3 ms·

Looks nice as a simple zero-dep setup. That said, I would recommend one of the modus themes[0] as an alternative when Emacs 28 comes out, since they're built in

by ljm 5y ago

Looks nice as a simple zero-dep setup. That said, I would recommend one of the modus themes[0] as an alternative when Emacs 28 comes out, since they're built in to that version. They're amazingly thorough and accessible. [0] https://protesilaos.com/emacs/modus-themes https://protesilaos.com/emacs/modus-themes

masklinn 5y ago
> Looks nice as a simple zero-dep setup. Though with `use-package`, it has become incredibly easy to make even complex setups self-booting (assuming you have an internet connection available anyway). It adds all of 5 lines (or 8 if you need melpa) which is rather incredible for the value it provides.
- ljm 5y ago
  I use straight combined with use-package and it's great. I don't really need to since I rarely hack on packages in the way that straight imagines you would, but I like the middle ground it introduces. (defalias 'sup 'straight-use-package) (sup 'somepackage) (require 'somepackage) ;; sometimes (setq somepackage-config-thing) (add-hook 'some-mode-hook #'some-package-hook) I know with use-package you'd do all this in the macro with config and init, but especially when it comes to dependent packages I prefer having things flat as opposed to nesting them. My config is apparently 333 lines but a lot of that is whitespace and comments for grouping, plus the bootstrap code which I incidentally use for publishing my blog.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > I know with use-package you'd do all this in the macro with config and init, but especially when it comes to dependent packages I prefer having things flat as opposed to nesting them. > > My config is apparently 333 lines but a lot of that is whitespace and comments for grouping The reason I like `use-package` even for global concerns (I actually have a `(use-package emacs)` e even though that's pretty much entirely global setqs) is it provides some grouping structure and encourages keeping each item in the proper place. `:ensure` is also pretty much essential as that's what does the bringing-up (ensuring the package being enabled and configured is actually installed locally).

by ljm 5y ago

masklinn 5y ago

> Looks nice as a simple zero-dep setup. Though with `use-package`, it has become incredibly easy to make even complex setups self-booting (assuming you have an internet connection available anyway). It adds all of 5 lines (or 8 if you need melpa) which is rather incredible for the value it provides.

ljm 5y ago
I use straight combined with use-package and it's great. I don't really need to since I rarely hack on packages in the way that straight imagines you would, but I like the middle ground it introduces. (defalias 'sup 'straight-use-package) (sup 'somepackage) (require 'somepackage) ;; sometimes (setq somepackage-config-thing) (add-hook 'some-mode-hook #'some-package-hook) I know with use-package you'd do all this in the macro with config and init, but especially when it comes to dependent packages I prefer having things flat as opposed to nesting them. My config is apparently 333 lines but a lot of that is whitespace and comments for grouping, plus the bootstrap code which I incidentally use for publishing my blog.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > I know with use-package you'd do all this in the macro with config and init, but especially when it comes to dependent packages I prefer having things flat as opposed to nesting them. > > My config is apparently 333 lines but a lot of that is whitespace and comments for grouping The reason I like `use-package` even for global concerns (I actually have a `(use-package emacs)` e even though that's pretty much entirely global setqs) is it provides some grouping structure and encourages keeping each item in the proper place. `:ensure` is also pretty much essential as that's what does the bringing-up (ensuring the package being enabled and configured is actually installed locally).