5 ms·

Speaking as someone who typically uses Emacs as anything but an editor: Emacs is recognized as an editor because it was designed as an editor with macros (thus

by II2II 4y ago

Speaking as someone who typically uses Emacs as anything but an editor: Emacs is recognized as an editor because it was designed as an editor with macros (thus the name). Those who call Emacs an editor are rarely trying to diminish what it is. If anything, they call it an editor since that is the main entry point to using it and it is much less intimidating than emphasizing elisp. If anything, the opposite is true: those who try to diminish Emacs point out the absurdity of referring to it as an editor. To them, what has been accomplished through elisp is more of an indicator of a lack of focus or of bloat than it is of Emacs versatility.

throw2311 4y ago
[flagged]
- Jtsummers 4y ago
  What is an editor in "modern parlance" then?
  - throw2311 4y ago
    Something that let's you press keys really fast.
    - Jtsummers 4y ago
      So how is an editor with macros not "[s]omething that let's you press keys really fast"?
- emodendroket 4y ago
  So, in other words, it is? I mean yanking and killing are cut and paste by any reasonable standard.
  - throw2311 4y ago
    Apart from the fact you have a kill ring you can edit like any other file sure. In the same vein a car is a tricycle.
- txru 4y ago
  This is such a flamebait-y throwaway
fsckboy 4y ago
> [emacs] was designed as an editor with macros (thus the name) no, that's not true. emacs was written in the macro language of another editor, teco; teco had the macros. So, emacs was written as a new editor written on top of the old editor teco, and at that time, emacs was a set of "teco edit macros". As a user, where you used to run teco, you could instead elect to run the "edit macros" because the authors of emacs were teco users, and macros were so useful to the teco user, yes, a macro facility was also added to emacs for the emacs users, but emacs itself was not intially those macros, it was teco macros.
- lispm 4y ago
  The second Emacs was written for the Lisp Machine by Daniel Weinreb. There the whole editor was written and extended in the same language (Lisp Machine Lisp) in the same environment. There it did not have a separate macro language.
eimrine 4y ago
> thus the name I used to think that this is the least awkward combination of symbols meaning Escape, Meta, Alt, Ctrl, Shift.

by II2II 4y ago

throw2311 4y ago

[flagged]

Jtsummers 4y ago
What is an editor in "modern parlance" then?
- throw2311 4y ago
  Something that let's you press keys really fast.
  - Jtsummers 4y ago
    So how is an editor with macros not "[s]omething that let's you press keys really fast"?
emodendroket 4y ago
So, in other words, it is? I mean yanking and killing are cut and paste by any reasonable standard.
- throw2311 4y ago
  Apart from the fact you have a kill ring you can edit like any other file sure. In the same vein a car is a tricycle.
txru 4y ago
This is such a flamebait-y throwaway

fsckboy 4y ago

> [emacs] was designed as an editor with macros (thus the name) no, that's not true. emacs was written in the macro language of another editor, teco; teco had the macros. So, emacs was written as a new editor written on top of the old editor teco, and at that time, emacs was a set of "teco edit macros". As a user, where you used to run teco, you could instead elect to run the "edit macros" because the authors of emacs were teco users, and macros were so useful to the teco user, yes, a macro facility was also added to emacs for the emacs users, but emacs itself was not intially those macros, it was teco macros.

lispm 4y ago
The second Emacs was written for the Lisp Machine by Daniel Weinreb. There the whole editor was written and extended in the same language (Lisp Machine Lisp) in the same environment. There it did not have a separate macro language.

eimrine 4y ago

> thus the name I used to think that this is the least awkward combination of symbols meaning Escape, Meta, Alt, Ctrl, Shift.