5 ms·

> about 10% maintains an elisp package IMO that is probably better than most other ecosystems where this percentage is often 1-3%. > about 90% can program in

> about 10% maintains an elisp package IMO that is probably better than most other ecosystems where this percentage is often 1-3%. > about 90% can program in elisp Emacs doesn't really make a distinction between user and developer, and its a major driving principle behind the whole endeavor. > makes me suspect the outcomes are skewed Very much possible. But the survey was advertised over HN, matrix, IRC and Reddit. The last being a lot more 'general' audience than other 3, which I expect skews other ways. Anyway, knowing what Emacs is itself is a selection bias, so this is hardly unexpected. > or emacs is doomed If current breakneck speed of development of core Emacs as well as ecosystem at large is any indicator, I'm not preparing the doomsday shelter any time soon :)

guestbest 4y ago
Is there any security for elisp?
NeutralForest 4y ago
Good points, but rn it seems that Emacs is playing a game of catching up. Thinks like LSP integration, tree-sitter are coming now but it's still really rough. I'm glad they are! But we're not there yet.
- pritambaral 4y ago
  Merging into core is not really needed for a feature; it just bakes it in. That's the point of emacs: it's made to be extended, no need to draw a line between a user and a developer. LSP integration has been available for very long time, just not from the core emacs repo. For example, Ubuntu does not ship with Blender, because no official build of Ubuntu is available with Blender pre-installed in the iso, but that doesn't mean Blender is not available on Ubuntu. Emacs is a lot like that. Similarly for tree-sitter. Available as a package for a while, only now also available built-in. An Emacs release is not needed to get a feature in Emacs.
  - NeutralForest 4y ago
    I just don't agree, a text editor/IDE should have user ergonomics in mind. The fewer steps there are between your spinning the IDE and having a working setup, the better it is for the end user. Extensibility is important and useful but it also comes at a heavier mental load for users because it introduces complexity, and Emacs is already complex enough imo.
    - tazjin 4y ago
      > The fewer steps there are between your spinning the IDE and having a working setup What you're overseeing here is that Emacs configurations are usually highly individual, and that "a working setup" for _you_ does not mean the same as it does for _me_. For example, regarding LSPs, I only use them in very rare cases because usually LSP implementations themselves (regardless of the editor you use them in) are buggy and/or slow. For me it's much more important that the actual _text editing_ experience is consistent across languages, than the tooling for any particular language.
      - NeutralForest 4y ago
        I just disagree with this view, lots of people use it to code. It should be easy to setup a coding environment with it. That's all I mean.
        _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        Long term emacs user, and I agree. I need to learn to program it but more importantly, I should be able to install a package and have it work because I use emacs for just that - work. There's too much 'add this include your .emacs' etc. But it's getting better.
        pritambaral 4y ago
        > I just disagree with this view, lots of people use it to code. I agree. It wasn't obvious to me, at first, that Emacs is not a code editor, rather just a Lisp program for editing lots of text. And I didn't even know what Lisp was at the time, so it wouldn't have helped either way. But ... > It should be easy to setup a coding environment with it. It kinda is. I started using Emacs with just a Spacemacs install. And I didn't need to learn anything about Emacs for a long time after that. It was only when Spacemacs stopped being maintained, and I started facing issues due to that, that I looked deeper. It helped that I had learned what Lisp is (Common Lisp, though, not Emacs Lisp) for it to finally click, so I got lucky that way. Now, even when I know Emacs (and Emacs Lisp) rather well, I still stick to Doom Emacs to "setup a coding environment with it".

guestbest 4y ago

Is there any security for elisp?

NeutralForest 4y ago

Good points, but rn it seems that Emacs is playing a game of catching up. Thinks like LSP integration, tree-sitter are coming now but it's still really rough. I'm glad they are! But we're not there yet.

pritambaral 4y ago
Merging into core is not really needed for a feature; it just bakes it in. That's the point of emacs: it's made to be extended, no need to draw a line between a user and a developer. LSP integration has been available for very long time, just not from the core emacs repo. For example, Ubuntu does not ship with Blender, because no official build of Ubuntu is available with Blender pre-installed in the iso, but that doesn't mean Blender is not available on Ubuntu. Emacs is a lot like that. Similarly for tree-sitter. Available as a package for a while, only now also available built-in. An Emacs release is not needed to get a feature in Emacs.
- NeutralForest 4y ago
  I just don't agree, a text editor/IDE should have user ergonomics in mind. The fewer steps there are between your spinning the IDE and having a working setup, the better it is for the end user. Extensibility is important and useful but it also comes at a heavier mental load for users because it introduces complexity, and Emacs is already complex enough imo.
  - tazjin 4y ago
    > The fewer steps there are between your spinning the IDE and having a working setup What you're overseeing here is that Emacs configurations are usually highly individual, and that "a working setup" for _you_ does not mean the same as it does for _me_. For example, regarding LSPs, I only use them in very rare cases because usually LSP implementations themselves (regardless of the editor you use them in) are buggy and/or slow. For me it's much more important that the actual _text editing_ experience is consistent across languages, than the tooling for any particular language.
    - NeutralForest 4y ago
      I just disagree with this view, lots of people use it to code. It should be easy to setup a coding environment with it. That's all I mean.
      - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        Long term emacs user, and I agree. I need to learn to program it but more importantly, I should be able to install a package and have it work because I use emacs for just that - work. There's too much 'add this include your .emacs' etc. But it's getting better.
      - pritambaral 4y ago
        > I just disagree with this view, lots of people use it to code. I agree. It wasn't obvious to me, at first, that Emacs is not a code editor, rather just a Lisp program for editing lots of text. And I didn't even know what Lisp was at the time, so it wouldn't have helped either way. But ... > It should be easy to setup a coding environment with it. It kinda is. I started using Emacs with just a Spacemacs install. And I didn't need to learn anything about Emacs for a long time after that. It was only when Spacemacs stopped being maintained, and I started facing issues due to that, that I looked deeper. It helped that I had learned what Lisp is (Common Lisp, though, not Emacs Lisp) for it to finally click, so I got lucky that way. Now, even when I know Emacs (and Emacs Lisp) rather well, I still stick to Doom Emacs to "setup a coding environment with it".