, I generally use Working Copy.

If you'd like to get into org-mode but are held back by the experience on mobile, give beorg a try. You will thank yourself.

[1]: https://beorgapp.com/

Re: Life is 90% of my use cases for org-mode

#214

Post by ssivark »

na85 wrote: post #13
lgessler wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone wrote an open source clone of Emacs that adopted some sane defaults, modern UI conventions, and dropped all the political BS it could be so much better. Worthy of mention, of course, is Spacemacs[1], which made Emacs approachable to me, someone who hadn't used much beyond Notepad++ and Eclipse before then. [1]: https://www.spacemacs.org/

To me, the existence of spacemacs and doom and others are an indictment of Emacs' poor out of the box experience.

And that’s fine, because Emacs is not meant to be an opinionated “app” or product. And that’s exactly what makes it so fantastic, in a landscape filled with crud that’s simple out-of-the-box, and then puts you in a straightjacket forever afterwards.

Re: Life is 90% of my use cases for org-mode

#215

Post by IanCal »

blindluke wrote: post #179
IanCal wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I described is a substantial benefit of using emacs over sublime text. I think you're _assuming_ "more control" is a substantial benefit for them. > The OP wasn't asking why would anyone want control they were asking what are the benefits of emacs in comparison to sublime. Right, but if you don't see a strong use case for that control it isn't a benefit. The examples you gave were of changing the UI in a way I…

> Giving me the ability to do something I do not want to do is not beneficial. Expecting that an example should be tailor-made is not very beneficial, either. When I go out to buy a car, and the salesman tells me the trunk is big enough to fit a grown pig, this information is of use to me. Not because I smuggle livestock, but because this gives me a good idea of what the capacity is.

I'm not expecting a tailor made example, but as you say one that I can compare to my own situation.

Obvious things would be like vims make command - I'm not going to turn around and say a webpack example isn't relevant because I'm a python guy as I can see a direct parallel. But lots of this is standard and in major ides, or well written and tested plugins are available.

Saying I can send emails on a file save is not that useful as I can't see any reason I'd want to do that. I'd definitely not want to throw together a regulatory setup - that should not be something solved there (margharitaville comparison).

Broadly - it's not necessarily that the rest of us are missing some incredible wonderous world because we're too blind to see. It may simply be that the freedoms afforded are of little value to us.

Edit - I think I've got it sorted in my head why I don't care as much about this.

My problems are typically shared by lots of other people, and so solutions that suit me are readily available. I don't enjoy building my tools as much as I enjoy solving other problems with them.

It's the same reason I got rid of my mythtv setup and just bought something that worked to play videos. It was less flexible but did what I actually wanted better than my own setup and didn't require me to build and maintain it.

Re: Life is 90% of my use cases for org-mode

#218

Post by hvis »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #31
_ofdw wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say this as an avid emacs user: Emacs has a real problem in that it's very powerful but the, let's say, spiritual leader of the project (Stallman) is so wildly divorced from the real world because of his personal choices that he really has no idea what makes a compelling UX vs what makes a complete mess of arcane incantations. On top of that, the documentation is only suitable as a reference for someone who already…

I'm genuinely puzzled about why posters like this want to make Emacs into some kind of household name if only it would do some random thing that they want. I'm a die-hard Emacs fan, but it's a tool. It works well -- really well for a lot of us. For the rest, honestly, I don't care very much about evangelizing Emacs because I have a lot left to explore about using it first. There is 20- and 30- year old elisp out ther…

> Rendering a crop of the latest fly-by-night emoji is honestly the least of my concerns (with reference to the MacOS thing), although I personally disagree strongly with Stallman's stance in that matter.

Of course you do. This policy doesn't benefit you in the slightest, and since you are a macOS user already, all of your experience is telling you that this policy doesn't work.

But this particular policy is logical, and it doesn't really hurt Emacs. And, who knows, perhaps one day some talented/bored macOS developer will become so unhappy with Emacs not showing the latest fashion of emojis, they will go on and implement that support in Free libraries that are used for text rendering on GNU/Linux, and contribute it upstream.

Re: Life is 90% of my use cases for org-mode

#219

Post by trenchgun »

preek wrote: post #122
platz wrote: post #60

Unfortunately, org-mode is only a portable format if you stick to bare-bones org-mode; if you start using any of the "power-features" unique to org-mode you're stuck. And if you restrict yourself to markdown-compatibilty, why not just write in markdown?

I’m successfully using organice to manage my Org files on the Go - on a phone or a different computer. https://github.com/200ok-ch/organice

Looks neat!

Re: Life is 90% of my use cases for org-mode

#220

Post by lispm »

noahl wrote: post #176
iLemming wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> emacs outshines all other editing software in approximately the same way that the noonday sun does the stars What makes Emacs genuinely great? Not that it was built a long time ago and withstood the test of time. Not the fact that it is absolutely free to use, distribute and extend. Not that it doesn't have tons of bugs (it does), or has superb support for every known programming language (it does not). To understa…

I have a suspicion, which I have never verified, that the things that make emacs great are basically the things that made Lisp Machines great back when those were a thing - that emacs is best viewed as a Lisp Machine embedded in a modern operating system. I never used a real Lisp Machine, but I'd love if someone who did can confirm this.

GNU Emacs is just an example of extensible Lisp software running on top of an operating system. Lisp software, which sometimes provide integrated IDE features. Other examples: Autocad and some other CAD systems, OpusModus ( https://opusmodus.com ), ... There are also other Emacs variants with a similar idea. The original Emacs variants which introduced the idea of a Lisp written extensible Editor were EINE/ZWEI on the Lisp Machine (written in Lisp Machine Lisp) and Multics Emacs (written in Maclisp for the Multics OS). There were and are a multitude of Lisp systems with integrated editor / IDE written in itself - the most elaborate examples are the commercial Lisp IDEs coming with Allegro CL and LispWorks.

GNU Emacs provides an application programming environment based on an editor-like paradigm (windows, text buffers, programmable modes, ...) and integration of external tools. This toolkit has then been used to implement its own IDE.

Most people haven't seen extensible Lisp-based software. For another example look at Smalltalk-based software, which also comes with its integrated development environment - which is largely written in Smalltalk itself.

Actual "Lisp Machines" differ from GNU Emacs in many ways: They were actually real computers: real hardware - sometimes even specialized hardware like the 36bit / 40bit tagged memory of Symbolics Lisp Machines - the machine used specialized memory cards for that. These systems had a Lisp Operating System covering all layers of the operating system and its applications. They provided an editor (often a variant of Emacs) as one application, but the user interface was mostly not based on text buffers in windows with modes. Historically most Lisp Machine software was written in rich Lisp dialects, often making heavy use of OOP.

There are a bunch of ways GNU Emacs talks to the surrounding operating system: direct calls to the OS, running external programs, connecting to external applications over the network via some protocol (an example would be the SLIME IDE for Common Lisp, which connects GNU Emacs to an external Lisp via a network connection), ... Some GNU Emacs applications can be largely implemented with internal functionality and occasional calls to the OS or other applications.

On a Lisp Machine (the ones which existed so far) everything runs inside a shared memory heap where most stuff is implemented in Lisp: process scheduler, network stacks, disk drivers, file system, printer drivers, graphics, user interface, other programming language compilers, ...

Summary: GNU Emacs shares a bunch of features with other extensible Lisp software, including the software side of Lisp Machines. GNU Emacs does not work or looks like actual historical Lisp Machine systems (MIT Lisp OS, Symbolics Genera, LMI / TI Lisp OS, Xerox Interlisp-D / Medley, ...) .

Post reply on HN