3 ms·

> Maybe I'll never get the popularity of doom Honestly its a double edged sword here. Doom has so many built in convenience functions like `set-font!` and `set

> Maybe I'll never get the popularity of doom Honestly its a double edged sword here. Doom has so many built in convenience functions like `set-font!` and `set-repl!` that an experienced elisp programmer would probably love it for building their own configuration. On the other hand it bundles so much that an inexperienced emacs user might be more keen to do the bare minimum and rely on the packages bundled with doom to give them all the cool stuff without much effort. After all, why "reinvent the wheel"? I personally don't agree with that sentiment, I think learning how to build and maintain a personal emacs config makes a person a better programmer generally, and makes them prone to reading and writing documentation rather than copying solutions. I started off with doom and even though I don't use it anymore I still find myself reading its source to figure out how Henrik approached a solution. Love it or hate it, Doom is great in both very good and bad ways for emacs users.

mynameismon 5y ago
> Doom has so many built in convenience functions like `set-font!` and `set-repl!` that an experienced elisp programmer would probably love it for building their own configuration. Fair enough, I came from a background of JavaScript and Python, and Lisp was entirely foreign to me, let alone Elisp. > After all, why "reinvent the wheel"? I think its not of "reinvent the wheel", but let the other person do the decision making for you, including picking packages, setting up the modeline, so on and so forth. Starting out with a bare Emacs installation, you have to piece together the various packages that you would want to use, where as with Doom, you get everything out of the box. Also, maintaining your own init.el helps one learn Elisp > I still find myself reading its source to figure out how Henrik approached a solution For example?
- uncletaco 5y ago
  For example the way fonts are implemented in doom is really clean and covers edge cases. I also borrowed the `set-repl` and some code to autoinsert some things. Doom's core modules have a lot of good ideas wrt making configuration easier.
bananamerica 5y ago
I'd just like to point out that every single one of Doom's modules is optional, and you can install it without any external packages whatsoever (including Evil) if that's what you want.
- uncletaco 5y ago
  Which is why I mentioned the convenience functions that come with doom. You're right of course but I wasn't trying to imply that doom couldn't be used as a framework.

mynameismon 5y ago

> Doom has so many built in convenience functions like `set-font!` and `set-repl!` that an experienced elisp programmer would probably love it for building their own configuration. Fair enough, I came from a background of JavaScript and Python, and Lisp was entirely foreign to me, let alone Elisp. > After all, why "reinvent the wheel"? I think its not of "reinvent the wheel", but let the other person do the decision making for you, including picking packages, setting up the modeline, so on and so forth. Starting out with a bare Emacs installation, you have to piece together the various packages that you would want to use, where as with Doom, you get everything out of the box. Also, maintaining your own init.el helps one learn Elisp > I still find myself reading its source to figure out how Henrik approached a solution For example?

uncletaco 5y ago
For example the way fonts are implemented in doom is really clean and covers edge cases. I also borrowed the `set-repl` and some code to autoinsert some things. Doom's core modules have a lot of good ideas wrt making configuration easier.

bananamerica 5y ago

I'd just like to point out that every single one of Doom's modules is optional, and you can install it without any external packages whatsoever (including Evil) if that's what you want.

uncletaco 5y ago
Which is why I mentioned the convenience functions that come with doom. You're right of course but I wasn't trying to imply that doom couldn't be used as a framework.