21–30 of 277 posts
I like that he mentioned CtrlP. It's the single plugin that prevents me from switching to Emacs. There is currently nothing in Emacs (last I played with this was 3 months ago) that is 100% equivalent to CtrlP. There are some close approximations but they're not as good the real deal. I can understand how Emacs guys won't even notice this because they've not worked with something that's better than the best they have,…
Gah, the tutorial keybindings! They are mad. I've been using emacs for a very long time, and I can't imagine using those to navigate. Emacs has perfectly reasonable default keybindings these days, they just aren't the ones mentioned in the tutorial. Command: move down one line What vi uses: j What the emacs tutorial suggests: C-n What I use in emacs: the down arrow
But that means your fingers have leave home row! :(
I've heard a lot of people talk about keeping their fingers on the home row, and I more or less do that when I'm typing text like this, but for general navigation? I've sat next to a number of people who do it, and I get around my editor faster than they do. Based on this anecdotal evidence, I don't think moving my hand a short distance to reach another key is a significant speed cost.
Until it goes wrong or you have to delve into elisp or you get carpal tunnel... After 20 years of switching back and forth I decided I wanted an extensible editor not a programming language with an editor built in. That's worked well for me. I really always just want the simplest thing that will work as I need to rely on it entirely and understand how it works. If I was to use emacs, I'd probably use mg as shipped wi…
Until it goes wrong or you have to delve into elisp or you get carpal tunnel... After 20 years of switching back and forth I decided I wanted an extensible editor not a programming language with an editor built in. That's worked well for me. I really always just want the simplest thing that will work as I need to rely on it entirely and understand how it works. If I was to use emacs, I'd probably use mg as shipped wi…
Mentioning elisp in the face of viml is questionable...
It's still too slow for me. I have often several vims open, usually for a short time, and I'm not going to start a daemon in my session to have a decent startup time, that's unreasonable. Also, even setting a theme like solarized dark turned out to be a headache last time I tried. I think I'll wait for neovim.
I find that in actual operation Emacs is faster and that's the reason I switched from Vim to Emacs. Even after using all the tricks in Vim's :help tex-slow, Vim still lagged when I scrolled or even typed into LaTeX files (unless I turned off syntax highlighting), and I'm not such a great typist. Emacs is perfectly snappy.
Until it goes wrong or you have to delve into elisp or you get carpal tunnel... After 20 years of switching back and forth I decided I wanted an extensible editor not a programming language with an editor built in. That's worked well for me. I really always just want the simplest thing that will work as I need to rely on it entirely and understand how it works. If I was to use emacs, I'd probably use mg as shipped wi…
> Until it goes wrong Why? Emacs reports errors fine in my experience and if not it includes a debugger. > or you have to delve into elisp What's the problem with elisp? I guess its a matter of preference, but in my opinion elisp is easier to understand than vim script. Emacs includes extensive(!) documentation for it in it's base distribution. Granted, it's a dated language nowadays, but 3rd party libraries - easily…
I don't really want masses of extensibility but what I want is something that works out of the box, is understandable and doesn't require masses of customisation that I have to drag around with me everywhere.
On this basis using viper with Emacs is as illogical as using vsvim with visual studio. One should use vim (or vi which I'm equally happy with)