I have officially retired from Emacs
nullprogram.com
nullprogram.com
I see the author is spring cleaning:
> I've turned over a new leaf (no more Openbox, Tridactyl, Xorg, xterm), and so some of these things I no longer use. On Linux I now use KDE on Wayland with a minimally-configured browser. I miss the power user features, but I do not miss the friction and constant maintenance.
https://github.com/skeeto/dotfiles/commit/df275005769b654618...
> I am no longer using Mutt nor running my own mail server. In general less terminal stuff for me.
https://github.com/skeeto/dotfiles/commit/e331e367c75f66aaa9...
LLMs have inspired a similar change in me: with a big change in how I work, I feel I can and should be more flexible with adopting new tech, which involving freeing myself of previous choices.
For me the friction always comes when I try to use the internet without it
solid extension, big fan
One example: it disables the default Ctrl-F search function but its own search function is subpar (no match counts/hlsearch, e.g.) and often clashes with website's built-in search (on Github, e.g.).
It doesn't work on the default newtab either, and changing the default newtab somehow makes opening a new tab slower (that's FF's fault, I guess)…
Since I needed to keep around a Chromium anyway, and I already am forced to use one for work, it became simpler to just use solely use a Chromium.
In the process I dropped some extensions.
It's been great.
This time around I'm using Chromium for personal stuff, and Firefox for work-stuff. I do more work-related browsing, so having the vertical tabs in firefox meant that was the better browser to use for official stuff.
(In my previous job I used safari for work, and firefox for personal.)
FWIW, the age of LLMs made me build a deeper, more intimate relationship with Emacs, because it's a Lisp REPL loop with a built-in editor, not the other way around. When you give an LLM a closed loop system where it can evaluate code in a live REPL and observe the results, it stops guessing and starts reasoning empirically.
LLM that I run inside Emacs can fully control the active Emacs instance. I can make it change virtually any aspect of it. To load-test things, I even made it play Tetris in Emacs. And not just simply run it, but to actually play it without losing. It was insane.
Also, Emacs is all about plain text - you can easily extract text from anything - from the browser, terminal, CLI apps, Slack, Jira, etc., and you can do that on your own terms - context can appear in a buffer, in your clipboard, become a file or series of API requests. That is really hard to beat.
This is what gives me the most pause.
At the very least, run it in Docker. It's not a security tool, but it's at least some kind of guardrail against data loss and exfiltration.
Having a browser on your machines is unsafe. The browser is a massively more dangerous attack surface than an Emacs-based LLM tool. What I have is a curated set of Lisp functions exposed to an LLM through a protocol I control, running in a single-user process, on my machine, behind my firewall. The attack surface is comically small by comparison.
It's a nice habit to get into if you can bring yourself to firejail your editor to $HOME/jail and keep all your r/w files in $HOME/jail/Documents and such. But only the most socially unacceptable of paranoid sysadmins do that. Ahem.
[1] FF/Chrome/javascriptless ones. The others are put in prison with no chance of parole and strict visitation policies.
Yes, there are prompt injection risks, they are legit but that's the property of the LLM, not Emacs. A browser sandbox protects you from code you never chose to run. An editor integration runs code you asked for. These are different problems requiring different mitigations.
You guys keep patronizing me on this, you think I'm some truck driver/florist/butcher by day, and I put on my amateur coder suit at night? Just so you know, I spent years working on security.cisco.com team and went through SANS training and certification. Ever occurred to you that just maybe, perhaps, potentially, theoretically, hypothetically - I'm not completely, utterly ignorant about all this shit?
> It's not a security tool,
Amen to that, brother.
I'm sure somebody can google up a better example page than this. https://web.archive.org/web/20260322141827/https://www.simpl...
Of course, reasonable mitigations are a must - just like for any other tool. Narrowing MCP scope - tool routing rules, read-only git defaults, etc. "Docker or nothing" is a lazy answer - Docker-for-everything has real costs: friction, broken integrations, worse ergonomics.
Practical security is all about staying in the goldilocks zone. You shouldn't get relaxed about the basics - sandboxing, 2FA, password managers - they are worth doing, and you can get so paranoid about so many things, and yet against a targeted, well-resourced attacker, your sandboxing posture is mostly irrelevant. The interesting attacks bypass the threat model entirely. Read about Ben Nassi's team research¹ - pretty cool example. There are multitudes of other ways and your Docker container won't stop them. Defend against the boring 99%, and accept that the 1% is someone else's problem (or a much bigger problem than your dev environment)
—
¹ https://www.nassiben.com/video-based-crypta
TLDR LLM Summary: Researchers showed that a device's power LED subtly flickers in brightness and color while the CPU performs cryptographic work, and these flickers leak information about the secret key. By pointing an ordinary video camera (an iPhone or an internet-connected security camera) at the LED and exploiting the camera's rolling shutter, they boosted the effective sampling rate from 60 to 60,000 measurements per second, enough to do cryptanalysis. Using only this video footage, they recovered full ECDSA and SIKE keys from a smartcard reader and a Samsung Galaxy S8, with no malware on the target devices.
"Don't run that shit on a credentialed box with data you care about" is addressing real threats, not some goofy nation state thing or abstract security research.
If you let the footgun machine constantly generate new code and run it on your computer, you're just asking for data loss and bad shit to happen.
Docker isn't a great solution but it at least doesn't let yolo code delete files or access env vars or read the contents of .ssh/
> my browser extensions, my npm install, my VSCode plugins, my curl | bash
Yeah, and you shouldn't yolo those, either lol. If they didn't come from a trusted source, you need to read through them. If you don't want to, don't use them. That's not paranoia, that's, like, normal.
Are you talking about autonomous LLM projects that automatically write code? Yeah, no shit, I wouldn't run anything like that directly on any machine without sandboxing. My typical LLM use inside my editor is never in self-driving mode, there's not even cruise-control - I tell it exactly when to write, where to write and how to do it. Automated scripts never get run by LLM and don't get to run at all without prior precise and meticulous inspection. I'm not moving goalposts - at worst we're in disagreement on the level of pragmatics vs. paranoia, that's all.
I don't even get why people are so crazy about LLMs generating code - on both sides. LLMs for me personally are such a great tool for investigating things, for finding things, for bridging the gaps - the stuff that happens 10K feet above code writing. By the time I'm done gathering the details, code generation becomes an almost insignificant touch of the whole endeavor.
For some of us. Unfortunately, not enough... :sad keanu:
(...or security wouldn't be such a widespread problem)
That exactly what it is. People's reaction is a default pattern-matching on "AI executes code on your machine." - Ay the horrors!. They have no idea of my cybersec posture, my network perimeter - vpn, firewall, malware protection, etc.
It's not like I'm giving the LLM root shell. It's as if I said: "I learned how to juggle three chainsaws - so fun...", and people reacted as if I suggested doing that in a school bus full of children going 140kmh down the highway.
It's culturally fitting for HN - signaling caution is always socially safe. Nobody ever got criticized for saying "that sounds risky". But "I evaluated the risks and accepted the tradeoffs for my situation" is the actual, pragmatic engineering. Security is risk management, not risk elimination.
Anything an LLM does on your computer should happen it its own account. No sudo config of course, or at most one that is strictly limited to what you want to allow it to do (risk here, as many programs have non-obvious paths to general command execution).
It should have zero access to your private home directory or your system configs. You can have access to its files of course. That's the beauty of separate accounts and permissions.
Even those folks who are cautious enough to require passwords (sudo or plain su) to elevate are still at risk of having their account thoroughly brought under control of an attacker. Just imagine what a baddie could inject into your .bashrc if your editor can change it.
If you run your clanker-controlled emacs in console mode under a restricted user account, best case scenario, system compromise is only one unpatched privesc vuln away from Shai-Hulud completely pwning you.
Doing it in a locked down VM is much better but even then you're only better off by matter of degrees than if you had done a yolo curl - | bash because VM host attacks and even escapes are very much a thing.
These HNers expressing concern about giving a LLM control of an editor are 100% thinking rightly.
"Your editor can write to .bashrc. Therefore an attacker controls your shell. You probably have sudo. Therefore full system compromise. Even a VM does not help because VM escapes exist. Therefore this is basically curl|bash."
By this reasoning, every program you run under your user account is equally dangerous. Your shell, your file manager, git, make, pip install, npm install, docker, any program that writes files. The argument proves too much, therefore proves nothing.
This is all unhinged poetry - philosophical argy-bargy without any concrete, well-grounded argumentation. I'm just baffled for why none of you guys crying wolf even tried to ask me reasonably productive questions of what do I actually do in my setup.
- My LLM use is mainly not about code generation. Especially it is not about autonomous code generation and execution.
- Why nobody's asking about scope of the LLM file access, audit logs, tool use confirmation, allowlists/denylists, rate limiting/circuit breakers - pre-tool hooks, scoped tool sets per context, etc.?
Whatever. If you think it's unsafe - just don't do what I'm doing. Just please spare me from security-as-ritual, I don't believe in prayers, I preach security-as-engineering. None of you proposed a threat model. None of you started with: "here is the specific attack, here is the attack vector, here is the probability, here is the blast radius", it's all just: "imagine what a baddie could do" followed by an escalation chain that terminates in total system compromise. By that reasoning you should not run any software.
"they can read my email, take my money, and impersonate me to my friends, but at least they can't install drivers without my permission"
https://xkcd.com/1200/Do you have credentials anywhere within reach of that session? Can you open your bank account in a browser ... within reach of that session? Are your contacts available within reach of that session? What about personal notes/emails/goals or other sensitive information? That people think these can't be added together in one very socially/monetarily destructive fell swoop is ... telling.
Ignoring obvious bad-actor concerns from just giving root to your whole life to an LLM running on someone else's server, LLMs themselves can act in ways that are extremely counterproductive to their organization/host/etc.
A quote/warning I learned in the late 90s is just as relevant today, "Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes."
I've tried different AI packages and currently gptel and ECA remain the main ingredients. This is a quickly changing landscape, and things may change, but for now it feels very good.
I like gptel because it's enormously extendable and exploitable - it allows me to send LLM requests from just about anywhere - I could be typing a message (like this very one) and suddenly in need of ideas for how to phrase something better, or explain simply, or fact-check my assumptions, whatever. Quick & dirty interaction that gets discarded in the same buffer. For longer investigations and research I would use a dedicated gptel buffer. Those get automatically saved.
I don't use gptel as a coding assistant, even though you can do that, it's not really optimized for that kind of work. I use ECA. It works much better for me than every other alternative I tried, and I tried more than a few. What's crazy that I sometimes would type a prompt in ECA, then ask gptel (with a different model) to make it more "AI-friendly" changing the prompt in-place and then send it.
All my MCPs are coded in Clojure (mostly babashka)¹ - because (like I said) giving an AI a Lisp REPL makes much more sense (maybe even more than using a statically typed language). I had to employ a few tricks so all the tools, skills and instructions can be shared between gptel, eca-emacs, ECA Desktop, Claude Code CLI, Claude Desktop App, and Copilot CLI. Even though I mostly use gptel and ECA, it's good to keep other options around, just in case. All the AI-related Emacs settings are in my config².
Is this helpful, or you want some more concrete examples?
—
¹ https://github.com/agzam/death-contraptions
² https://github.com/agzam/.doom.d/tree/main/modules/custom/ai
For persistence:
https://github.com/agzam/.doom.d/blob/main/modules/custom/ai...
I'm still exploring all the ways the agent and I can collaborate using Emacs as a shared medium, but at the moment am super optimistic about it.
My .emacs config has improved and I wrote my own Emacs based coding agent https://github.com/mark-watson/coding-agent
Very true. There's an enormous tacit knowledge gap. Check this out:
I have to use Mac for work. My WM is Yabai, which is controlled via Hammerspoon (great tool on its own), which means I can use Fennel, which means I can have a Lisp REPL. MCP connected to that REPL can query and inspect every single window I have on my screen. It can move them around, it can resize them, it can extract some properties of them. It's figuring out stuff like: "pick a selected Slack thread from the app and send it into an Emacs buffer", or "make my app windows work like Emacs buffers" - pick from the list and swap it in place. Or "find the HN thread about retiring from Emacs among my browser tabs and summarize the content"...
Never in my life have I been more grateful to my younger self for grokking the philosophy of Lisp. Recent months have only reinforced my firm belief that this 70-year-old tech is truly everlasting. Thank you, John McCarthy, for the great gift to humanity, even though so weirdly underappreciated.
In case anyone else wondered about using gptel to edit thinking (eg vis Qwen3.6's `preserve thinking`), [1] explains:
> In a multi-turn request, from the time you run `gptel-send`, everything the LLM sends is passed back to it [...during tool calls...] includes multiple reasoning blocks. [...But...] subsequent gptel-send calls read their input from the buffer contents (or active region, etc), so the reasoning blocks in the buffer will not [] be sent as "reasoning_content".
But in org mode, those are apparently `#+being_reasoning` blocks (`gptel-include-reasoning`?), so editable thought might be an easy addition?
A caution, fwiw, that any llms which respond with interleaved content and reasoning blocks, currently only work when not streaming, and fixing that is non-trivial.[also 1]
Let's be honest: Lisp probably won't ever get bigger than Python, unless Python for whatever reason starts dying on its own. But if AI ever gets serious about interpretability, formal reasoning, program synthesis - all the stuff Lisp was built for - it just might quietly become relevant again in research contexts, without ever reclaiming mainstream status.
Scicloj has been building out a serious ML stack in Clojure - noj, metamorph.ml, scicloj.ml.tribuo, libpython-clj for Python interop. Beside that, people been proving that 'code is data' is exactly what makes it a better target for LLMs. Clojure is most token efficient PL - it's been proven. There are some recent interesting clj projects in relevance:
—
LLMs already internally operate on embeddings - dense floating-point vectors in high-dimensional space - they don't need "intermediary language" - there's no discrete symbolic reasoning - it's continuous numerical computation all the way through.
If you made an LLM to generate bytecode, you'd need it to "read" bytecode tokens as context for predicting the next bytecode token. The model would need to have learned the statistical patterns of bytecode sequences, which are far less structured and too arbitrary than (human readable) source code. Bytecode is optimized for machine execution, not for having patterns for a next-token predictor.
So Lisp actually is the sweet spot in the direction you're gesturing at, but you got the direction backwards. You don't want to go lower (toward bytecode), you want to go toward representations that have: fewer syntactic rules, structural, and high in local predictability. That is basically Lisp. The AST is the syntax. There's no parsing ambiguity, minimal syntactic variation, and the structure is self-describing. The model spends fewer tokens on syntactic ceremony and more on semantic content. That is why LLMs are surprisingly great at generating Elisp and Clojure code.
SBCL is a fine choice for a solo project or research; recommending it over Clojure for a team/production setting though requires ignoring most of what actually matters. Every language stack choice is a bet on where the tradeoff between power and pragmatism pays off for your specific context. Clojure's bet is a more conservative than CLs, yet both may seem (for some) more aggressive bets than just using Python. It all depends on the team.
this exactly. most people can’t set it up that well.
When I graduated college I used Dvorak and Emacs on Linux. Six months of having to use shared Windows lab computers extensively beat me down to surrender all of those points - my brain just couldn't handle switching, so I conformed my desktop to match. Then later I switched jobs to a group that was all Unix, but of many varieties most of which only had vi, not Emacs. And so I learned vi. Sometimes minimizing friction means going with the flow.
Edit: Or do you mean "declaratively" in the sense of using something like straight.el?
I use a doom emacs overlay that uses pgtk so it works flawlessly on wayland, since I only learned recently that it uses X by default. You can inspect my dotfiles here: [[https://github.com/ArikRahman/dotfiles][ArikRahman/dotfiles: Arik's Dotfiles]]
It's so comfortable that it acts as an impediment to change, since some types of change are uncomfortable.
This can feel like friction to me.
When I remove customisation, I am more "open to experience", and often find preferable tooling.
I'm actually excited about the potential for a future where local agents help improve the operating system experience as I go by making changes based on my use case. All local, of course. I do not want to trust a cloud provider with my use cases/behavior on my computer so they can sell me more ads...
Because deep down they are incomparable categorically. Separate the tools from the foundational ideas and you see the very different value. Vim-model of text navigation is fantastic, practical, brilliant idea. Once you grok it - you can take it anywhere. You can use it in your editor, browser, terminal, WM. Emacs is rooted in another, even more brilliant idea of practical notation for lambda calculus. These ideas have no overlap. But understanding the philosophy of each (ideally both) could open so many different possibilities.
The idea of vim navigation simply offers some structure and mnemonics - why should I learn hundreds of different ways to deal with text in every app, if there exists an established, well tested, popular way that can simplify it all?
Yet the author ended up doing the latter and it's not really made clear why. Why?
There is also an ecosystem of applications for Emacs that are really good. They don't require you to use Emacs as your editor (you can run, say, Magit as a standalone instance) but if you do, they integrate really well with each other.
Doom emacs and Spacemacs are both good starter kits to give you an idea of what you could do.
Yeah, come on. NBD yo.
;-)
Neovim is great, I use it almost every day. But it just can't replace Emacs. That is the most annoying part of Emacs - there's simply no alternative to it. If you accept it with all its quirks and weirdness and embrace the malleability, stick with it for a while - at some point you may discover some enormous feeling of empowered liberation from years of bullcrap you had to deal with without even realizing.
Here's a comment I posted on /r/emacs couple of weeks ago:
So yes, Neovim is snappier, and so what? I'm genuinely curious, I consider myself a die-hard, hardcore vimmer. Yes, I use Emacs today, but I'm still a vimmer. I sometimes use Neovim too - having vim skills comes handy with pure terminal workflows.
So, honest question - why should it appeal to me - the idea of ditching Emacs and moving to Neovim (or whatever) full-time?
- I have a few thousand notes in my Org-Roam note taking system. My notes can contain anki-cards - my spaced-repetition content is just my notes; my pdf annotations - they are just my notes; my health records - are just my notes; I don't need to use Postman - my API investigations - are just my notes.
- I don't need to use Ansible, Chef or Nix to maintain my dotfiles - they are tangled from an .org file - I just need Emacs to bootstrap the whole system.
- I read Reddit and Hackernews in Emacs.
- I manage my email in Emacs.
- My Telegram is in Emacs.
- I search Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, DuckDuckGo, and more without leaving Emacs.
- I write everything in Emacs (even this very comment), because I have thesaurus, spellchecking, definition and etymology lookup, translation, dictionaries, LLM integration - I can ask AI at the point of typing text (in just about any buffer).
- My AI coding assistant is in Emacs.
- My PR reviews happen in Emacs. Everything git related happens in Emacs. I go through my GitHub notifications in Emacs.
- I watch videos with Emacs - it allows me to control them directly - I can speed up, mute, pause the video, extract transcript - all while taking some notes.
- I do my Jira in Emacs.
- I open and search through Slack threads in Emacs.
- I learn programming languages through exercism.io in Emacs.
- My file manager is in Emacs - I have tried so many different ones - mc, yazi, ranger - nothing beats Dired in customizability and capabilities.
- I access my browser history and even browse and switch tabs of my browser - in Emacs.
- I even OCR text out of screenshots with Emacs.
So now tell me, why should I care that there is something, anything, whatever - snappier, prettier, shinier, more popular? Why should I ever feel FOMO, if it can never do even the small subset of what my current system is capable of doing today?
In the past I've investigated emacs enough to appreciate that asking someone for their emacs config is a mix of Futile + Way Too Personal + Too Much Work (on their part, explaining etc). But do you perhaps have a blog or something somewhere about your setup, so noobs who aspire to that kind of emacsdom could get an idea of what is possible and how you're doing it?
- Org-Roam is a widely known and popular package. However, I moved to Vulpea, because it has much faster and improved indexing. Over the years I have accumulated few thousand notes and vanilla Org-Roam indexing became a bottleneck.
- For spaced repetition I use anki-editor and some yasnippet templates to quickly create cards. There exist multiple packages for Anki and other kind of cards.
- Tangling dotfiles (or any files) from Org is a known trick. Many manage their Emacs configs that way
- API investigations are a bunch of Org-mode source blocks. I use ob-http and verb.el
- For Reddit and Hackernews, I use hnreader and reddigg with some customizations on top
- For email I use notmuch. Some prefer mu4e
- For Telegram - telega.el
- For universal search - consult-omni
- For writing - mw-thesaurus, jinx, define-it, wiktionary-bro, google-translate, sdcv
- For LLMs - gptel-agent and ECA
- For PRs - code-review.el
- For watching videos a custom transient atop mpv.el
- For browser history - browser-hist.el
- Last two pieces are of my own doodling, you can find them in my config - I keep procrastinating, I need to make them into separate packages.
No, I do not have a blog - I'm a peculiar writer. Like Russians say: writing is like pissing - you should do it only when you can't hold it anymore². I guess I'm not there yet. I do occasionally publish some YouTube vids, I have a channel with a pretentious name³.
Feel free to ping me with any questions, it will be a real pleasure to be of help . I'm sure you can find a way to contact me directly - I'm pretty easy to find.
---
¹ https://github.com/agzam/.doom.d
² "to write" and "to piss" in Russian is the same word - писать. The difference only in pronouncing.
I just use emacs for programming, not note taking or email reading or the other things people love it for. Strengths: magit, wgrep, vterm, buffer management, plugins & packaging. Weaknesses, irritations, embarrassments: yaml-mode, responsiveness, overlays & mini-buffers.
Anyone know of something like this?
https://github.com/lem-project/lem/blob/main/extensions/legi...
But I guess if you're leaving GNU emacs, you're probably not eager to jump into another emacsen.
(setq user-emacs-directory (format "~/.emacs.d/magit/%s/" emacs-version))
(setq custom-file (concat user-emacs-directory "custom.el"))
(setq make-backup-files nil)
(setq auto-save-default nil)
(setq create-lockfiles nil)
(setq inhibit-startup-screen t)
(setq initial-scratch-message nil)
(require 'magit)
(defun setup-standalone-magit ()
(magit-project-status)
(delete-other-windows))
(add-hook 'after-init-hook 'setup-standalone-magit)
#!/bin/sh
if [ "$(git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree)" = "true" ]; then
exec emacs -nw -q --no-splash -l "/path/to/magit-init.el"
fi
The IntelliJ git client is my favorite by far, I am curious what do you not like about it?
Isn't that kinda expected with a new software release, that it doesn't have a 100% feature parity?
My experience with LLM technologies is it does make generating the code a really quick part. It may be reasonable to take much more time to specify things up front (rather than emergently as you would by hand). -- I mean, if you've got a well crafted description of what you want, you'll be able to get a working program MUCH quicker with an LLM, today, compared to writing it out by hand.
Would it really be surprising/shocking if an LLM was able to rewrite (most) features from an existing software, to a new software?
It seems like the reality today is, we've gone from a maintained software in a niche ecosystem with happy users, to a more fragmented one where everyone has an LLM write their own half-baked one.
Try doing that with Elfeed2.
Vi/Nvi2 users can almost do the same with Unix pipes and apertium/translate-shell/some lingva CLI translating tools for the whole document/regex selection/lines, a la Emacs. So can sfeed users, where depending on the feed they can pipe the plumbers' output (or just hack the scripts) to any other translating tool:
git://codemadness.org/sfeed
Heck, a few years ago I could reuse Telega.el's (Telegram client) translating functions for non-Telega buffers translating some text guide in the spot. So, did the blogger actually win something?
i'd use wxWidgets because it is the only cross platform toolkit i am aware of. if you can share your alternative then maybe this could help some people.
I have long struggled to learn emacs and use it effectively. Just for the fun it, If I were to use claude as I my teacher, how can I ask it to teach me to use Emacs? I don't like to ask questions and go back to try it. I want it to be a drive that will assist me with the usage. Has anyone tried such an approach to learn emacs?
Yesterday I typed "Set the default YAML indentation to 2 spaces." It came up with
(use-package yaml-mode
:defer t
:config
(setq yaml-indent-offset 2))
(add-hook 'yaml-ts-mode-hook
(lambda ()
(require 'yaml-mode)
(setq-local indent-line-function #'yaml-indent-line)))
What does (inside Droid) mean ? Do you use any package to integrate to claude code in emacs?
I've started using Droid inside Emacs via the agent-shell package I learned about here a few days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45561672). It handles quite a few other agents, too.
You can start with vanilla Emacs with zero config and Claude/Copilot/Codex/etc, running separately. Your first goal is to have the LLM running inside Emacs - ask the LLM how. It probably will recommend gptel - as one of the most popular and robust choices, go with it.
Once you get LLM tools to modify Emacs state from within, you can just go crazy. You can tell it to change colors, fonts, ask any stupid questions, whatever. It will do it without losing a beat - no restarts, no waiting, no copy pasting - just flow.
In the past, coding up this interaction would be a chore, but Gemini makes quick work of the elisp. After a minute, it's doing exactly what I need: cursor on markdown link, open to right pane, C-c C-c toggles the todo item and closes the pane; C-u C-c C-o opens in obsidian. This functionality can be achieved in any number of ways but Emacs is fantastically well suited for a problem like this.
From the linked post:[0]
> I left an employer that is years behind adopting AI to one actively supporting and encouraging it. As of March, in my professional capacity I no longer write code myself. My current situation was unimaginable to me only a year ago. Like it or not, this is the future of software engineering. Turns out I like it, and having tasted the future I don’t want to go back to the old ways.
It's deeply distressing to watch people fall into AI psychosis. Being smart, accomplished, or experienced is no defence.
After the bubble pops and the industry realises the damage these tools can do to people, folks like the author will have to confront that they were taken in by a lie. Many won't be able to confront that.
Perhaps you're confusing "not using AI" with "not being dependent on AI", those are very different things.
The edge isn't from avoidance, it's from using AI as leverage on top of real skill. A strong developer + AI beats a strong developer alone, and massively beats a weak developer + AI. The edge doesn't come from avoiding a tool - it comes from being the kind of person who doesn't need it but uses it anyway. That's leverage. Refusing to use it is just leaving leverage on the table to make a philosophical point.
> After the bubble pops
People like Chris (who is enormously capable engineer) would just move onto different tools, different techniques and paradigms. That is the essence of being a software developer - many of us choose this path specifically because it forces you to learn something new, every single day. That is (I suspect) also another reason why Wellons decided to migrate away from Emacs - he just learned it so deeply, perhaps it's no longer giving him the satisfaction of learning. Which to be honest is hard to believe - Emacs is a boundless playground, there's always something new to learn there.
It's unclear what you're saying here... Yes, AI-induced psychosis is a real problem and the frontier labs' mitigations are ineffective, to put it mildly. But using AI as a coding tool doesn't have anything to do with psychosis.
Anyone who has actual corporate team lead or management experience understand AI as effectively a junior dev who doesn't have great persistent memory. These devs using AI are reviewing, guiding, and validating the work given to them by AI just as they would from a junior dev.
The inverse of your statement is more apt; it's distressing to see people so angsty about AI usage. There are going to be skilless vibecoders and then there are going to be experienced devs (like OP) who figured out their AI workflow to multiply their productivity 2-5x.
What the future holds for AI model pricing-- that is a valid concern. But I don't think that's what you intended.
Are you sure OP belongs in the second group? He explicitly said he doesn't read all the code generated by his AI:
> I have not read most of the code, and instead focused on results, so you might say this was “vibe-coded.”
Also, I will not doubt OP's experience. He has published a good set of Emacs packages that are very capable for the niches they occupy. Certain packages are even foundational dependencies in the Emacs ecosystem.
If OP "vibecoded" a critical package, I'm sure he would take it upon himself to ensure it high quality.
Plenty of accomplished devs are getting good results and accomplishing tasks with unheard-of speed using AI, so if you're still not, that's a PEBKAC. You are not using the tools correctly. Figure it out before you complain.
>You are not using the tools correctly.
Stop being deluded, man.
When this crap collapses into itself you will be in tears back asking for the knowledge you failed to get without the fancy Clippys.
Now, stop that fancy Megahal chatbot and learn to do things by hand.
Yes, model collapse is gonna suck. But LLMs are not just left to self-train, they are guided by human researchers who are going to find ways to groom and direct the models to avoid collapse. They can make billions by shipping better models, so why wouldn't they invest a lot of effort in that?
And I'm fully convinced that what I do will not just be a little bit better than what AI Al makes. It will trounce it in all quality criteria. But of course, coincidentally with the rise of AI assistance, software quality has completely disappeared from the conversation. I wonder why.
The lifespan of software can easily be ten or more years.
If it takes a few more months to write by hand to ensure correctness and proper abstraction, what does that save over the lifetime of the codebase?
You should’ve started with this. Take a really deep breath, take your phone, find closest park, go slowly there (don’t prompt LLM on the way), find a green patch on the ground (it’s called grass) and touch it.
Strange, I don’t see any punchcards inside of my computers, but for some reason I still see code behind anything that LLM does.
Absolutist rubbish.
> "But even those open source projects with significant user bases that forbid the use of AI [...] will be eclipsed by those that support it in terms of features, capability, and security."
As is this. If a language model is relevant to a project, open source or otherwise, is of course heavily dependent on its nature (ethics, use case, deployment, working environment/culture, et cetera).
???
So the issue isn’t LLM productivity but unrealistic expectations that skyrocketed in the last years? Makes sense.
> Plenty of accomplished devs are getting good results and accomplishing tasks with unheard-of speed using AI
I don’t see any major business impact.
Saying they have psychosis is a rude exaggeration.
Maybe a lot of people who are doing that aren't admitting that they've stopped writing code, but when all you're ever doing is manually fixing a few lines, or moving blocks of code to more sensible places, fixing jumbled parameters in a call and such, you're not really writing code anymore. You're now a chef in a kitchen yelling at assistants and just touching things when dealing with communicating a correction to one of those dimwits is more frustrating than just doing it yourself.
You still have to be a cook to be a chef, though. But the reason I say that AI is dumb is because I tell it to do things, it does them in a dumb way, and I complain at it and tell it to write it in a sensible way. It screws that up, and I tell it to do it again, and not to screw it up. I'm still not coding. If it goes into a loop of nonsense, I touch things with the intention of doing just enough to knock it out of that loop (or rather keep the new context from falling into it.)
"After the bubble pops" we might see that a lot of new chefs can't actually afford assistants. But just as likely, the overbuilt (government-subsidized directly and through policy) capacity might end up getting written off, and at the cost of electricity and maintenance costs could stay reasonably good. Or algos improve. Or training methods improve.
it is inconceivable to me how anyone could ever enjoy working like that. but whatever floats their boat.
this is just like being promoted from developer to manager. some people like it some don't. with AI there is another dimenstion: some people like managing machines instead of people, some don't.
it's not for me. i don't want to stop writing code. i don't mind to manage people but i don't want to manage machines (at least not with an unprecise interface/outcome as AI provides). consequently AI may be fine for this person, but it is not for me.
> Models you can run yourself are toys.
Now I may be old, but whenever we put a lot of faith in unaccountable megacorps it sure seems to have backfired a lot (remember when Amazon removed 1984 from people's libraries?). As long as a model running locally on a regular laptop bought from the supermarket isn't good enough I'm gonna remain sceptical about current AI.
There's also ethical and environmental considerations, but let's see if we can walk before we try to run.
I've been using it since 1994.
Whoa, shit, I'm old.
It was my first experience with emacs as well, but in MS-DOS, ca 1990. Did not know there was a CP/M version.
I also suspect it allows easier consolidation. Moving from a deprecated lib to a new (and better) one for example.
Implementations will likely homogenize a bit as well, but on the other hand boy am I glad not to see an increasing amount of bizarre naïve hand-rolled implementations for some things.
You're right Spacemacs is essentially a batteries-included version of Emacs.
Hence my question, what Wellons (who's a seasoned veteran of Emacs) could ever say anything about Spacemacs (or Doom - which in this context makes no difference)? What kind of views one would be interested to hear? Using the Space key as the "Lead key", or something about local-leader key; or vim-navigation/Evil in general; or modules/layers architecture of Emacs config? He said in that post you shared that he believed he'd eventually end up using Evil - he doesn't need to use Spacemacs for that.
Spacemacs is great for beginners, for people who don't want to deal with learning Emacs native bindings - they are legit confusing. For someone like Chris, it makes little sense, they'd probably would just add modal editing packages to their existing config. Even though Spacemacs and Doom are still valuable - one can find many interesting gems there.
Also, these projects may give you a good discipline for structuring your keys mnemonically - everything files related would be at "SPC f", search stuff on "SPF s", etc.
For you, perhaps.
What we need it's better code analizers, lexers and the like. And LLM's are practically the opposite because they can't never, ever give a concise answer by design. Worse, they rot over time.
https://smsk.dev/2026/04/26/ai-cannot-self-improve-and-math-...
This sounds like unsubstantiated hyperbole - can we keep HN grounded in reality, please?
My alternative hypothesis - you don't like agentic coding or maybe LLMs in general. Not helpful for the group.
Well, you have to separate "future of" from "ensuing damage". This is similar to the fishing industry. Fishermen in the past used spears, rods, small nets, nowadays annual national catch statistics are reported in kilotonnes. They are destroying the ocean floor, causing massive extinction of species, causing irreversible damage. Yet, you can't argue looking 100-150 years back that industrial fishing was not "the future of the fishing industry". That is also why programmers won't ever disappear because of AI progress. Just like we still need fishermen, we'd need programmers. The sad truth about this is that soon we truly may have no need for fishermen, because there's no fish left in the ocean.
- The impact on computer science seems almost entirely negative so far: mostly the burden of academic wordslop, though an additional negative impact is AI sucking all the air out of the room. What's worse is how little interesting computer science has come out of the biggest technological development with computers in many years: in fact there has been a terrible and very sudden regression of scientific methodology and integrity, people rationalizing unscientific thinking and unprofessional behavior by pointing to economic success. I think it'll take decades to undo the damage, it's ideological.
- The impact on software development actually does seem a bit positive. I am not really a software developer at all. It always felt too frustrating :) However the easing of frustration might be offset by widespread devastation of new FOSS projects. I don't want to put my code online, even though I'm not monetizing it. I'm certainly not alone. That makes me really sad. But I watched ChatGPT copy-paste about 200 lines of F# straight from my own GitHub, without attribution. I'm not letting OpenAI steal my code again.
- Software engineering... it does not seem like any of these systems are actually capable of real software engineering, but we are also being adversely affected by an epidemic of unscientific thinking. Speaking of: I would like to see Mythos autonomously attempt a task as complex and serious as a C compiler. Opus 4.6 totally failed (even if popular coverage didn't portray it as such):
The resulting compiler has nearly reached the limits of Opus’s abilities. I tried (hard!) to fix several of the above limitations but wasn’t fully successful. New features and bugfixes frequently broke existing functionality.
[1] They should have different educational tracks. There is no reason why a big fancy school like MIT can't have computer scientists do something like SICP and software engineers do the applied Python class. Forcing every computer professional into "computer science" is just silly; half the students gripe about how useless this theory is, the other half gripe about how grubby the practice is. What really sucks here is that I think Big Tech would support the idea, we're just stuck in a weird social rut.
I feel like LLMs[1] are going to cause a kind of "divorce" between those who love making software and those who love selling software. It was difficult for these two groups to communicate and coordinate before, and now it is _excruciating_. What little mutual tolerance and slack there was, is practically gone.
Open source was always[2] a fragile arrangement based on the kind of trust that involves looking at things through one's fingers (turning a blind eye may be more idiomatic in English), and we are at the point where you just have to either shut your eyes, or otherwise stop pretending that the situation can be salvaged at all.
Just a thought I had: some people think that LLM-shaming is declasse, and maybe it is, but I think that perhaps we _should_ LLM-shame, until the AI-companies train their LLMs to actually give attribution, if nothing else (I mean if it can memorize entire blocks of code, why can't it memorize where it saw that code? Would this not, potentially, _improve_ the attribution-situation, to levels better than even the pre-LLM era? Oh right, because plagiarism might actually be the product).
[1]: Not blaming the tech itself, but rather the people who choose to use it recklessly, and an industry that is based almost entirely on getting mega-corporations to buy startups that, against the odds, have acquired a decent number of happy-ish customers, that can now be relentlessly locked-in and up-sold to.
[2]: I mentioned a specific example of good old fashioned, pre-LLM, human plagiarism here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46540608
I know a lot of people become comfortable with the default editing tools in Emacs, and many of them are good, but on the whole, vanilla Emacs does not ship with a great editor.
The Vim family makes up amazingly well designed editors.
Evil is a Vim implementation in Emacs. It is the best of both worlds, and not just on paper. It actually works.
In what editor can you peak&edit folded text without unfolding it? Answer - only Emacs.
Ask someone who needs to write texts in Arabic or Hebrew - Emacs has far, far better RTL support.
Org-mode is just light-years ahead of anything else, nothing even comes close to it.
So, your stupid joke (if you really believe it) is on you, truly.