3 ms·
I dunno... I think newer editors are often easier to extend than emacs. Think atom or vscode or even sublime. They're all extensible enough such that emacs ha
by asdf123wtf 6y ago
I dunno... I think newer editors are often easier to extend than emacs. Think atom or vscode or even sublime.
They're all extensible enough such that emacs has no real major advantage IMHO. They can be extended with mainstream languages that many programmers already know, instead of an idiosyncratic lisp with no practical application outside of emacs itself.
Emacs still has some great modes (like tramp) - but overall, I don't think its customization is really a special killer emacs feature anymore.
- jmarcher 6y agoI've had to write simple plugins for both SublimeText and VSCode to get the equivalent of a one-liner in Emacs. Comparing anything with Emacs extensibility is not even fair. There are hooks for everything, you can invoke other people packages from your own code, if you want trouble you can overwrite other people's packages specific functions, etc. Emacs has a lot of flaws though. I don't really recommend people using it. Even after showing the neat stuff, I can do with it.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago> I dunno... I think newer editors are often easier to extend than emacs. Think atom or vscode or even sublime. Can't see how. It's hard to be easier to extend than being able to just wrtie a line of code in an init file, do M-x eval-region on it, and be done. You can extend Emacs 100% through ad-hoc manner, and none of that requires any extra infrastructure. I don't think VSCode or Atom are approaching anywhere close this level of flexibility.
- tester89 6y agoI’ve been porting the Sly IDE to Sublime and basically I would say Sublime is a hostile development environment, a lot of times errors dont trigger stack traces and just silently fail which is super frustrating.