sexy text based system

allucid · 2006-07-09 19:34:54

benplaut wrote:

as a user of both, it's a helluva lot easier to use screen than emacs

They serve a different purpose. I sometimes use emacs in screen when on a remote server (you need to rebind the command key in screen since emacs uses C-a). For managing windows, I think emacs is easier and better equipped but has a much higher learning curve.

user · 2006-07-10 00:09:37

allucid wrote:

I think emacs is easier and better equipped but has a much higher learning curve.

Once learned emacs, never return? I guess so.

KerowynM · 2006-07-10 11:46:28

I think the problem is people confusing the terms text based and CLI.

Sure, links -g et all aren't text based, but they certainly are CLI apps.

Using a computer for modern tasks, it would be pretty hard to never use a program that didn't so a picture. I'm pretty sure what this topic was ment to be about was a CLI system, not strictly text-only, regardless of how these terms have been misused. I could be mistaken tho. A fully text based system wouldn't be of much use to most people anymore.

And screen > all, emacs is the original bloat-ware.

allucid · 2006-07-10 18:57:43

KerowynM wrote:

emacs is the original bloat-ware.

Give me a break. Emacs isn't bloatware any more than vim or openoffice is bloatware. If you don't use emas/elisp a lot, then don't make comments like that because you don't know what you are talking about. Emacs is large, but it has a lot of functionality and is entirely programmable. It can be made as big or as small as you like.

If you don't want to use emacs for this project, that is fine. But the problem is not with the software. Emacs is very capable, like I've said before. People just don't want to take the time or don't like the way emacs handles keybindings, etc. And that's a valid excuse.

phrakture · 2006-07-10 19:23:25

allucid wrote:

If you don't use emas/elisp a lot, then don't make comments like that because you don't know what you are talking about. Emacs is large, but it has a lot of functionality and is entirely programmable. It can be made as big or as small as you like.

I *do* know what I'm talking about, and will say that emacs is "bloated". Emacs goes against quite a few of these rules:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html

If you deny the authority of those rules above, just know that without that philosophy there would be no /dev filesystem, no cat, no grep, no sed.... I can go on and on.

The core of Unix, since it's inception, has been "do one thing and do it right". Emacs does about 30 things, and does each of them "just ok".

magnum_opus · 2006-07-10 19:48:19

i admit vim could be considered overkill, but at the same time
vim source 6.4 mb
emacs source 19.5 mb

i know there are some light weight emacs clones out there like Zile, any one use any of them?
which are programable/scriptable and which are just editors with emacs keybindings?

also on twin as mentioned above, I played around with it on the grml live cd (awesomes live cd) and it's certainly a clever little program but could stand some work making it more keyboard friendly, every thing is bindable in the rc but i found that doing so tended to be a crap shoot at best. quite cool though and very usable.

allucid · 2006-07-10 21:45:36

phrakture wrote:

allucid wrote:
If you don't use emas/elisp a lot, then don't make comments like that because you don't know what you are talking about. Emacs is large, but it has a lot of functionality and is entirely programmable. It can be made as big or as small as you like.
I *do* know what I'm talking about, and will say that emacs is "bloated". Emacs goes against quite a few of these rules:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html
If you deny the authority of those rules above, just know that without that philosophy there would be no /dev filesystem, no cat, no grep, no sed.... I can go on and on.

I am not going to deny the benefits of those rules, but I am not going to blindly apply them to every situation either. It could be argued that a monolithic kernel, such as Linux, breaks those rules. However, testing and development are much easier with a monolithic kernel (as opposed to a modular microkernel) and we would probably still be waiting on a featureful and stable kernel if Linus had decided to go a different route.

The /dev filesystem also has many shortcomings so I would avoid listing that as a success story.

Emacs has a large number of libraries because it is capable of doing a large number of complex and useful things. If you don't use emacs heavily, then it is hard to understand how handy this is. Emacs has its flaws just like any other software, but dismissing it as bloatware is only a mistake of the misinformed.

phrakture wrote:

Emacs does about 30 things, and does each of them "just ok".

This is simply not true. When trying to make a point, avoid made-up assertions. It just makes your argument appear foolish.

magnum_opus wrote:

i admit vim could be considered overkill, but at the same time
vim source 6.4 mb
emacs source 19.5 mb

I am not trying to say that vim was overkill, I was merely trying to point out that emacs was not.

Size is not a valid comparison unless we are talking about embedded systems or the size is significantly large. Emacs can do many more things than vim and comes with its own programming language which is why it is larger.

I'll leave it at that, I do not wish to hijack this thread any further.

magnum_opus · 2006-07-10 22:11:55

no one doubts that it's capable of doing a lot but the questions are:
first should it and or does it need to do it. for instance it's great that in includes an entire general purpose programming language in it, but does it really need it to do what it does or could it just call something like awk to do it, which is required by POSIX, also sure it can browse the web with w3 or send email, but does that functionality really need to be standard
second can it do it well, for a lot of the stuff (tetris, snake, life ...) not particularly

and in the case that the answer to both of the above were yes, can it be done smaller

pauldonnelly · 2006-07-10 23:01:06

magnum_opus wrote:

no one doubts that it's capable of doing a lot but the questions are:
first should it and or does it need to do it. for instance it's great that in includes an entire general purpose programming language in it, but does it really need it to do what it does or could it just call something like awk to do it, which is required by POSIX, also sure it can browse the web with w3 or send email, but does that functionality really need to be standard
second can it do it well, for a lot of the stuff (tetris, snake, life ...) not particularly
and in the case that the answer to both of the above were yes, can it be done smaller

If you just want to filter text, you probably don't need to use anything more than awk or sed. However, Emacs can do a lot more than that. Take Slime for Lisp coding, for example.

The same arguement can be applied to desktop environments like KDE and Gnome. They contain a lot of stuff that some (like me) consider bloat. But other people find those features useful. Emacs is the same way. While you may consider the inclusion of a programming language useless bloat, others consider it an amazing feature.

It's silly to try to convince a person that one of their much loved features is not useful at all, and is actually bloat. Just accept that their reasons for liking it are as valid as your reasons for disliking it.

user · 2006-07-11 02:22:38

phrakture wrote:

I *do* know what I'm talking about, and will say that emacs is "bloated".

i don't think so, IMHO, emacs gone through the age of the "bloated"
If it really is, there is reason so.

benplaut · 2006-07-11 09:40:16

in any case, to each his/her own.

Emacs and Vi(m) both have their uses and disadvantages. It's worth your time to learn both, extensively

postlogic · 2006-07-11 12:31:56

Bah. ed > *

SHAME ON YOUR BLOATEDNESS.

No, really. vim and emacs are both great. But talking about them is like comparing KDE and Gnome. To each his own.

KerowynM · 2006-07-14 01:32:19

For editing text, which is really what I install an editor to do, emacs is beyond overkill. I've used emacs, I'm not misinformed. In my opinion emacs should have been several different projects. Large monolithic software packages have no place on my system. Yes by todays standards 19 megs is nothing, but I've been at this for a long, long time. In my day 19 megs was huge (Ever connected at 300 bps? have fun moving 20 megs around). Way to much to spend on editing simple text. Hell, my text editor should fit on a floppy with room to spare. Just because computers today can process more, doesn't mean we should waste it with apps that are bigger then they need to be, even if our current systems can handle them. I just have problems with the waste. Ever notice that even tho your computer now is over 10 times as fast as the one you had 10 years ago, it often takes longer to do things? That comes from people that think the software needs to get bigger with the hardware.

Give me screen and vi thanks, emacs is for people that can't keep track of the efficent apps.

Edit: And no, I don't use big bloated DE's either. Gnome is installed for my wife who can't handle anything less, but I myself use ratpoison. tiny efficient apps FTW.

allucid · 2006-07-14 02:46:05

KerowynM wrote:

For editing text, which is really what I install an editor to do, emacs is beyond overkill. I've used emacs, I'm not misinformed. <snip>

Starting emacs and editing a few lines of text does not qualify you an emacs expert.

You made no valid or new points.

Vim is an excellent piece of software; if you work better with vim, then go ahead and use vim. I am not trying to dictate what software you use.

Please don't try and profess why emacs is bad when you clearly do not understand its benefits. Your pontificating is ubecoming.

KerowynM · 2006-07-14 16:54:38

You are the one assuming I have no experience in emacs. I assure you I've used it enough to make informed statements about it. Just because it's your baby doesn't mean its the prettiest one on the block.

phrakture · 2006-07-17 06:05:16

Locked... this decayed into "no you're wrong" banter without supporting arguments....

Arch Linux

#51 2006-07-09 19:34:54

Re: sexy text based system

#52 2006-07-10 00:09:37

Re: sexy text based system

#53 2006-07-10 11:46:28

Re: sexy text based system

#54 2006-07-10 18:57:43

Re: sexy text based system

#55 2006-07-10 19:23:25

Re: sexy text based system

#56 2006-07-10 19:48:19

Re: sexy text based system

#57 2006-07-10 21:45:36

Re: sexy text based system

#58 2006-07-10 22:11:55

Re: sexy text based system

#59 2006-07-10 23:01:06

Re: sexy text based system

#60 2006-07-11 02:22:38

Re: sexy text based system

#61 2006-07-11 09:40:16

Re: sexy text based system

#62 2006-07-11 12:31:56

Re: sexy text based system

#63 2006-07-14 01:32:19

Re: sexy text based system

#64 2006-07-14 02:46:05

Re: sexy text based system

#65 2006-07-14 16:54:38

Re: sexy text based system

#66 2006-07-17 06:05:16

Re: sexy text based system

Board footer