iLemming

16 ms·

241.
by iLemming 4mo ago
Huh? Emacs is inherently a modal editor - transients, isearch, keychords, M-x - these are all forms of modality. Vim-motions simply organizing that all into nice set of patterns - memorable and very practical. Besides, both Doom and Spacema
242.
by iLemming 4mo ago
I'm a die-hard vimmer. I use vim-motions everywhere - they permeate my editors/IDEs, browsers, terminal, I use them system wide (e.g. to change volume or control media or my WM). One day I woke up with the realization of the funda
243.
by iLemming 4mo ago
> I have no idea what they mean Emacs can "describe" anything contextually. Describe current mode, character at point, specific command, any variable, etc. With Wilfred/helpful it gives you even more stuff. If you're
244.
by iLemming 4mo ago
And that's why it cost me two-three years of wasted experience. Looking back, I wish I had focused more on understanding Elisp, learning edebug and the built-in profiler. My bona fide Emacs journey began only after I started writing El
245.
by iLemming 4mo ago
Emacs is most definitely not a rocket science. The problem with people trying Emacs is that they approach it just like any other text editor, instead of understanding the grand, core principle of it - Emacs is first and foremost a Lisp inte
246.
by iLemming 4mo ago
I have an opposite argument - no other file manager ever worked for me and I tried and keep trying so many. And not because Dired "is so much better" or "far more capable", or "has better default keybindings",
247.
by iLemming 4mo ago
Missing the point - it's not about "attacking/defending" - Emacs and Vim just can't be compared categorically, the core of their design is about two dissimilar, unrelated concepts. Vim's augmentation of modalit
248.
by iLemming 4mo ago
> does everything break on updates and need fixing Emacs is a kitchen and emacs-packages are recipes - they come with the exact instructions (source code). If you try to cook fifty different meals all at once, your kitchen inevitably wou
249.
by iLemming 4mo ago
> I do wish that Emacs was more popular with LLM technologies. Let's reword this a bit: "I wish Lisp use was more popular with LLMs...", because using Lisp REPL with AI is such a "life hack", I don't get why
250.
by iLemming 4mo ago
> what's wrong with the Neovim ecosystem Nothing's wrong with it. It's just incomparable categorically. Just like you can't really equate a photo-editor and the web-browser. Sure, there's a way to do photo editin
251.
by iLemming 4mo ago
Does it really matter? There's a point in every Lisper's life, a threshold after which the question becomes immaterial - you'd stop thinking about intricacies of whatever Lisp and focus on the platform specifics instead. Any
252.
by iLemming 4mo ago
So yes, you're already using Clojure REPL with CIDER, right? Then why not make AI use it as well? You can do that directly from Emacs, with ECA¹ for example. Which on its own won't change anything - it still be in that batch-style
253.
by iLemming 4mo ago
Well, that's not how a Clojure dev normally would write it. If you're not using the REPL (with or without AI) - you're missing the point/misusing the tool. Therefore "remains shockingly bad" perspective is unfa
254.
by iLemming 4mo ago
> why my above comment is getting downvoted The most infamous two letters of our time - humans do not like machines, and absolutely hate those who do. > I voiced a valid concern Not unwarranted. When you treat a homoiconic language ju
255.
by iLemming 4mo ago
I bet you're just treating it like any other (non-homoiconic) language. An agent that edits files and re-runs `clj` is doing something fundamentally different from what a Clojure developer typically does. When you give the agent a REPL
256.
by iLemming 4mo ago
> Is AI any good at Clojure? It's okay when you use it just like any other PL, which is roughly the Unix/pipe model - batch-style. Agent spawns process -> reads stdout/stderr -> spawns next process. State lives in-be
257.
by iLemming 4mo ago
Clojure hands down far more pleasant to write. Also, the announcement of this project aligned perfectly - happened just two days apart this thread. https://github.com/jolt-lang/jolt The author is a well-known clojurist
258.
by iLemming 5mo ago
Oh, come on. I get when people complain about AI-assisted writing. It's mostly about signal-to-noise. Yes, AI makes it trivially cheap to produce "correct but empty" content - articles that are technically accurate, well-stru
259.
by iLemming 5mo ago
> I'd love to know what I'm missing afaik, Janet's immutable structs/tuples are flat copies - no structural sharing. Clojure uses HAMTs. So it's truly immutable by default - you'd transform data without inte
260.
by iLemming 5mo ago
OMG. You got me. I'm so, so sorry you caught me spreading lies about your precious programming language (or your favorite book, I don't know what you're trying to protect more). Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the d
261.
by iLemming 5mo ago
It's platform-dependent isn't it? Otherwise, the practical differences between Lisp dialects are negligible. For me writing either in Janet or Fennel or Clojure feels almost like writing in the same language. Babashka has replaced
262.
by iLemming 5mo ago
You can replace Java there with pretty much any OOP language, where functions are not first-class citizens, and it will still be true. There are no "false claims" here. The main point is valid. We have orchestrated an entire indus
263.
by iLemming 5mo ago
> like lua/wren which can transpile to Janet too. Really? I've used dozens of languages and honestly, I just can't wrap my head around how ugly Lua code can get. At first, I tried treating it as "javascript with no ba
264.
by iLemming 5mo ago
> Lisp from my understanding is incredibly polarizing No it's not! It's as "polarizing" as "group theory" or "set theory". Lisp is fucking math - it maps closely to formal mathematical/logical
265.
by iLemming 5mo ago
> the world as we perceive it is made of objects Of course easier to explain the "strategy pattern" to a florist, instead of saying "imagine a function that takes a function". Who the hell understands functions? Such
266.
by iLemming 5mo ago
> janet has replaced sh, python, awk, etc.... babashka did that for me.
267.
by iLemming 5mo ago
> I have a visceral reaction to square brackets Once you understand how destructuring works in Clojure, it then becomes obvious what role square-brackets play.
268.
by iLemming 5mo ago
> studied them in school - but i quickly forgot and never got around Because industry lied to you, promising "simplicity and riches". The industry didn't just overcomplicate programming. It institutionalized the complicat
269.
by iLemming 5mo ago
> over very abstract things. I beg to differ. There's just isn't "easy and straightforward" path to simplicity. We thought that explaining the world with "objects" was simple and instead of using already exi
270.
by iLemming 5mo ago
I've been programming for over four decades as a hobby and more than twenty years professionally. I have gone through dozens of languages and still trying to learn more. Getting into Clojure still remains one of the best decisions I ma

More ›