3 ms·
As an emacs user about to hit my 25 year mark: Maybe we'd all use macros if the UX for them we're no so atrociously bad? It's only recently having tried out so
by KirinDave 9y ago
As an emacs user about to hit my 25 year mark:
Maybe we'd all use macros if the UX for them we're no so atrociously bad? It's only recently having tried out some obscure but good packages in spacemacs that we start to see some great UX for macros and other bulk line editing operations.
What's more, macros are often only valid on lines of exactly the type you specified them on, and Emacs's best way to handle this (if they're contiguous) is narrowing and widening, an operation so famously confusing that the buttons are walled off with an apology in standard emacs.
I use multiple editors for non-trivial operations (instead of say, whitespace tuning) when I'm doing quick but high value non-contigous work (e.g., adding an exporting decl to several functions).
I didn't know emacs was using a gap buffer, but if so I have 0 sympathy. Vim sounds like it's using a clearly superior and modern solution. Maybe I should finally got over to that dark side?
- Olreich 9y agoModal editing does make macros far easier to work with...
- thomastjeffery 9y agoAbsolutely. In Vim, since every command is a keystroke you can save a string of keystrokes to a buffer, and "run" that buffer as a macro. You can even paste the buffer instead, edit it as plain text, and put the new version back into the buffer and run it.
- KirinDave 9y agoPersonally I don't see how that is ebttee. Why is it better? Macros would be better if they were less invisible. Spacemacs/viper has this great copy of a vim feature where :/ and :s/ commands actually show a diff view interactively in the buffer. It turned an old useful-but-opaque feature into an equally useful but interactive and novice-friendly feature. We need more of that in code editing.
- KirinDave 9y agoI'm still waiting for this new phone to pick up on my typing... :/