5 ms·

Counterpoint: If you want a terminal w/o the bloat of a full GUI, but still most of the advantages, `xterm-mouse-mode` will get you 80% of the way there: (

Counterpoint: If you want a terminal w/o the bloat of a full GUI, but still most of the advantages, `xterm-mouse-mode` will get you 80% of the way there: (require 'mouse) (xterm-mouse-mode t) (mouse-wheel-mode t) (setq mouse-wheel-scroll-amount '(1 ((shift) . 1))) ;; scroll one line at a time (setq mouse-wheel-progressive-speed nil) ;; don't accelerate scrolling (setq mouse-wheel-follow-mouse 't) ;; scroll window under mouse (setq scroll-step 1) ;; scroll smoothly Also, I should point out that I use `(setq auto-save-default nil)` - as God intended.

charcircuit 3y ago
>w/o the bloat of a full GUI, People are going to be using Emacs with a monitor. It's more bloat to have to have a GUI application that emulates a terminal and then run Emacs inside that emulator instead of just having Emacs be the GUI itself.
- chrisfinazzo 3y ago
  See my response to db48x for context.
db48x 3y ago
“without the bloat of a gui”? Aren’t you missing the fact that the terminal emulator is itself a gui?
- chrisfinazzo 3y ago
  Unsaid in all of this is that Emacs isn't my main text editor - that is the job of BBEdit where the GUI is both expected and rather good - instead, it is the "editor of last resort" (Vim is inscrutable to me). The emacs GUI inside a terminal window - invoked w/ xterm-mouse-mode - is still rather minimal. I'm thinking more about emacs-gtk or Aquamacs. You could argue that the GUI gives you access to more system capabilities in a straightforward way - buttons/controls v keybindings - but this isn't a dealbreaker for me. As long as I have a readily available reference for keybindings, that's good enough for me.
  - db48x 3y ago
    I’m not sure what your point is, exactly. If you run Emacs in a terminal, you can press F10 to access the menus. They’re the exact same menus as you would see in the Emacs GUI. There’s just no way that the GUI adds bloat in any meaningful sense; it’s the same program either way.
    - darthrupert 3y ago
      Perhaps parent doesn't know that the toolbar etc can ve removed in graphical mode.
      - chrisfinazzo 3y ago
        To my way of thinking, the idea that you would remove the toolbar in graphical mode defeats the purpose. Emacs keybindings are complicated enough that I'd rather keep the ability to click a button available at all times even if I don't use it regularly - see my prior comment re BBEdit. Such is life that I have some physical issues with my hands that make a purely keyboard driven interface occasionally uncomfortable. The chorded keystrokes in Vim were not satisfying to me, so I went in an emacs direction ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ When I started building out my init.el, it became apparent that I needed an escape hatch from time to time - this is it.
mschaef 3y ago
> w/o the bloat of a full GUI, I remember that logic making sense when I tried to run Emacs on an 8MB 486... but that was about the last time it did.

charcircuit 3y ago

>w/o the bloat of a full GUI, People are going to be using Emacs with a monitor. It's more bloat to have to have a GUI application that emulates a terminal and then run Emacs inside that emulator instead of just having Emacs be the GUI itself.

chrisfinazzo 3y ago
See my response to db48x for context.

db48x 3y ago

“without the bloat of a gui”? Aren’t you missing the fact that the terminal emulator is itself a gui?

chrisfinazzo 3y ago
Unsaid in all of this is that Emacs isn't my main text editor - that is the job of BBEdit where the GUI is both expected and rather good - instead, it is the "editor of last resort" (Vim is inscrutable to me). The emacs GUI inside a terminal window - invoked w/ xterm-mouse-mode - is still rather minimal. I'm thinking more about emacs-gtk or Aquamacs. You could argue that the GUI gives you access to more system capabilities in a straightforward way - buttons/controls v keybindings - but this isn't a dealbreaker for me. As long as I have a readily available reference for keybindings, that's good enough for me.
- db48x 3y ago
  I’m not sure what your point is, exactly. If you run Emacs in a terminal, you can press F10 to access the menus. They’re the exact same menus as you would see in the Emacs GUI. There’s just no way that the GUI adds bloat in any meaningful sense; it’s the same program either way.
  - darthrupert 3y ago
    Perhaps parent doesn't know that the toolbar etc can ve removed in graphical mode.
    - chrisfinazzo 3y ago
      To my way of thinking, the idea that you would remove the toolbar in graphical mode defeats the purpose. Emacs keybindings are complicated enough that I'd rather keep the ability to click a button available at all times even if I don't use it regularly - see my prior comment re BBEdit. Such is life that I have some physical issues with my hands that make a purely keyboard driven interface occasionally uncomfortable. The chorded keystrokes in Vim were not satisfying to me, so I went in an emacs direction ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ When I started building out my init.el, it became apparent that I needed an escape hatch from time to time - this is it.

mschaef 3y ago

> w/o the bloat of a full GUI, I remember that logic making sense when I tried to run Emacs on an 8MB 486... but that was about the last time it did.