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

Emacs Is Not Enough

project-mage.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 163 posts

Re: Emacs Is Not Enough

#81

Post by some-mthfka »

lenkite wrote: post #77
some-mthfka wrote: post #40

Hi! I am the author. I will be glad to answer any questions. First of all, I don't want another Emacs rewrite, much less in Guile. Mixing languages is not good for power-use, which requires ease-of-use, or at least conceptual simplicity. I talk more about it in the article in the Project's Philosophy/Homogeneity section in [1] The Power of Structure. I am proposing we need to really start considering a different para…

Basically, when you say 'structural editing', do you mean making a a parse tree for every kind of input and having a modal command language that permits traversal and editing of that parse tree. Like what sapling https://github.com/kneasle/sapling is attempting to do ?

Nope. Parsing isn't even necessary for most things I want to do. Moreover, I don't really care for trees: any objects, any structures, any source can be used. There will be a common interface for it (like jump to the next semantic unit or search a lisp object). But any object can have it's own programmatic interface, and not all objects need to implement all of the interface (e.g. a read-only object).

I have expounded the point about structural editing (tangentially) on some other comments here, in this top-level thread (unless you want to read the article [1]).

[1] https://project-mage.org/the-power-of-structure

Re: Emacs Is Not Enough

#82

Post by some-mthfka »

db48x wrote: post #80
some-mthfka wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> `csv-mode` is right there on ELPA Didn't know about that one. Jesus, Elpa, really? Not that it changes anything. >> A table editor within emacs will be janky > This is completely wrong. There are half a dozen Emacs packages that give you variations on the theme of a table, and none of them are slow or janky in my experience. Haha, have you used org-made lately? Have you tried formatting a large table? Is it fast, y…

I’ve used various large `org-mode` tables with great success and no rage, but a table that large means that you need a database, not a spreadsheet. Use sqlite for it instead and you will be much happier. Use the right tool for the job; nobody is forcing you to use Emacs for every single thing. I find that whenever people complain that Emacs is slow or janky, it is usually because they have configured too much stuff t…

> you need a database, not a spreadsheet

Exactly, a custom structure, a custom object. That's my point. And that point is: the ability to specialize on custom structures, which are unavoidable if you are to keep your sanity.

Re: Emacs Is Not Enough

#83

Post by db48x »

some-mthfka wrote: post #82
db48x wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve used various large `org-mode` tables with great success and no rage, but a table that large means that you need a database, not a spreadsheet. Use sqlite for it instead and you will be much happier. Use the right tool for the job; nobody is forcing you to use Emacs for every single thing. I find that whenever people complain that Emacs is slow or janky, it is usually because they have configured too much stuff t…

> you need a database, not a spreadsheet Exactly, a custom structure, a custom object. That's my point. And that point is: the ability to specialize on custom structures, which are unavoidable if you are to keep your sanity.

But why are you complaining about that. Who told you that it would be a good idea to use Emacs instead of a database? Why did you ever come to that conclusion?

Re: Emacs Is Not Enough

#84

Post by woolion »

some-mthfka wrote: post #59
woolion wrote: post #51

It would be interesting to have such a general project go somewhere. While in principle structural editing sounds like an incredible advance, there are 'good enough' advantages to plain-text tools that make it a much more practical solution. The other issue is of course integration with existing tooling, which you either skip entirely or compromise on the design. What I feel is missing, between the description of "ol…

Really, to me, this project is all about writing a few applications for myself. This may get lost throughout the pages of writing, but really, I am doing this for myself: flexible note-taking, a comfortable REPL, and, _at last_, a Lisp IDE (especially, with comfortable print-statement debugging). Structual editing is just the means to get these specific things right. Of the link provided (on a skim, so I may be wrong…

Well, I think they tend to focus on a particular language as a first step to reduce the scope. I had to refactor a python codebase, and the same function was used in context managers, decorators, and functions. Because of these disparate syntactical structures there was no way to refactor things easily or entirely de-duplicate some code. This is not an issue you would have with a Lisp.

> Glamourous Toolkit Thank you, I was just looking at knowledge management solutions, and did not find anything really satisfying, so I was just building a small prototype for myself. I'll have a look at it iin more details!

>please, don't be too quick to classify everything there as a rant I think you could alleviate it by providing some navigation allowing to skim more easily (I understand how much jank and sucking goes into editing large files so the comedic effect is a bit lost in the PTSD) or having more focus on achieving your vision. It's mostly editing. But your writing doesn't have to appeal to everyone either, it's your choice.

By all means I wish you good luck and I'd like to check in on the project in one year or something.

Re: Emacs Is Not Enough

#86

Post by some-mthfka »

lycopodiopsida wrote: post #78

I've found the emacs rant itself amusing, since it is a very old piece (slightly younger than me) and gargantuan piece of software, and it shows. On the other side, it is still the most extensible and moddable editor out there and its crown juwels (org, magit) are unmatched. As for the project itself, I remain sceptical. Partly because I do not see how it would be more amazing for general text-editing tasks than emac…

> text-editing tasks than emacs/vim + tree-sitter

If you like mediocrity, sure. That's what so many have OK'd, and that's fine, not everybody has to care about tools.

And you are right for being sceptical: it's only natural, I would be too if I saw what I wrote without knowing what it was. As an Emacs user, I could be dismissive of new efforts, because, you know, emacs is enough and all.

And I have said this a few times in the comments, but I am far from tired: the point of structural editing is not just editing.

If you have time, take a look at Alchemy and what I want to do in it:

https://project-mage.org/the-power-of-structure#AlchemyCL

Slime for lisp didn't do it for me.

My thoughts on tree-sitter:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34375137#34379449

> org is unmatched

Yeah, but is it even good? I am using it myself, have been for many years. It doesn't bring me joy to say this: but it's not enough either. Far from it. Miles, and galaxies away from it. It could be so much better (the experience of note-taking and computational notebooks).

> an adept of a language which is since decades more known for rants about programming than for delivering amazing software for end-users

Look, all the rest of the languages didn't deliver it for me either (and for the computing industry at large, even though many people would prefer not to think about it).

Computer industry is very young. Very young. I get the skepticism, but just think of it!

Emacs kind of did deliver, to a point, for some time -- and that's written in lisp. One of the longest-living pieces of software.

Or are you saying that Common Lisp itself is a problem? I mean, it's was simply the most practical choice on my part. I don't consider myself an adept, I don't consider CL perfect, but it's suitable for what I want to do.

Re: Emacs Is Not Enough

#87

Post by some-mthfka »

db48x wrote: post #83
some-mthfka wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you need a database, not a spreadsheet Exactly, a custom structure, a custom object. That's my point. And that point is: the ability to specialize on custom structures, which are unavoidable if you are to keep your sanity.

But why are you complaining about that. Who told you that it would be a good idea to use Emacs instead of a database? Why did you ever come to that conclusion?

Because it's often claimed than Emacs can do everything. Or, if not claimed, than assumed. And if not assumed, people go and try to do this stuff anyway. I gave an example of an object-oriented spreadsheet in my article.

You can't stop people from trying, but that's just the wrong paradigm to try those things. My point: we can still have an environment that can do all of these things. Embed a spreadsheet and interface a database textually. Why, is what emacs giving us really the end of it, you think? Because I don't.

Re: Emacs Is Not Enough

#88

Post by criddell »

eatonphil wrote: post #74

I'm not an emacs power user. I use emacs solely. Compared to me the author feels like a power user of emacs (or was one) and is making broad arguments against the existence of people like me: not power users. I've never run into these issues they talk about and I don't really know elisp. Mostly, over vim, I just like chord editors more than modal editors. If a more modern terminal-based chord editor came out I'd try…

I think his point is that you cannot use Emacs solely. You probably need a browser and a spreadsheet and lots of other software.

Re: Emacs Is Not Enough

#90

Post by some-mthfka »

pmontra wrote: post #20
ggm wrote: post #6

The entire article comes down to this quote: WHY IS EVERYTHING SO JANKY AF?

And my reaction was, is it really so yanky? Maybe it's not yanky enough for me to notice. Except for the handling of long lines, that's really slow. I wish it is just yanky. However I don't understand one thing. Did the author switch to something else or he's still using emacs after this long and convoluted rant?

> Did the author switch to something else or he's still using emacs after this long and convoluted rant?

Building my own solution which the website is dedicated to.

Post reply on HN