4 ms·
> Also seconding. Vanilla emacs is already extremely powerful, and if you're doing real work, you'll end up having to use hosts that don't have all of your wond
by User23 7y ago
> Also seconding. Vanilla emacs is already extremely powerful, and if you're doing real work, you'll end up having to use hosts that don't have all of your wonderful enhancements installed. It's good to know vanilla emacs.
I wonder if I'm weird, but I use a highly customized Emacs on my dev machine, but if I have to ssh into a host and edit something I just use vi there. The correct answer to vi or emacs has always been "both" for me.
- kqr 7y agoI'm the same way, and I don't see why that would be so controversial. Vi(m) clearly has the better defaults, but Emacs is the better platform. (Then again, I'm the person who occasionally also uses ed just to keep it fresh in my memory, so there's that.)
- regularfry 7y agoThey're just optimised for different jobs. Vim for line-based editing, emacs for nested. It just so happens that editing config files on remote hosts tends to be line-based, while editing code locally involves editing nested structures. I'll happily use both on the same machine though.
- fantispug 7y agoI'm the same; I use evil-mode in emacs and find the friction of switching between them small.
- kbp 7y agoYou can also ssh in via Emacs with Tramp, and use your highly customised Emacs to edit remotely.