Emacs Is Not Enough
project-mage.org
Emacs Is Not Enough
1–10 of 163 posts
Re: Emacs Is Not Enough
#2I very much like this article. I especially like the comparison to TempleOS. I think Terry Davis blew computing wide open. That is what a personal computer can do, when it’s treated as an instrument instead of an appliance, and the user treated like the player of said instrument, instead of a child in a china shop.
Imagine if you could plug your guitar into a computer, have that audio file, be a widget in a buffer, and then, pass it to other functions just like any other object, process it using, idk, map(car), and then sync it to a video using list functions, maybe with different implementations for the data structures under the hood. Or if you could make a game, modify it while you’re playing it, share that game as an image with a friend, and have them open it up, interact with it the same way they do with every other data structure from email to org mode.
Re: Emacs Is Not Enough
#3I very much like this article. I especially like the comparison to TempleOS. I think Terry Davis blew computing wide open. That is what a personal computer can do, when it’s treated as an instrument instead of an appliance, and the user treated like the player of said instrument, instead of a child in a china shop. Imagine if you could plug your guitar into a computer, have that audio file, be a widget in a buffer, a…
Every time I see something like this, I'm also reminded of this demo of the Xerox Alto from a few years back. I'll link to the start of the most relevant piece: https://youtu.be/AnrlSqtpOkw?t=549
I'm always struck by the useful directions that desktop computers were going in the 70s, and how computing could be so much better than it is right now. But we've veered so off-course from all of this, away from composability and towards independent boxes ("applications") that can't talk to each other at all.
Emacs is in some ways the best thing we have today in the other direction, but it pales in comparison to what's possible.
Re: Emacs Is Not Enough
#4I very much like this article. I especially like the comparison to TempleOS. I think Terry Davis blew computing wide open. That is what a personal computer can do, when it’s treated as an instrument instead of an appliance, and the user treated like the player of said instrument, instead of a child in a china shop. Imagine if you could plug your guitar into a computer, have that audio file, be a widget in a buffer, a…
Every time I see something like this, I'm also reminded of this demo of the Xerox Alto from a few years back. I'll link to the start of the most relevant piece: https://youtu.be/AnrlSqtpOkw?t=549 I'm always struck by the useful directions that desktop computers were going in the 70s, and how computing could be so much better than it is right now. But we've veered so off-course from all of this, away from composabilit…
What Emacs users want is a version of Smalltalk with a superior keyboard driven experience, featuring which-key et al.
> I'm always struck by the useful directions that desktop computers were going in the 70s, and how computing could be so much better than it is right now. But we've veered so off-course from all of this, away from composability and towards independent boxes ("applications") that can't talk to each other at all.
This is the consequence of deliberate corporate agendas, but many people are still in denial of that.
The worse thing that happened to this kind of computing was the policy of forcing everything through the web interface, which was deliberately crippled to let the industry majors to get a heads up in browser based software.
Re: Emacs Is Not Enough
#5They're going to try to ruin emacs like they are with x.org. It's inevitable. Too many people want it gone. It's too good.
Re: Emacs Is Not Enough
#6The entire article comes down to this quote:
WHY IS EVERYTHING SO JANKY AF?Re: Emacs Is Not Enough
#7so... instead of contributing, why not rewrite the whole thing?
ok that would certainly help
/s
Re: Emacs Is Not Enough
#8I've been working obsessively on a trivial and currently private emacs package, for a while now, and (having not read the article, yet) would concur with the idea that Emacs is great, there's little else like it, but it's also not enough; the promises that it makes (re: freedom to the user, access to internals via elisp, etc) are not fulfilled. It goes a great ways towards delivering it's promises, and casual users will feel the freedom it gives them (great things can still be done with it! Miles ahead of anything else!), but that just makes the walls all the more frustrating when you hit them. No specifics, but I do find the performance situation and the elisp and rendering implimentations to be at the center of my gripes. I am young enough to hope to see, and perhaps even contribute to, a successor to the Emacs philosophy.
Re: Emacs Is Not Enough
#9I very much like this article. I especially like the comparison to TempleOS. I think Terry Davis blew computing wide open. That is what a personal computer can do, when it’s treated as an instrument instead of an appliance, and the user treated like the player of said instrument, instead of a child in a china shop. Imagine if you could plug your guitar into a computer, have that audio file, be a widget in a buffer, a…
Every time I see something like this, I'm also reminded of this demo of the Xerox Alto from a few years back. I'll link to the start of the most relevant piece: https://youtu.be/AnrlSqtpOkw?t=549 I'm always struck by the useful directions that desktop computers were going in the 70s, and how computing could be so much better than it is right now. But we've veered so off-course from all of this, away from composabilit…
> Emacs is in some ways the best thing we
> have today in the other direction, but
> it pales in comparison to what's
> possible.
If a project could attract the backers Blender is getting to explore and document design possibilites for Emacs that's a move in a better direction.
Re: Emacs Is Not Enough
#10TLDR?