Comment by masfoobar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by masfoobar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> GUIs and proprietary protocols have killed Emacs

I have been using Emacs since 2010. What started as this 'what do I do' white screen has evolved into a powerful tool.

During this time, I have seen various other editors or IDEs all considered to be "better" but are eventually tossed aside in favour of something else.

Visual Studio (the IDE) has gone through some changes. Some for the better. However, there is also worse. It is slow and bloated.

Now we have Visual Studio Code which a lot of people seem to use, even those that judged me for using emacs a few years back. But... IDEs are better, right?

We also have Sublime Text 2 which was all the rage around 2013. Even they were laughing at me for using emacs. Now, I hardly see anyone using it.

Once in a while (in the last 15 years) I see the odd vi or vim user. They continue to exist like me with emacs. While I cannot confirm, I would not be surprised if most of these have moved to neovim or gone elsewhere.

Point is - emacs will be around for many years to come. It may never be the "best" in term of numbers but I would not be surprised if, in the next 10 years, Visual Studio Code or Neovim have moved on to some other new editor or IDE (or another vi variant, respectivelt) yet emacs is still there.

I have been using Slack properly in the last few months and I am not really that impressed with it. Sure, I am not using Emacs and I would not be surprised if there is emacs support for it. I would not be surprised is Slack is replaced by something else in 10 years. No different to other "management" tools that come and go.

So heres to Emacs. For me, it is worth it - and while things always change... emacs is likely to be about for some time.

> Now we have Visual Studio Code which a lot of people seem to use, even those that judged me for using emacs a few years back. But... IDEs are better, right?

VS Code is not an IDE, it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs. And it's now 9 years old, so I would think it has established itself well for this decade.

> We also have Sublime Text 2

It's now at version 4, still in development. But being a commercial app, which is also not that cheap, you will naturally see not too many people using it. But considering they are still developing it, they seem to still make money from it, so enough people are using it I guess.

> Once in a while (in the last 15 years) I see the odd vi or vim user. They continue to exist like me with emacs.

That's a very strange observation. There are significant more (neo)vim-users than emacs-users around. They are probably the second biggest crowd in text-editor-space, only beaten by VS Code at the moment. It's far more likely for emacs to die, than for vim.

> Point is - emacs will be around for many years to come.

That's true for all of them. As long as someone maintains them, people will use them. Software will only die when they don't start anymore or the users left them. And at the moment Emacs seems more at the position where users will slowly die of old age, than Emacs not starting anymore. So another 30, 40 years, and Emacs might have a real problem.

> VS Code is not an IDE...

I know.

> ...it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs. And it's now 9 years old, so I would think it has established itself well for this decade.

Point I am making is those using Visual Studio (before Visual Studio Code) would criticise me for using Emacs.. a text editor. They mocked me because "IDEs are better"

Roll on to more recent times.. many of said people are now using Visual Studio Code. The same people that told me "IDEs are better"

> It's now at version 4, still in development. But being a commercial app, which is also not that cheap, you will naturally see not too many people using it. But considering they are still developing it, they seem to still make money from it, so enough people are using it I guess.

I will admit I did not know there was a ST v4. I knew about version 3 (I will not get into that). I do not know anyone using it. Not suggesting noone is.. just my personal observation. I would not be surprised if many ST2 users moved to VSCode.

> That's a very strange observation. There are significant more (neo)vim-users than emacs-users around

I was talking about vi/vim.. not neovim.

I made my point with regards to VSCode and NeoVim. They are the current cool kids on the block. Not suggesting they wont be popular in 10 years time. They could be.. but large of their userbase could move onto another cool kid by then. Emacs, on the other hand (like vi/vim) will continue like they normally do.

> Point I am making is those using Visual Studio (before Visual Studio Code) would criticise me for using Emacs.. a text editor. They mocked me because "IDEs are better"

Maybe you failed to explain it, probably, or configure the IDE-features of Emacs? I mean, that's the point of VS Code and Emacs and others like them. They can have IDE-features, without being an IDE. And those features can have value it used well, elevating these apps above your normal plain text editor.

> I was talking about vi/vim.. not neovim.

There is no significant difference between them, and no reason to distinguish between them when talking about users and their preferences. One can move mostly freely between them with little to no hindrance.

I assume you're joking right? Vim/Neovim have already diverged. They have completely separate scripting languages now, config languages for the main config file, and Neovim has LSP support out of the box, removed cscope and a bunch of other built ins... They have about as much in common as Vim has with Helix.

> Vim/Neovim have already diverged.

They are still 99% the same. They still have the same mental model, shortcuts, commands...

> They have completely separate scripting languages now, config languages for the main config file, and Neovim has LSP support out of the box

I'm not saying there can't be work involved when moving from one to the other. But it depends on the user, their setup and is more akin to changing from one vim-version to another version, not like switching between two completely different editors.

From my experience, a (neo)vim-user will always be able to continue with (neo)vim or any other future flavor of them instantly on a high level out-of-the-box. Which is very different from switching to any other editor. I mean I have seen vim-users being challenged by nano, simply because it's so different from they established habits..

> Maybe you failed to explain it, probably, or configure the IDE-features of Emacs? I mean, that's the point of VS Code and Emacs and others like them. They can have IDE-features, without being an IDE. And those features can have value it used well, elevating these apps above your normal plain text editor.

Lots of assumptions to try and cling on to some kind of point, I guess.

> There is no significant difference between them, and no reason to distinguish between them when talking about users and their preferences. One can move mostly freely between them with little to no hindrance.

Wrong.

> VS Code is not an IDE, it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs.

"We were not out to win over the Lisp programmers; we were after the C++ programmers. We managed to drag a lot of them about halfway to Lisp."

Interesting way to get an acknowledgement that IDEs aren't as advanced as Emacs, I suppose, and that VSCode (as in Man Vs Code, one of the Basic Plots) is only partway to being Emacs, being a GUI version (simplification) of the core concept, as if Emacs didn't already have a GUI.

(Having a GUI being different from depending on a GUI, but baby steps... )

> And it's now 9 years old, so I would think it has established itself well for this decade.

But no guarantees about the next decade.

> it's more like the evolved GUI-Version of Emacs

If you mean "evolved GUI-Version" and not also "evolved emacs" I might be able to agree. The friction in customizing vscode is too high and in some cases impossible given you have no hooks or way to order plugin load order (last I checked).

I think a lot of people would argue that Emacs is also slow and bloated, but makes you, the user, program most of the functionality you get from VSCode or JB out of the box. Want fuzzing finding? That's a package. Want git integration? That's a package. Want LSP? Also a package. Want to have sane defaults? Go look at 20 different init.els online and cargo cult a bunch of elisp. And after you've made your own Emacs stew spend, the next 14 years stomping out bugs and ignoring the things it still can't do, like run a multi-threaded tramp so a bad connection doesn't freeze your entire editor.

I think the people who switch from editor to editor that requires 0 config actually saved time and money by just doing their job rather than configuring their editor, and this is coming from a Vim user. Emacs is a black whole where "free" time gets sucked in never to be seen again. The big difference is as a Vim user I only had to configure my editor, you had to configure your entire operating system including Org mode.

I also am not sure about the whole Vim thing. On reddit, Vim has 3x the number of community users as Emacs and Neovim. I think Vim is still by far the most popular text based editor, but nowadays I think VSCode is unfortunately here to stay because Microsoft knows the value of having a captive developer audience.

Emacs does do a lot more "out of the box" now than many people realize. You will still have to turn them on, I think; but you don't have to install as many external packages as you are implying there.

And the problem with "sane defaults" is that to those of us that have been on Emacs for a long time, the defaults are sane. If you were to switch them on us, that would be frustrating. You /could/ make it so that startup on a vanilla setup has a set of checkboxes for common input schemes that people select between. I'm not sure why that hasn't been done, or what other issues that would have.

As for saving time/money by "doing their job" rather than configuring an editor. This is always a tough one. I don't think people should have to spend time getting to know their editors. But, I also don't worry that people don't spend time learning to care for their cars or their plumbing. That is, it makes sense that many people want to outsource that effort to others. It also makes sense that many people like getting into that sort of stuff. And I don't know why it has to be a battle between them?

> I think a lot of people would argue that Emacs is also slow and bloated, but makes you, the user, program most of the functionality you get from VSCode or JB out of the box

I only use what I need. Use-Package, Org, Org-Roam, Magit, Yasnippets, and Modes for my chosen programming languages.. are a must.

all other things, like Themes, come second. Anything else are just nice additions.

Point is, I do not spend much time playing about with my config.

> I think the people who switch from editor to editor that requires 0 config actually saved time and money

Moving from IDE/Editor to another IDE/Editor will still have some form of learning curve. I stick with Emacs, based on my comments above.

> I also am not sure about the whole Vim thing.

Sure - my comment is not an Emacs vs Vi thing. I know vi/vim is still popular and, yes, I still use it from time to time when SSH'ing onto a server for a quick config change. I am expecting it to be more popular than emacs. Point is, despite neovim coming around.. I am sure vi (or vim) will still be lurking around in 10 years.. like emacs.

>Want fuzzing finding? That's a package

No, it's built in. Want non-default fuzzy finding? That's a package.

>Want git integration? That's a package

No, that's built in. Want non-default git integration that's fancier? That's a package

>Want LSP? Also a package

No, that's built in.

>Want to have sane defaults? Go look at 20 different init.els online and cargo cult a bunch of elisp.

No, read the tutorial or install a starter kit if you must, but really the defaults are fine -- just old. You can do almost everything you want in Emacs with just Alt-x (M-x) and running commands. It's what those new editors call a "command palette" except Emacs has had one for decades.

> The big difference is as a Vim user I only had to configure my editor, you had to configure your entire operating system including Org mode.

lol what? This must be a troll post. Org Mode is not required in any way to use Emacs, and it actually has pretty decent defaults because it's actively developed.

Semantics. Some of the packages are included, all of them have to be turned on and configured, and hopefully the user already knows about use package and understands the syntax for customizations and keybindings. Of course, if they try to Google how to use these packages they'll realize that Eglot doesn't work with DAP, so if you want to debug anything you'll need to go download the third party lsp-mode and dap-mode, configure them, then realize everyone uses swiper, consul, etc. which you'll need to download and configure as well.

> but really the defaults are fine -- just old.

I assume this is just Stockholm syndrome. Every Emacs config starts by turning on the same minor modes hooked to prog major modes for simple stuff like bracket matching and line numbers. Every config sets the same early-init.el params to stop emacs from being slow. If the defaults were sane, everyone wouldn't be disabling and enabling the same stuff in their config. The defaults are not sane precisely because people complain that changing any of the defaults for a 30 year old editor in 2024 is tantamount to open source treason.

> Some of the packages are included, all of them have to be turned on and configured

I see where you're coming from, but I think this is a bit exaggerated as well.

For some concrete examples:

- Git: Emacs does have a built-in `vc-mode`, which can be used without any prior configuration by pressing `C-x v`. Or you can go to `Tools > Version Control` in the menu bar (if you haven't disabled it). Many people prefer to install Magit, but the built-in package is actually quite decent (the UX is a bit similar).

- You brought up LSP. Emacs now has a built-in `eglot` mode which connects to LSP servers, and is pre-configured to work with many of the open-source ones. You can turn it on by pressing `M-x eglot`, or go to `Tools > Language Server Support (Eglot)` in the menu bar. Many people prefer to install LSP-mode, but I think many people have also migrated to Eglot after it landed officially in Emacs.

> Every Emacs config starts by turning on the same minor modes hooked to prog major modes for simple stuff like bracket matching and line numbers. Every config sets the same early-init.el params to stop emacs from being slow.

I agree with you that the defaults should be modernized. For example, I think most people would appreciate if the defaults were updated to e.g. use one of the `modus` themes, automatically switch to a dark theme if the OS has it enabled, and enable a fuzzy-finder like fido-vertical-mode without configuration. All of these capabilities are already bundled with Emacs, just not turned on by default. I'd also advocate for disabling the blinking cursor and the bell - who wants that?

Just as a counter-example though, I don't have any of the specific settings you mentioned enabled:

- I dislike line numbers (they look weird if you work with soft-wrapped prose and they take up space)

- I don't like bracket matching (they don't work well with modal editing).

- I don't use the early-init garbage collector optimizations (Emacs anyway starts in a second as I use few packages, and leave it open all day so it doesn't matter).

To further this...

Adding packages in emacs are not that hard.

The only area (in my opinion) where you have a point are newcommers to emacs. The learning curve is as steep as you want it to be. You do need to invest time to understand it and get really good at it. The key combinations, packages, etc. This is likely where many will just go to Visual Studio Code or something else.

Emacs... when you take the time to invest, the rewards are HUGE and goes beyond (the likes of) Visual Studio Code.

I consider myself an experienced emacs user. Are their better, more talented, absolute beast-like emacs users out there? Yes. More gifted than me? Absolutely. I know enough elisp to get things done quickly. If I needed to put together a new emacs install from scratch, I could get all the main bits I need in 20 mins or less.

Better news is my emacs config. Makes use of use-package and factors in Windows and Linux. Nice and clean elisp code!! I can take it wherever and use it for new installs.

My comments is not forcing people to use emacs. Can I be bias at times? Absolutely! Do I like a little light-hearted jokes about editors? Absolutely! I use to have a little poke at vim devs in the past. They did it back. We actually learned from each others methods of 'doing something' on our editors. I miss that. I am not religious to emacs but, as software goes, it is close to me. However, I am also open to something replacing it. None of the IDEs or editors available are nowhere near being a replacement... for me.

Does not mean something in the future cannot break that mold.

> We also have Sublime Text 2 which was all the rage around 2013... Now, I hardly see anyone using it.

Maybe they upgraded to Sublime Text 4?

> Maybe they upgraded to Sublime Text 4?

Didn't know it passed version 3, being honest. Says a lot. Point still stands.

It probably depends a lot on company culture and possibly what OSes the devs are using. Pretty much every dev in our 20+ team has it installed, as there are not many editors on Windows have equivalent editing features and are so snappy to use. However, the free trial version is not strictly permitted for corporate use, so we might be losing it soon.

> It probably depends a lot on company...

Absolutely. I am not suggesting ST is dead. It's just 10-12 years ago ST2 was big hype online. Hyped to the point that likes of Vi (or even emacs) users were moving over to it!

Today, I hardly hear about it online. It is VS Code, even in the office. I am sure if I was in the same room 10 years ago, it would be the same.. just ST2. :-)

I wonder what the "cool" thing is in the next 10 years. Likely be saying the same thing about VS Code over the next "cool kid"

Maybe other dev culture (php devs, for example) that I have not been part of are mostly using ST2/3/4.

I'm totally with you insofar as ST isn't used much as a full IDE. But it's a great as a background text editor and I'd be surprised if not many people use it for that.

I use it to keep a TODO list, analyse and manipulate log files, record temporary notes, and edit big JSON packets. Tasks like "extract all lines which include this phrase, and then delete the first 10 characters" are straightforward. Also it's minimal, clean and feels spacious out of the box.

VS Code probably has similar features, but has a much bigger memory footprint, takes longer to start up, and looks more cluttered. If you're already a dotnet shop with VS Pro/Enterprise subscriptions then it makes more sense to use ST.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com