Hacker News Reader

Comment by tharne | Hacker News Reader

I prefer vim as an editor, but in terms of being a unique and fascinating piece of software, emacs wins hands down. There's something really cool about the fact that you can't easily answer the question, "What is emacs similar to?", because it's such a total sui generis.

View on HN

It's similar to a Lisp Machine.

Based on a few old mailing list it's apparently only very slightly so, and i'm not dissing emacs, it's just that the people who made lisp os and it's graphical layer really did allow users to augment and interact with most of the system in a very fluid and capable manner. Some examples from that mailing list (thread from the 90s or maybe even 80s) were still not present on a daily basis for code edition / versionning in the 2000s. Makes you wonder

As mentioned under another reply, take a look at evil-mode. Near-perfect vim compatibility as far as I can tell. Best of both worlds in my opinion!

Viper mode could give you the best of both worlds, depending on what you like about vim. If it's the key navigation, viper has you covered.

spacemacs has a very complete vim layer. By far it's the most complete implementation outside of actual vim I've seen.

Spacemacs uses “Evil mode”[1], which is available just as a regular (MELPA) package. I started with Vim and so I’ve always used evil. “Vanilla” emacs, spacemacs, now doom.

[1] https://github.com/emacs-evil/evil

I'm curious if you've already used evil with vanilla why you'd migrate to spacemacs or doom. I've never found either to add much that a custom config can't get to easily and with more control. Maybe that's changed in the past half-decade or so since I last tried Spacemacs, though.

The vim bindings are only one part of Spacemacs. The other (and I'd say most important) part is the SPC menu that exposes hundreds of keybindings in a discoverable, unobtrusive, and interactive interface.

Isn't that also just an elpa / melpa package though?

I guess so? And if the aim is to make something completely custom, that's fine. But the Spacemacs keybindings are very well thought out, the configuration is just as important as the feature itself.

The keybindings are bound with evil and displayed with which-key, but the spacemacs special sauce is the keybindings themselves. There are probably thousands of them across all the optional layers. They're crowd-sourced essentially. So you don't have to set them up manually for each language/tool you work with, you just add the layer and get sensible defaults out of the box.

I have a somewhat lengthy vanilla config, and I can tell you why I'm thinking about trying out Doom:

At work, I had to make some simple modifications in a go project. I've never done go before, so I had to google how to add support for it on emacs. There's always more than one choice, which one is the best maintained package? Is there an optional but ubiquitous plugin that will make it more enjoyable?

With Doom, you just add the go layer and you're good to go. I'm fine spending time setting up, i.e., a clojure config, since I use it all the time. It's well-spent effort. Not as much for a language I seldom have to use.

I used emacs quite a lot, back in the day, and have switched to vim for now.. well, too long. Thing with vim is that I've never seen anyone using stock vim and keys, there's this whole layer of plugins and custom key bindings that make it so effective for any particular user. Would that translate to spacemacs at all? I've only glanced at it, but not sure if it supports Vim plug for example.

Stock Spacemacs is like a fully-tricked out Vim configuration, made by and for "plugin" junkies. Its leader-based keybindings are very well thought-out and discoverable since you get a small menu for the level you are at. For example <space> g gets you to the git submenu, if you forget that <space> g s gets you magit-status it will remind you there.

> Stock Spacemacs is like a fully-tricked out Vim configuration, made by and for "plugin" junkies.

That is a fantastic description of Spacemacs

Sincere question: if I already have a vim setup with all the plugins I like, and I switch to evil mode so everything more or less works as I had it, what does emacs open the door to that I couldn’t do before? Org mode I imagine is one piece. Is there anything else I should look at if I try it?

There are a few IMHO: magit [1] is a nice piece for Git. And there's vterm, if you wish to use a (usable) term or tmux/screen without leaving the editor, tramp mode [2] for remote files and last but not least ergoemacs [3] if you prefer the CUA style for generic commands (and reduce RSI). Oh, and forgot to mention helm [4] too...

[1] https://magit.vc

[2] https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/TrampMode

[3] https://ergoemacs.github.io/

[4] https://github.com/emacs-helm/helm

I'm all set up with spacemacs and trying these out, thanks so much for the tips! So far so good.

Spacemacs is indeed great, I used it myself recently. But I will say, it's no longer really actively maintained. The community has migrated over to ~~Spacemacs~ Dooom Emacs, which is very similar (still uses space as leader key and vim bindings everywhere). In my experience, Doom Emacs runs a lot faster too.

https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs

edit: Changeed Spacemacs to Doom Emacs, whoops.

> The community has migrated over to Spacemacs

I'm guessing you meant to say Doom Emacs there?

I did! Thank you for the correction. Editted.

Its true that many have moved on to Doom, but Spacemacs is absolutely still maintained.

Hearing about Viper reminds me about the times where I was just starting to use Emacs, about 10 years ago! Fond memories :)

Since then, Evil-mode has effectively superseded it. I wish I had learnt vim-like editing a long time ago, as Vim-bindings seem to be mostly well-maintained in every editor.

Emacs-bindings are also in most editors, but it's not as useful since people (most people? in any case, me) usually customize the default shortcuts quite a bit. And less manpower to maintain them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com