11–20 of 69 posts
I wish someone could write a "The Good Parts" book for Emacs. Even after reading the manual twice, I'm still overwhelmed with the API and forget even the most basic configuration options after a month of inactivity.
I wish someone could write a "The Good Parts" book for Emacs. Even after reading the manual twice, I'm still overwhelmed with the API and forget even the most basic configuration options after a month of inactivity.
There's truth to this. Emacs is large. I tried RTFM twice, thrice .. not skimming, taking time. And even then I learn later that there was some feature in it that I completely missed. And it's a common joke in the community "I've been using emacs for decades and I didn't know that...". Blessing and a curse ? Maybe they should rebrand emacs as a universe and not an editor.. so that people know there are many galaxies…
I wish someone could write a "The Good Parts" book for Emacs. Even after reading the manual twice, I'm still overwhelmed with the API and forget even the most basic configuration options after a month of inactivity.
It's quite possible you just don't need Emacs.
I've been using Emacs daily for well over a decade now, but I just can't get myself to use any of its shells, or features that replace standard shell workflows. I think the main reason—besides muscle memory and the scripts, aliases, and commands I'm already used to—is because a POSIX-compliant shell exposes a generic interface for both programs and users. Programs can receive and output data over standard file descri…
eshell : Welcome to the Emacs shell ~ $ btop ERROR: Failed to get size of terminal! ~ [1] $ shell : $ btop Terminal size too small: Width = 79 Height = 22Needed for current config:Width = 80 Height = 24 If I increase the width and height, I get an extremely weird output. ansi-term : Same as shell . Any other Emacs shells I missed? In any case, I do not use any shells within Emacs. I use XTerm separately.
(I don't use them, I prefer my shells to last even if I should restart emacs)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's truth to this. Emacs is large. I tried RTFM twice, thrice .. not skimming, taking time. And even then I learn later that there was some feature in it that I completely missed. And it's a common joke in the community "I've been using emacs for decades and I didn't know that...". Blessing and a curse ? Maybe they should rebrand emacs as a universe and not an editor.. so that people know there are many galaxies…
The thing is that you don't really learn Emacs . Emacs is just an interface to programs written in Elisp that happens to have editor-like functionality out of the box. There are specific conventions it follows, and Elisp has its own set of quirks and a steep learning curve if the user is not fluent in other Lisp languages, so those can be challenging to learn. But boiled down to its core, there's not much to Emacs it…
I've been using Emacs daily for well over a decade now, but I just can't get myself to use any of its shells, or features that replace standard shell workflows. I think the main reason—besides muscle memory and the scripts, aliases, and commands I'm already used to—is because a POSIX-compliant shell exposes a generic interface for both programs and users. Programs can receive and output data over standard file descri…
I never understood the need to do everything in Emacs either. I love Emacs, and I use it for all kinds of things, but the UNIX ecosystem has great tools too and it seems silly to have to choose one or the other. Calling shell commands from Emacs and inserting their output into a buffer is great, don't get me wrong. But Emacs' terminal experience pales in comparison to plain ol' xterm. At the end of the day, I use the…
I've been using Emacs daily for well over a decade now, but I just can't get myself to use any of its shells, or features that replace standard shell workflows. I think the main reason—besides muscle memory and the scripts, aliases, and commands I'm already used to—is because a POSIX-compliant shell exposes a generic interface for both programs and users. Programs can receive and output data over standard file descri…
It's not because of GNU (which is a Unix workalike), but because Emacs originated on ITS and Genera Lisp Machines, which were truely very non-UNIXy environments.
I've been using Emacs daily for well over a decade now, but I just can't get myself to use any of its shells, or features that replace standard shell workflows. I think the main reason—besides muscle memory and the scripts, aliases, and commands I'm already used to—is because a POSIX-compliant shell exposes a generic interface for both programs and users. Programs can receive and output data over standard file descri…
eshell : Welcome to the Emacs shell ~ $ btop ERROR: Failed to get size of terminal! ~ [1] $ shell : $ btop Terminal size too small: Width = 79 Height = 22Needed for current config:Width = 80 Height = 24 If I increase the width and height, I get an extremely weird output. ansi-term : Same as shell . Any other Emacs shells I missed? In any case, I do not use any shells within Emacs. I use XTerm separately.
I've been using Emacs daily for well over a decade now, but I just can't get myself to use any of its shells, or features that replace standard shell workflows. I think the main reason—besides muscle memory and the scripts, aliases, and commands I'm already used to—is because a POSIX-compliant shell exposes a generic interface for both programs and users. Programs can receive and output data over standard file descri…
> The Unix "small programs that do one thing well" philosophy is often ignored, unfortunately. Emacs might be the single biggest offender of it, though I suppose it's to be expected since "GNU's Not Unix"... It's not because of GNU (which is a Unix workalike), but because Emacs originated on ITS and Genera Lisp Machines, which were truely very non-UNIXy environments.
I've been using Emacs daily for well over a decade now, but I just can't get myself to use any of its shells, or features that replace standard shell workflows. I think the main reason—besides muscle memory and the scripts, aliases, and commands I'm already used to—is because a POSIX-compliant shell exposes a generic interface for both programs and users. Programs can receive and output data over standard file descri…
btop/htop/nvtop or other curses-heavy tools have specialized solutions (open vterm or eat and run it), but all the composing unix tools run in M-x shell.