4 ms·

Thanks for the reply. I do use magit, daily, and I really enjoy it. I think what I don't understand about the OP's point is that, why is that the shells proble

Thanks for the reply. I do use magit, daily, and I really enjoy it. I think what I don't understand about the OP's point is that, why is that the shells problem? Tar is a utility that works great, and is typically pretty easy to use on the CLI. If however, I don't particularly like it, or would rather use a GUI that's totally understandable. The OP could even implement one in elisp for emacs. I guess my thought is that, why is the burden on the author of this magical new shell to write a piece of software that can GUIfy tar, than the user of tar who doesn't like it's ergonomics? Maybe that's not what the author is saying, but to me it just seems like something not really related to the shell, or a discussion on shells. If you like using GUIs, find a GUI for tar, or write one. I don't say that to be flippant, but more to reiterate my misunderstanding of how this relates to a discussion on shells.

BeetleB 5y ago
> I think what I don't understand about the OP's point is that, why is that the shells problem? I think to understand his point, substitute "universal text interface" with "shell". What he really is describing is something very Emacs-like, but with a better config than you normally find in Emacs. He'd like most command line utilities to automatically have a magit-like interface through some universal spec/language (i.e. so that each utility doesn't have to create the interface independently). Tar is one of those utilities that many people, including me, can never remember the options. I can relate to him on that one. If I had a magit like interface for tar, I'd be really happy.
- User23 5y ago
  Spacemacs[1] is a particularly nifty solution to the emacs defaults being... special. There are other bespoke config systems out there, but it really impresses me. The maintainers take performance and, more importantly to me, interface consistency and discoverability seriously. It supports both Vi style bindings as well as the traditional Emacs ones. Combined with a distribution like Emacs Plus[2] with the --with-native-comp it's a very nice way to interact with the system. [1] https://www.spacemacs.org/ https://www.spacemacs.org/ [2] https://github.com/d12frosted/homebrew-emacs-plus https://github.com/d12frosted/homebrew-emacs-plus

BeetleB 5y ago

> I think what I don't understand about the OP's point is that, why is that the shells problem? I think to understand his point, substitute "universal text interface" with "shell". What he really is describing is something very Emacs-like, but with a better config than you normally find in Emacs. He'd like most command line utilities to automatically have a magit-like interface through some universal spec/language (i.e. so that each utility doesn't have to create the interface independently). Tar is one of those utilities that many people, including me, can never remember the options. I can relate to him on that one. If I had a magit like interface for tar, I'd be really happy.

User23 5y ago
Spacemacs[1] is a particularly nifty solution to the emacs defaults being... special. There are other bespoke config systems out there, but it really impresses me. The maintainers take performance and, more importantly to me, interface consistency and discoverability seriously. It supports both Vi style bindings as well as the traditional Emacs ones. Combined with a distribution like Emacs Plus[2] with the --with-native-comp it's a very nice way to interact with the system. [1] https://www.spacemacs.org/ https://www.spacemacs.org/ [2] https://github.com/d12frosted/homebrew-emacs-plus https://github.com/d12frosted/homebrew-emacs-plus