6 ms·

>Emacs is not so much an editor as it is a tool well-suited for writing custom editors. I hate this meme and wish it would die. Emacs is a perfectly suitable

by na85 4y ago

>Emacs is not so much an editor as it is a tool well-suited for writing custom editors. I hate this meme and wish it would die. Emacs is a perfectly suitable editor that happens to have really bad defaults because the developers are mostly out of touch grognards. With a modest amount of effort, emacs could be made to have appealing aesthetics and sane defaults, but because eMaCs Is An OpErAtInG sYsTeM it stays bad.

alimov 4y ago
> “With a modest amount of effort, emacs could be made to have appealing aesthetics and sane defaults…” Sure, for some peoples use cases. Also “modest amount” isn’t really true for new users. The time it takes to look up potential configs, figure out how to make changes, play around and see if that’s what they want from their editor, and in general figure out what’s possible doesn’t really happen in a “modest amount” of time. > “>Emacs is not so much an editor as it is a tool well-suited for writing custom editors.” There is nothing wrong with this comment, it is a correct statement because emacs by your own admission is a flexible tool that can be modified to one’s liking. For a lot of people that means tailoring it around their workflows/uses before it’s actually useful to them.
- na85 4y ago
  >The time it takes to look up potential configs, figure out how to make changes, play around and see if that’s what they want from their editor, and in general figure out what’s possible doesn’t really happen in a “modest amount” of time. I'm saying that the developers could, with modest effort, provide a dramatically improved out-of-the-box experience for 80% of users that obviates the need for a lot of config futzing.
  - alimov 4y ago
    Yeah that could be true.
rout39574 4y ago
Is there a context from which Emacs' defaults are bad, other than "Windows did it differently!" ? I'm asking because I learned its defaults before windows had the market prevalence that it does, and it just doesn't seem all that different from an outside perspective. I think the term 'grognard' is not helpful to your case. When I read it I find myself assuming that you're dismissing the experiences of people whose context starts before yours. You might prefer to give a different impression.
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  I think it's perfect: soldiers of the old guard. I think many of us who love Emacs fall into that category.
- na85 4y ago
  >Is there a context from which Emacs' defaults are bad, other than "Windows did it differently!" ? There are dozens of low hanging fruit. Off the top of my head: - dispensing with the absurd references to Alt as Meta that haven't been relevant for 35 years - bringing the terminology in the documentation into the 2000s by fixing what's called window, a pane, etc. - including CUA mode as default for ease of onboarding windows users - including per-pixel/smooth scrolling which AFAICT is only available via the emacs-mac port - updating the graphical interface to make it look modern and sophisticated instead of the current look which can best be described as "abandonware chic" - improving handling of large files with long lines so the editor doesn't choke - setting the gc threshold to a much higher value - the yes/no vs y/n thing that literally everyone rebinds - make middle click insert at the cursor instead of where the mouse is I'm certain there are dozens of others.
  - amake 4y ago
    > - including per-pixel/smooth scrolling which AFAICT is only available via the emacs-mac port The master branch (Emacs 29) has this in `pixel-scroll-precision-mode` and it seems to perform better than the emacs-mac implementation.
  - JasonFruit 4y ago
midislack 4y ago
Defaults in emacs are great. You're just brain damaged like all ed and ed-adjacent editor users. No offense.
- na85 4y ago
  I actually use emacs as my primary editor and like it a lot. The difference is I'm not a zealot.
  - midislack 4y ago
    If you weren’t a zealot you wouldn’t be complaining about eMacs lacking the defaults you’re used to in whatever brain damaged editor you are more adroit with. It’s a common thing, don’t worry about it. Most people are brain damaged from poor first choice in editors.
    - na85 4y ago
      >you wouldn’t be complaining about eMacs lacking the defaults you’re used to in whatever brain damaged editor you are more adroit with You're not actually understanding what I've written, if this is your takeaway.
- klibertp 4y ago
  How could anyone call another "brain damaged" and then demand to them not to be offended? Like, seriously. If you're going to insult someone, live up to it and prepare for a backlash instead of trying to get away with "no offense" quip... Also: Emacs user here, for more than a decade. My opinion: the defaults in Emacs are horrible. They were set in different times, on different computers, with different keyboards. They should get changed. I think most users agree with that. The problem is that whatever we would change the defaults to, it would estrange a part of the community. So nothing gets done. Advanced users don't see the point of struggling, since they already have everything rebound to the keys/menus/toolbars/etc. they want and need. New user see the need, but don't have the skills. It's really a Gordian-knot type of problem. As an aside: similar thing goes on with Emacs' terminal support. It's obvious that maintaining compatibility with display technology from the '70s takes a real toll on both developers time, and improvements that would be possible if not for that compatibility. But then you get a huge crowd that uses Emacs via SSH somewhere, and they go rabid if you mention anything about dropping the terminal support.
pjmlp 4y ago
Back in the 1990's, while disappointed with IDE situation on UNIX I ended up landing on XEmacs, which was way better than Emacs back then. Used it enough until 2005 to get it several features burned on my brain. Nowadays I really don't see the point, and ironically neither does the creator of XEmacs. https://www2.computerworld.com.au/article/207799/don_t_use_emacs_says_java_father/ https://www2.computerworld.com.au/article/207799/don_t_use_e...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by na85 4y ago

alimov 4y ago

> “With a modest amount of effort, emacs could be made to have appealing aesthetics and sane defaults…” Sure, for some peoples use cases. Also “modest amount” isn’t really true for new users. The time it takes to look up potential configs, figure out how to make changes, play around and see if that’s what they want from their editor, and in general figure out what’s possible doesn’t really happen in a “modest amount” of time. > “>Emacs is not so much an editor as it is a tool well-suited for writing custom editors.” There is nothing wrong with this comment, it is a correct statement because emacs by your own admission is a flexible tool that can be modified to one’s liking. For a lot of people that means tailoring it around their workflows/uses before it’s actually useful to them.

na85 4y ago
>The time it takes to look up potential configs, figure out how to make changes, play around and see if that’s what they want from their editor, and in general figure out what’s possible doesn’t really happen in a “modest amount” of time. I'm saying that the developers could, with modest effort, provide a dramatically improved out-of-the-box experience for 80% of users that obviates the need for a lot of config futzing.
- alimov 4y ago
  Yeah that could be true.

rout39574 4y ago

Is there a context from which Emacs' defaults are bad, other than "Windows did it differently!" ? I'm asking because I learned its defaults before windows had the market prevalence that it does, and it just doesn't seem all that different from an outside perspective. I think the term 'grognard' is not helpful to your case. When I read it I find myself assuming that you're dismissing the experiences of people whose context starts before yours. You might prefer to give a different impression.

JasonFruit 4y ago
I think it's perfect: soldiers of the old guard. I think many of us who love Emacs fall into that category.
na85 4y ago
>Is there a context from which Emacs' defaults are bad, other than "Windows did it differently!" ? There are dozens of low hanging fruit. Off the top of my head: - dispensing with the absurd references to Alt as Meta that haven't been relevant for 35 years - bringing the terminology in the documentation into the 2000s by fixing what's called window, a pane, etc. - including CUA mode as default for ease of onboarding windows users - including per-pixel/smooth scrolling which AFAICT is only available via the emacs-mac port - updating the graphical interface to make it look modern and sophisticated instead of the current look which can best be described as "abandonware chic" - improving handling of large files with long lines so the editor doesn't choke - setting the gc threshold to a much higher value - the yes/no vs y/n thing that literally everyone rebinds - make middle click insert at the cursor instead of where the mouse is I'm certain there are dozens of others.
- amake 4y ago
  > - including per-pixel/smooth scrolling which AFAICT is only available via the emacs-mac port The master branch (Emacs 29) has this in `pixel-scroll-precision-mode` and it seems to perform better than the emacs-mac implementation.
- JasonFruit 4y ago

midislack 4y ago

Defaults in emacs are great. You're just brain damaged like all ed and ed-adjacent editor users. No offense.

na85 4y ago
I actually use emacs as my primary editor and like it a lot. The difference is I'm not a zealot.
- midislack 4y ago
  If you weren’t a zealot you wouldn’t be complaining about eMacs lacking the defaults you’re used to in whatever brain damaged editor you are more adroit with. It’s a common thing, don’t worry about it. Most people are brain damaged from poor first choice in editors.
  - na85 4y ago
    >you wouldn’t be complaining about eMacs lacking the defaults you’re used to in whatever brain damaged editor you are more adroit with You're not actually understanding what I've written, if this is your takeaway.
klibertp 4y ago
How could anyone call another "brain damaged" and then demand to them not to be offended? Like, seriously. If you're going to insult someone, live up to it and prepare for a backlash instead of trying to get away with "no offense" quip... Also: Emacs user here, for more than a decade. My opinion: the defaults in Emacs are horrible. They were set in different times, on different computers, with different keyboards. They should get changed. I think most users agree with that. The problem is that whatever we would change the defaults to, it would estrange a part of the community. So nothing gets done. Advanced users don't see the point of struggling, since they already have everything rebound to the keys/menus/toolbars/etc. they want and need. New user see the need, but don't have the skills. It's really a Gordian-knot type of problem. As an aside: similar thing goes on with Emacs' terminal support. It's obvious that maintaining compatibility with display technology from the '70s takes a real toll on both developers time, and improvements that would be possible if not for that compatibility. But then you get a huge crowd that uses Emacs via SSH somewhere, and they go rabid if you mention anything about dropping the terminal support.

pjmlp 4y ago

Back in the 1990's, while disappointed with IDE situation on UNIX I ended up landing on XEmacs, which was way better than Emacs back then. Used it enough until 2005 to get it several features burned on my brain. Nowadays I really don't see the point, and ironically neither does the creator of XEmacs. https://www2.computerworld.com.au/article/207799/don_t_use_emacs_says_java_father/ https://www2.computerworld.com.au/article/207799/don_t_use_e...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]