Helix Editor plans to use Steel as a plugin language [0].
Another issue I have with evil is that it changes a lot of Emacs' default bindings, making it hard to do certain tasks. Some operations simply don't work at all. The kakoune package doesn't do this - at least not in insert mode.
> It's not very fast though and has some conventions that feel archaic
Sadly, multithreading is an afterthought for Emacs. There is just too much legacy stuff to make it easy. The language design is also from another era. The default dynamic binding feels very alien when almost every language everyone knows is lexical binding by default. On the other hand, scheme feel very modern due to very careful language design. But the effort to switch Emacs to scheme didn't find much steam.
There is one aspect where none of the new editors (hx with scheme and nvim with lua)can match Emacs. Emacs is entirely written in elisp with the C parts acting merely as libraries. The extension language for other editors is just an addition to their core editing code.
It is, but it's usable. I'm actually amazed that, even after three major versions, the built-in threading is not used by the community.
Yes, the threads currently are not usable for number crunching in the background. And yes, there are bugs, and trying to do many things from the background thread doesn't work, sometimes in unexpected ways. You can still block the main thread from the background thread since some things block the event loop, no matter where they were started.
But, the threads do give you independent control flows. Whatever you cannot do in the background, you can offload to the main thread with a timer and a queue of lambdas.
The built-in threads are very, very bare-bones - it's around 15 functions, for threads, mutexes, and condition variables. They are very limited by their "mostly cooperative" nature. However, with a bit of sugar, they are usable for at least one thing: async processes and network communication.
In a background thread, you can "block" to wait for a child process to do something. It's natural and requires no macrology (async.el...). The same is true for network communication. You can block and wait for a response while the rest of Emacs does whatever. With just two functions, you can write code without blocking as if you used `call-process`. Sequential actions - call this, wait for it to finish, call that, wait for it to finish, etc. - can now be coded in a sequential way, without having to worry about callbacks, sentinels, and a poor-man FSM implementation that invariably appears in Elisp that doesn't use threads.
The threads built into Emacs, currently, are closer to green threads or coroutines, functionally, than to OS-level threads. But that's still a huge help in a bunch of important and pervasive scenarios. It's really strange that nobody seems to realize this.
With threads (as they are), the Continuation Passing Style compiler macro (in generator.el), and dynamic modules (for actual parallelism where needed) Emacs now has everything it needs to make it non-blocking by default. Of course, that would entail rewriting everything on top of these abstractions, so it's unrealistic - but for new code and packages? I think we're just one package (along the lines of dash, s, etc.) away from convenient concurrency and parallelism in Emacs. The problem, of course, is that someone needs to design and code that package...
I'd say inertia. Emacs is large enough for people not to be aware of "simple" things, so the new threading primitives.. might take a few more years.
Many dynamic languages have bodged on threading over the past decade. (I don't think dynamic languages are intrinsically unthreadable or anything, but their interpreters were pretty deeply based on not having threads.) What that has shown is that 90%-effective threading is useless, and 99%-effective threading is superficially appealing but always, always blows up at any sort of scale.
You really need threads that don't come with all those caveats.
I expect it will get there, but another thing we've learned from previous efforts is that telling the community it's ready before it's ready causes "$LANGUAGE threading" searches to be filled with posts telling people how bad it is, even years and years after it has actually been fixed. It's probably a blessing in disguise it's not something the community is pervasively trying to use.
I think the only sensible way to offer parallelism in Emacs is to exclude the "shared-state" part, the way Racket (places) and OCaml do it. I think Python also tries to do it with subinterpreters? Let another instance of the interpreter run in the same process and communicate via message passing. That's probably still a huge undertaking, but at least it seems more viable than going through the whole codebase and adding locks everywhere...
Still, the "threads" in Emacs, as incomplete and half-baked as they are, can be useful. And if nobody uses them, there's no incentive for the developers to improve them. So I think we need at least some early adopters if we want the threading support in Emacs to get better.
- async/await camp with C# and F#, Swift, Rust, Python, TS/JS (yes, I know, event loop)
- Erlang/Elixir and BEAM family
- virtual threads and/or coroutines - Go, Java, Kotlin
Generally, I don't feel like in 2023 concurrency and parallelism are problematic areas anymore aside from existing aged stacks. From a perspective of mainly .NET ecosystem resident, it has been a shitshow outside of it for a long time indeed with many architectural choices throughout the industry paying for the Java sins (e.g. Kafka) and imposing limitations that seemed nonsensical and embarrassing even 7 years ago.
I'd say concurrency is largely a solved problem, yes; limited parallelism (e.g., with message passing) also mostly works. We don't need to worry about the "C10K problem" anymore. But shared (mutable) state parallelism is, I think, still far from solved - if it can ever be "solved", which is a pretty big assumption :)
Case in point, the recent async updates, native compilation and more. They often leave something to be desired but are nevertheless huge upgrades.
- curiosity
- seeing if I'm missing anything
- haven't had time to get tree sitter stuff configured, and wanted to see how good it is
- see if I want to move back to meow from vanilla (tons of previous vim, evil experience)
- Speed, even though emacs with the emacsclient is pretty much instant
- Font support, for some reason the terminal with Emacs sometimes doesn't render as well as it should
- Some keybindings issues in the terminal like Ctrl-Backspace not working properly.
- See if there are good workflows/defaults I could use in Emacs
A. Most WebAssembly implementations are bigger than Helix itself.
B. WebAssembly is immature.
C. Lisp is perfectly fine. Even if you don't like it, it's not the end of the world if you have to use it to configure Helix.
B. There are probably more computers running WebAssembly loads today than Lisp ones.
C. Lisp is a mature language, almost too mature. I used it extensively in the '80s and it served me well then, but that was 40 years ago. At least have the decency to use a more modern language like Lua, which is what Neovim uses.
B. WebAssembly is immature for developing a plugin system because of the lack of a sufficient ABI: https://github.com/WebAssembly/component-model
C. There aren't any other languages that meet the criteria. Lua was a no-go from the start. The maintainers did not like the language, and it necessitated adding more C code to Helix which could complicate building even further. https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/discussions/3806#discu...
Saying "X is better than Y" or "Why not Z?" is not constructive at all.
I use AwesomeWM, which is basically Emacs of Window Managers, with Lua instead of Elisp. The code is very well written and documented, yet getting into it is much more complicated than if it was written in Python - even if that Python was written poorly.
> it's a tremendous foot gun
I've never seen this footgun in action with elisp in Emacs, lua in neovim or vimscript in vim. Is this anything more than hypothetical?
> Also a huge security hole.
If you put an editor in a position where its Turing-complete configuration is a security hole, you'll be in a lot more trouble than you imagine. Editors by definition are meant to modify stuff in a filesystem. With those privileges, it wont matter what the config language is. The plugins, even in webassembly, will cause serious issues.
And hell, even an "execution safe" configuration can contain malware if there's a parser bug.
At some point you have to choose who to trust and not to trust to write code that runs on your system, and all you can really do is try to verify that they did in fact write it, and run untrusted code in isolation from sensitive data.
There are way more configs out there than there are software projects.
I think the real problem is around being able to trust your entire system. It'd help much more to have a better capability system so my rouge text editor can't upload my photos or credit card info from my browser profile to the internet, but today things kind of work because of tons of well intended and behaved people collaborating.
[0] https://index.scheme.org/filterset/r7rs_small/%28scheme%2520...
[1] https://index.scheme.org/filterset/r7rs_small/%28scheme%2520...
[2] https://index.scheme.org/filterset/r7rs_small/%28scheme%2520...
However, the current state of guarantees around it is not at the point where Turing-completeness is the biggest issue. You can have a simple config, but the rest of the system is still unverifyiable and running unknown blobs.
I think the reasonable way out of it is through restricted capabilities. We won't get a fully verifyiable system we can inspect anytime soon. Probably not before the dark days of mandatory and somewhat provable ad impressions.