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

Let's just use Emacs

beastwithin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 169 posts

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#121

Post by [deleted] »

raganwald wrote: post #102
ajross wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not taking a stand on the argument one way or the other, just pointing out how similar they sound. Uh, no. You're making an editorial point that they both seem equally silly, you just aren't saying that. If your only purpose to posting was a bland linguistic analogy with no bearing on the subject being discussed, then I withdraw my argument on the grounds that your post is unimaginably boring. :) But to respond:…

My words meant exactly what they said, no more and no less. I know this because (a) I wrote them, and (b) I happen to like Lisp, Emacs, and the people I know who use them. I'm pretty sure I am not in the habit of describing their arguments as "silly." At the risk of appealing to authority, I do not consider this essay silly: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html What I was doing is making a commentary about the similari…

[deleted]

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#122

Post by Goladus »

swannodette wrote: post #90
raganwald wrote: post #18

Articles about why anything you can do in a "simpler" text editor can and should be done in emacs strongly resemble articles about why anything you can do in a less powerful programming language can and should be done in Lisp. I don't think it's a coïncidence.

Simple text editor = simple + powerful Emacs = complex + powerful Lisp = simple + powerful Blub = complex + powerful Given this your association doesn't make much sense. I think most people prefer simple + powerful. And this isn't black and white - Blub can often be simpler for X simple task. However the real yard stick is whether as your problem domain gets more complex does Blub suddenly lose its veneer of simplici…

Most of my emacs customizations are pretty simple. M-x [ and M-x ] start and end macros. f5 runs a macro instead of C-M-x e. f6 copies the entire current line. f7 is line-goto. f9 is replace-string, f10 is replace-regexp. M-x g is whole-buffer-copy. I have a bunch of functions that insert standard shebangs and other script boilerplate, which are easily mapped to function keys if I need them.

I've got some other more complex customizations that I don't use very often, for example a set of functions that let me cycle through various background/text color schemes. For awhile I had that mapped to f8. I've also effectively used hotkeys that generate documentation/comment templates. But those tend to come and go, and when I'm not using them they don't interfere at all.

Beyond a few fundamental things, emacs is only as complex as it needs to be. Yes, it's a fairly large base install compared to vi, or a simple text editor, but so far it's never been big enough to get in my way.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#123

Post by swah »

RexRollman wrote: post #19
evangineer wrote: post #5

tl;dr Use Emacs 23 to create a distraction-free writing environment using org-mode, darkroom-mode & markdown-mode.

I'm not directing this at you personally, even though I am responding to your comment, but do we really need "tl;dr" type comments here on Hacker News?

Everyone is already using a filter (HN) to avoid doing some work: reading everything that is posted on the web.

For me, tldr is a favor folks more interested than me in some subject do, and I should do the same when I subject I really care turns up.

tldr is an act of love.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#124

Post by bitwize »

janv wrote: post #113
cema wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example: Vernor Vinge (sci fi author, and a former math and CS professor at San Diego State) uses emacs [ http://www.norwescon.org/archives/norwescon33/vingeinterview... ]

Yet another example would be Neal Stephenson: "I use emacs, which might be thought of as a thermonuclear word processor." - In the Beginning was the Command Line http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html

That was written before his conversion to Mac OS X.

We don't know if it still applies.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#125

Post by Goladus »

mixmax wrote: post #110
technomancy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most of the "ugly" gripes come from people who either don't know how to change the font or haven't bothered to turn the tool bar off.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but if you change the font and turn the toolbar off what's left of the design?

Design means more than just visual design and graphical interface. For example:

    M-x
Executes any interactive function. Any gui-based editor will ultimately be limited by the knobs and switches that can be crammed into various graphical interface elements. Emacs doesn't have that limitation. That's where the learning curve is steeper-- you have to search for function names rather than poke around menus or toolbars, but once you've learned the function name you can map it to a key, put it in your .emacs, or call it from another function.

Much like unix, this is how emacs has managed to stay relevant despite the popularity of the IDE market. It's easy to configure and extend by defining abstractions and composing functions.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#126

Post by lelele »

lelele wrote: post #53
lelele wrote: post #52

Emacs beats every other editor. Yes, including Vim both because you have a Vim clone inside Emacs and because once you start pushing the limits of Vim, just like the developer of Slim-Vim, you'll find yourself implementing Emacs. Vim's editing model is great - and that's what I use - but it ain't Emacs. Emacs has its warts, but it's your best choice if you want a serious editor. Bashing an editor because its support…

Continued: If you are not serious about editing text, then you will be served by many other editors.

Downvoting without explanation? Fine, I love my competitors using lesser tools.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#127

Post by Goladus »

mixmax wrote: post #120
technomancy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what's left of the design? Exactly.

Then you're talking more usability than design. In that regard emacs doesn't exactly rate well.

Emacs is very usable if you can make a few reasonable assumptions about the user. Obviously it's not perfect (see the discussion of changing fonts in the originally posted blog) but making those assumptions about the user allows for a great deal of capability.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#128

Post by raganwald »

neutronicus wrote: post #117
raganwald wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My words meant exactly what they said, no more and no less. I know this because (a) I wrote them, and (b) I happen to like Lisp, Emacs, and the people I know who use them. I'm pretty sure I am not in the habit of describing their arguments as "silly." At the risk of appealing to authority, I do not consider this essay silly: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html What I was doing is making a commentary about the similari…

For what it's worth, I read derision in your original post as well.

Sometimes, a really simple statement is a Tabula Rasa. We read into it what we believe, or what we think others might believe. Nothing exceptionally wrong with that, and so we ask the author: "Did you mean such-and-such?" If they didn't, they clarify their intent and we move along.

I have spent more time thinking about the nature of programming languages than editors, so I will perhaps ruin a perfectly good neutral statement by talking about my own beliefs. I think there is such a thing as a power continuum in languages. I have no idea whether Haskell is more powerful than Clojure, but I am comfortable describing Java as far down the continuum from Scheme.

I also think there is such a thing as design in programming languages, and I think it has value. So while Python may be less powerful than some other languages in an absolute sense, I understand why many people choose it. It is well-designed in exactly the same way that the original iPod (No Wireless. Less Space Than A Nomad. Lame.) was well-designed. And by well-designed, I don't mean "Has all the features, " I mean, "Has a carefully selected set of features that complement each other."

Given my beliefs, I understand people who prefer to work with more powerful languages and why they might argue that you never need to step down the power continuum. Makes sense. I also understand people who argue a certain tool that is less powerful in an absolute sense but has a design that suits them in some fundamental way. I even understand people who argue that certain languages are more powerful and well-designed, like Haskell.

I honestly don't have a strong feeling that either person is wrong, and I'm fairly comfortable saying that we haven't done enough research to settle the matter empirically.

So no, I am certainly not ridiculing Lisp users who claim that there is no need to step down the power continuum. They may be right, and we don't have enough solid evidence to disprove their claims, just what amounts to folklore about readability and design patterns and significant whitespace and monkey-patching.

Likewise, I cannot really argue with an emacs evangelist. Who can say that such an argument is anything except Blub? I value certain well-designed text editors--I have been enjoying Byword lately--but can I prove that I'm more efficient with Byword than I would be if I spent two weeks or a month or a few years becoming an emacs guru?

So anyways, no I was not being derisive, but I don't fault anybody for wondering if I had something on my mind considering that I tried very hard to say nothing about whether Emacs is or isn't superior to Byword, or whether Ruby is or isn't an acceptable Lisp.

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#129

Post by hesitz »

losvedir wrote: post #61
dsmithn wrote: post #27

I've spent the last month or so head first learning VIM - I forgot about org-mode before deciding on VIM. There are a number of clones but nothing seems complete. Any recommendations?

Well the orgmode.org homepage calls out one[1] in particular: "2010-11-25 Thu: Maybe the times where Org mode could change hard-core vi users into honorable Emacs users are coming to an end? A Vim clone of Org mode is be written by Herbert Sitz, and judging by the videos it looks promising." Haven't used it, though. [1] https://github.com/hsitz/VimOrganizer

I'm the author of that clone. I'm making progress, and it's building up to a fairly nice subset of org-mode, but it's not something that would satisfy any truly hardcore org-mode power user. At least not any time in the near future.

The previous poster complained that none of the Vim plugins that try to mimic or clone org-mode "seem complete". That is definitely the wrong way to look at things. Org-mode is a huge app that's been heavily developed for six or seven years now. In some ways org-mode is probably like Microsoft Word: probably 75% of its users access only about 25% of its features, although many of them access a different 25%.

Why try to develop an org-mode clone in Vim, then? Mostly as a personal project I started for fun. I tried switching to Emacs just so I could use org-mode. Even with Viper and Vimpulse add-ons Emacs felt too clunky to me. I had previously worked on a Vim outliner and I knew that part wouldn't be too hard to replicate in Vim. I decided not to stop there and I've gone on to a lot of other features, although it's a fledgling project. In particular, I need to get some decent documentation done. There are a ton of features in my clone that users have no idea are even there. I think so far most of them (like most org-mode users?) use it mostly for simple outlining.

The Vim clone uses a file format compatible with org-mode and actually calls out to an Emacs server to have org-mode do exports to LaTeX/PDF, HTML, etc. So pure document authoring (as opposed to PIM/task management stuff), is one task that the Vim clone probably can do a decent job of now. Adding footnote support is on the list (there's already a Vim footnote plugin that I plan to modify to work with the org-clone).

Re: Let's just use Emacs

#130

Post by cema »

technomancy wrote: post #116
cema wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding Clojure on Emacs, just use the up-to-date stuff by technomancy. The following is based on my notes from a recent talk by Phil Hagelberg at a Boston Clojure Meetup. 1. Download lein from https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/raw/stable/bin/lein 2. Launch lein (self-install) from the command line. 3. Run lein plugin install swank-clojure 1.3.0 on the command line. 4. When you first run swank, it may compla…

Actually the week after that meetup I realized the process could be simplified dramatically: http://technomancy.us/149 Now once you have Leiningen and clojure-mode installed it's a single M-x clojure-jack-in to get started. Wish I had thought of that a week earlier! Could have saved us a lot of time at the meetup. (The way you posted still works fine, so if you've already got it set up there's no need to switch.)

I set it up twice (once at the meetup), and it was not a big deal, but only because I had had prior experience in setting up clojure environments.

A single emacs function to update/start clojure seems a good way to go, however I had it in the past and as soon as the dependencies broke I had to go in and figure out what was going on under the hood and how to fix it. Which is educational but distracting. Will your setup still work in 12 months?

Thanks for all the effort in bringing Clojure to the masses! :-)

P.S. Got an error -- will submit a bug report. EDIT: wrote a blog comment instead.

Post reply on HN