4 ms·

> Your comment is confusing because emacs isn't a library for creating rich text mode applications. But all the functions Emacs has and Elisp together do seem

by distcs 4y ago

> Your comment is confusing because emacs isn't a library for creating rich text mode applications. But all the functions Emacs has and Elisp together do seem like a library for creating rich text mode applications. Just look at how Magit does text-mode and rich-text visualization of Git commits, trees. Look at how Org-mode formats headings, code blocks, tables in different styles.

tyingq 4y ago
Yes, but it's sort of like saying nobody should use libcurl because you can already write a browser plugin in chrome. An opinionated extendable ecosystem isn't the same as a library even if they can do similar things.
sundarurfriend 4y ago
Except all such tools assume a lot of implicit knowledge about Emacs itself, and how to navigate it, on the part of the user. Is your argument that no one should create TUI applications except within Emacs? It's pretty confusing at this point.
- distcs 4y ago
  > Is your argument that no one should create TUI applications except within Emacs? Not at all. I said in my original comment that I am all for creating TUI applications. And also that the work done by Textual is nothing short of impressive. What I ask here is why new users are averse to using Emacs+packages when they are ready to put similar time investment in learning TUI applications which also come with their own commands, keybindings, workflows and learning curve?
  - funklute 4y ago
    Arguably, the terminal is more general. Pretty much every developer will at some point have significant interactions with a terminal. The same cannot be said for emacs. On top of that, the terminal is a more general-purpose tool than emacs, and it is much less opinionated than emacs (each TUI tends instead to do their own thing, for good or bad). I think the bottomline is that it's quite natural to delve into TUIs, when needed, whereas emacs requires a bit more of a dedicated interest (I say this as someone whose main driver was emacs for many years, though I've now gone back to (neo)vim).
    - maydup-nem 4y ago
      > general You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
      - funklute 4y ago
        I am perfectly aware what that word means, and it is exactly the word I wanted to use. Instead of being a condescending asshole, perhaps you can explain what you disagree with.
  - jen20 4y ago
    > why new users are averse to using Emacs+packages when they are ready to put similar time investment in learning TUI applications Not a new user, but because I use vim as an editor, IntelliJ as an IDE, and have precisely no interest in emacs. On the other hand the new TUIs I use are minimal in number - k9s and damon are the extent.

by distcs 4y ago

tyingq 4y ago

Yes, but it's sort of like saying nobody should use libcurl because you can already write a browser plugin in chrome. An opinionated extendable ecosystem isn't the same as a library even if they can do similar things.

sundarurfriend 4y ago

Except all such tools assume a lot of implicit knowledge about Emacs itself, and how to navigate it, on the part of the user. Is your argument that no one should create TUI applications except within Emacs? It's pretty confusing at this point.

distcs 4y ago
> Is your argument that no one should create TUI applications except within Emacs? Not at all. I said in my original comment that I am all for creating TUI applications. And also that the work done by Textual is nothing short of impressive. What I ask here is why new users are averse to using Emacs+packages when they are ready to put similar time investment in learning TUI applications which also come with their own commands, keybindings, workflows and learning curve?
- funklute 4y ago
  Arguably, the terminal is more general. Pretty much every developer will at some point have significant interactions with a terminal. The same cannot be said for emacs. On top of that, the terminal is a more general-purpose tool than emacs, and it is much less opinionated than emacs (each TUI tends instead to do their own thing, for good or bad). I think the bottomline is that it's quite natural to delve into TUIs, when needed, whereas emacs requires a bit more of a dedicated interest (I say this as someone whose main driver was emacs for many years, though I've now gone back to (neo)vim).
  - maydup-nem 4y ago
    > general You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
    - funklute 4y ago
      I am perfectly aware what that word means, and it is exactly the word I wanted to use. Instead of being a condescending asshole, perhaps you can explain what you disagree with.
- jen20 4y ago
  > why new users are averse to using Emacs+packages when they are ready to put similar time investment in learning TUI applications Not a new user, but because I use vim as an editor, IntelliJ as an IDE, and have precisely no interest in emacs. On the other hand the new TUIs I use are minimal in number - k9s and damon are the extent.