With emacs I can code ten times faster than my vi/visual studio

>Ask me anything

What do you think about the String Theory and the Gaia Hypothesis?

File: 1497850358273.gif (201KB, 660x780px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 660x780px

>>60971154
off topic for /g/

for string theory see >>>/sci/

for Gaia see >>>/x/

>>60971131

why are you lying?

File: 1497852347816.jpg (204KB, 1321x795px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1321x795px

>>60971238
It's a known fact emacs is the best most automatable editor and visual studio is the slowest least automatable editor

next

File: 1348116467304.jpg (3KB, 130x114px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 130x114px

>>60971131
With vi I can code without repetitive wrist strain.

>>60971131
why are you incompetent at using vi/visual studio?

>>60971131
can we cuddle

File: 1497847819842.jpg (65KB, 470x535px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 470x535px

>>60971272
>emacs has evil mode
>which is the extensible vi layer
>adds full vim keybindings
>also there is god-mode
>also there is macshax mode

>>60971285
>vi is a shit

>visual studio is even more shit its not even in the terminal

>>60971256

You're moving the goal posts, buddy.

You claimed you are faster with emacs than with vi.
It's a known fact that emacs can at best reach 50% of the speed of vi.

>>60971300
Why are you a dumb Maki poster?

>>60971300

>muh modes

The best version of Emacs tries to emulate Vim.
But Vim is not trying to emulate Emacs.

Really makes you think, doesn't it?

>>60971131
>With emacs/vi I can code ten times slower than my visual studio counterparts.

ftfy

Here's a recent performance evaluation if anyone's interested.

https://github.com/jhallen/joes-sandbox/tree/master/editor-perf

What do you do with all your free time?

File: 1497844149507.jpg (48KB, 253x229px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 253x229px

>>60971304
no dude there is literally evil mode you are blowing it out your ass

>>60971306
I don't know what anime she is from but she clearly is not the queen of /g/ that's a forced meme

>>60971333
>as if vim was not an attempt to make vi do what emacs does
>as if emacs didn't progress further and so they had to make nvim
>as if nvim even comes close to doing everything emacs does
>we have a whole operating system what do you have
>an editor
>just an editor nothing fancy
>nothing special
>we have a whole lisp you are still messing in the stone ages
>vim script lel
>what a horrible design choice

File: 1497789420193.jpg (61KB, 646x484px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 646x484px

>>60971357
I just hang out in irc and help noobs with linux

File: EmacsSpinner.png (162KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 800x600px

Emacs guy myself here. Are you excited about getting Guile support?

File: 1497753333268.jpg (25KB, 641x530px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 641x530px

>>60972324
So here is my thought on the whole replace elisp thing

Elisp is clearly shit. On github most lisp code gets written in elisp so it is holding me back.

That being said the only really good alternatives are guilemacs or common lisp macs.

I really like guilemacs because it is gpl scheme and would be a good replacement.

However I think common lisp emacs is going to be a better way to do it.

My thinking is that they are going to just write an elisp compiler inside of common lisp macros and then it will be ported, more or less.

However even if we don't get common lisp emacs, guilemacs would be alot better than elispmacs

Did you move your Ctrl to Caps Lock or are you an idiot suffering RSI?

>>60971371
>as if you don't have an operating system that can do all of that.

/g/ complains so much about bloat, but nobody gives a shit about emacs being 90% bloat for some reason. Why the fuck would i need my text editor to be an OS if i need one to install it?

File: 1497852177315.png (879KB, 680x778px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 680x778px

>>60972419
So I have pretty long fingers and I don't have trouble with reaching the control key.

That being said I am working on my own macro system similar to evil mode or god mode which changes how emacs keybinds works.

once I finish it I will use that instead of regular emacs keybinds.

File: 1497854616207.png (37KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 200x200px

>>60972433
Anyone who says this does not understand how lisp works.

Lisp by nature is always an operating system and will always grow and grow and grow.

but when you compare the size of emacs to vim it's only a few dozen megabytes difference. really not such a big deal. If you have a computer that can't host emacs then you need to get a better computer. A rasperry pi zero for $5 can run emacs. I can go on craigslist right now and get an old desktop for free that will run emacs.

When you don't like emacs cause vim is slightly smaller that's basically just penis envy. If you want the smallest editor go use ed and see how "usable" it is.

File: 1496802348383.png (24KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 200x200px

>>60972458
>ed
try cat

>>60972435
if you want to test it out, here is the relavant xmodmap part I use:

clear lock
clear control
add control = Caps_Lock Control_L Control_R
keycode 66 = Control_L Caps_Lock NoSymbol NoSymbol

It makes capslock an extra control left key, but I can still use capslock by hitting shift+capslock.

>>60972458
vim is just a graphical user interface for ed and a ton of bloat nobody uses.

>>60972378
>However I think common lisp emacs is going to be a better way to do it.
>My thinking is that they are going to just write an elisp compiler inside of common lisp macros and then it will be ported, more or less.
But Guile already has a fully Emacs-compatible Elisp implementation. It's probably going to be less work to use Guile.

>>60972433
There's no cost associated with most of that bloat, only a slightly larger distribution.

The core of Emacs is pretty small, most of the elisp distributed with it is maintained by people outside the core development team and included for its utility.

>>60972544
Sure I mean if guilemacs comes first I welcome it wholeheartedly. Guilemacs would be a huge improvement compared to elispmacs.

That being said I think common lisp is just a more robust lisp than scheme/guile and if we have a common lisp emacs it will unify the whole lisp community and lisp will have a new golden age.

Also guilemacs isn't really gonna take off until you can get it in apt-get

>>60972573
It will never happen. Emacs development is a congregation of some few holdouts who have hated CL from its beginning.

File: 1497684225886.png (19KB, 787x398px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 787x398px

>>60972589
It's open source first of all so it won't matter if the emacs devs don't like it cause people can just port it to common lisp.

And all that they really need to do to port most of emacs to common lisp is just to write an elisp compiler inside of common lisp macros.

So I think it can be done nobody has bothered to do it. Probably because the lisp community is so small and their attentions are divided.

How does it feel being a double digit OP?

File: 1497842585692.png (19KB, 462x320px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 462x320px

>>60972638
Feels pretty okay. can't wait to get my career started so I am not always broke

>>60971131
How does it feel, cuck? Not to be a Russian hacker. Do you feel sad, full of rage, or does shitposting help bury your feelings? Hiding your true self.

File: 1497849378917.jpg (25KB, 659x449px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 659x449px

>>60972676
well I know forth so I am pretty good on russian hacks but thanks for playing comrade

>>60972631
There have been attempts in the past. It's a lot more difficult than you're expecting. Most of the people who are involved enough to know how Emacs codebase works are not interested in tearing apart the community over the implementation language.

>>60971371
eight megabytes and constantly swapping

>>60972686
Put the gun down. Put it down!

File: 1497814734656.jpg (69KB, 500x584px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x584px

>>60972727
nej

>>60972761
> nej
niet.

>>60971131
>Ask me anything
Хyи cocёшь? Бoчкy дeлaeшь?

t. Russian hacker

Also, >>>/redd!t/

File: 1497845328384.jpg (93KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x800px

>>60972812
meh ask me in english ya commie

>>60972458
When I log into my Xenix system with my 110 baud teletype, both vi and Emacs are just too damn slow. They print useless messages like, ‘C-h for help’ and ‘“foo” File is read only’. So I use the editor that doesn't waste my VALUABLE time.

Ed, man! !man ed

ED(1)               Unix Programmer's Manual                ED(1)

NAME
     ed - text editor

SYNOPSIS
     ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
     Ed is the standard text editor.

---

Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed because it's ED!

“Ed is the standard text editor.”

And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:

-rwxr-xr-x  1 root          24 Oct 29  1929 /bin/ed
-rwxr-xr-t  4 root     1310720 Jan  1  1970 /usr/ucb/vi
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  5.89824e37 Oct 22  1990 /usr/bin/emacs

Of course, on the system I administrate, vi is symlinked to ed. Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!

“Ed is the standard text editor.”

>>60972458
>>60973064
Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:

golem$ ed

?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?

---

Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm the novice with verbosity.

“Ed is the standard text editor.”

Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.

ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!

When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!! Not a “viitor”. Not a “emacsitor”. Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!

TEXT EDITOR.

When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their “edlin” on a Unix standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.

Ed is for those who can remember what they are working on. If you are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE SO-CALLED “VISUAL” EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!

?

i use emacs but i have grown a serious appreciation for acme.
what are reasons why i should stick with emacs focusing around simplicity in any aspect?

>source code for ed

while :;do read x;echo \?;done

>>60972812
>Хyи cocёшь? Бoчкy дeлaeшь?
гpyбныи, бpaтaн
твoя мaмa yчилa тeбя этoт пиздeц?

>>60973150
>>60972812
pycи, бpaћo мoјa

>he thinks typing speed matters when implementing a solution to a problem with code

oh, you must be a frontend drone

Why can you code faster? It's not as if one's coding ability is limited by WPM.

How do you deal with Java on Emacs?

>inb4 I don't work with Java

>>60973220
yea if you have 100 wpm, but spend 2 hours trying to come up a shitty solution and then 3 hours debugging, you won't be any faster

>>60972812
> Хyи cocёшь? Бoчкy дeлaeшь?
> Also, >>>/redd!t/
\2ch.so\<<<

>>60971371
>we have a whole lisp you are still messing in the stone ages
>vim script lel
>what a horrible design choice
and suddenly it reeks of hypocracy in here

>>60972324
>thinks that won't happen and have been tried multiple times #5235

>>60973398
you don't
assuming you're talking about JSEE (the only relevant use case) then it's a big bloated piece of shite that need a big bloated piece of shite IDE like netbeans or eclipse to deal with it

>>60971333
>But Vim is not trying to emulate Emacs
It CAN'T emulate Emacs, that's why Neovim was made.

If a good days programming is when you end up with fewer lines of code doing a better job then when you started how do you justify being able to spew garbage code faster then some other faggot as a good thing?
My programming isn't limited by my typing speed but by the complexity and efficiency of the problem I'm solving.

>>60972589
Why do they hate common lisp that much?

File: c0c2fc7b4fbb51def38698a21857de0b.jpg (109KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x599px

>>60972378
What's the advantage of Common Lisp over Guile?

>>60975686
Agree with you wholeheartedly on the big bloated piece of shit when it comes to Java. However a man's gotta do something to not starve. Luckily most of my work isn't on Java.

>>60979076
good luck getting anywhere with emacs (sincerely), you're going to need it