Gnu emacs

You do know that's only a meaningless anecdote? This discussion is wholly inane either way.

Seems like a cope for the fact that Emacs users can end up programming entire suites of software just to use their editor. Vim does not have distributions.

that's because of how shit vimscript is compared to elisp, not because of the users

That doesn't sound hand-wavy at all.

>Vim does not have distributions.
You mean like neovim?

>vim users configure their editor more than Emacs users
>a-actually configuration is a good thing
>vim users would configure their editor as much as Emacs users if they could

150 MB for a fucking text editor. Oh wait, it has two IRC clients and Tetris and a web browser and a chatbot...

>because vimtards are like ricers, they don't actually do anything of value, they just customize
You dumb nigger, customizing is the point of Emacs. Yet it's a wonder that the most "polished" configs come from exVimmers, like Doom, Spacemacs and Centaur. My question called attention to that fact, not deriding exVimmers because they like to customize.
If you use Spacemacs yet brag about using Emacs you're a imbecile.

It's a software suite. Don't like it? Don't use it. If you want just a text editor, use mg.

Of course I don't use it, I use vim, a text editor.

>Make thread about emacs
>hurr vim is better

What a suprise. Vimmers ruin a thread.

Apt's broken for me and I dunno how large Vim is but Mg's only 200KB and is better

True, but this is how humans operate

>Cringe OP makes an Emacs thread
>doesn't talk about what he uses, or what he like, or his favorite package
>instead talks about how much he hates Vimmers
Totally unbased and bluepilled. Go back to r/emacs.

Attached: barey.jpg (496x478, 46K)

>literally all OP said was that this is an Emacs thread and that if you want to talk about Vim to make your own thread
>somehow this conveys his hatred for Vim users

>basically talk shit about the other team
>act surprised when the other team reacts
Suck it up, if you want an Emacs-only thread with minimum Vim discussion, don't mention Vim in the OP.

I used to ignore these threads before an Emacs user crashed several consecutive Vim threads with the same garbage.

>mention Vim in the OP
>Vim users whine
>don't mention Vim in the OP
>Vim users flood thread about how Vim is better

I'm sure there's a package for blocking Vim posts, just use thta.

>implying I use WebKit garbage

It isn't about mentioning Vim, it's about you being unable to start Emacs-related discussion.

>you
I'm not OP, dumbass

You also seem bad at getting an Emacs-related discussion on track

I'm not interested in getting an Emacs-related discussion on track. I'm merely here in case one does.

>uncapable of ignoring something like that

>why is it that V*mmers are the ones who always come up with the "best" emacs configs
``Proof needed''.

>customizing is the point of Emacs
Changing the colors of your i3 WM borders all day is customization too. It's pretty clear that there are different kinds of customization with different levels of depth to them. He was talking about the first kind here.
>it's a wonder that the most "polished" configs come from exVimmers
It's not really a surprise. In general, vim users tend to have lower intelligence and thus an inherent disability in being able to create "polished" configs for themselves in a short amount of time. The smarter "ex-vimmers" like Doom's author understand and capitalize on this.

I am using flyspell and iedit.
Both use C-; by default.
I want iedit to use it over flyspell but flyspell hijacks it.
I tried to use a global-set kbd but I didn't succeed.
Any idea?

Anyone got an idea how to make super+return open ansi-terminal in a new window?
The idea is to make something like the i3 default but for emacs

Try using define-key or try unbinding (binding to nil) the function you don't want to trigger and then binding the one you want.

This should be enough if your system doesn't hijack the super key. You also might want to look into eshell instead of ansi-term if you don't need any ncurses applications.
(defun ansi-term-new-window ()
(interactive)
(let ((buff (ansi-term "/bin/bash")))
(switch-to-buffer (other-buffer buff))
(switch-to-buffer-other-window buff)))

(define-key global-map (kbd "s-") 'ansi-term-new-window)

Binding this to s-ret should work

(defun open-term-in-new-frame ()
(interactive)
(let (name (generate-new-buffer-name "*ansi-term*"))
(switch-to-buffer-other-frame name)
(ansi-term "bash" name)))

>and yet his "joke" is better than that ugandan piece of shit editor
This is what happens when people don't realize something is a joke and take it seriously, people will actually defend it despite all its obvious intentional flaws.

>No multithreading
Yikes.

>This is what happens when people don't realize something is a joke and take it seriously
The creator's intentions don't really matter in this case. Even if it's a joke, it's still miles better than literally any other "serious" program in the same category.
>obvious intentional flaws
What are these flaws and how do they make the program not worth using over any alternative?

Who else manage there config files in org-mode?

Sent from my GNU/Emacs

Attached: ghostscript.png (129x129, 17K)

I've translated most of my bigger configs (guix, qutebrowser and emacs) to org.

Attached: gnu_slash_loli.jpg (695x697, 471K)

Tnakns both of you.
I'm on mobile right now, I'm gonna try these up when I come back.

>spend their time setting up Vim to handle sending emails and managing their calendar.
Instead they spend more time setting up shittier alternatives like mutt, or even worse, using web-based shitware to do the same thing.

Uh, there should be an extra set of parens around that let, oops.

>vim, a text editor
>interpreting vimscript is text-editing
Remove yourself from this board.

>It's not really a surprise. In general, vim users tend to have lower intelligence and thus an inherent disability in being able to create "polished" configs for themselves in a short amount of time. The smarter "ex-vimmers" like Doom's author understand and capitalize on this.
Anyone who judges intelligence based on text editor is a fucking moron with no other accolades. I feel sorry for the Emacs users who are so far up their own asses that their editor is objectively perfect. I can't imagine how far detached you are from regular people if you can't even sympathize with users of the second most autistic text editor on the planet.

All of the details of the language in use by any text editor will barely ever have any significant impact on anyone's life. The sole exception is Emacs, which is made to build fully featured software on top of and replace every aspect of, which believe it or not, not everyone needs. No one cares about your Elisp except you. Deal with it.

What is the best Emacs distribution and why is it Doom Emacs?

Attached: 1548177800074.gif (370x266, 3.18M)

You seem to have really bad reasoning/text interpretation skills. Where do I say that their lower intelligence is based on the text editor they use? If anything, my post implies that they use it precisely because of their low intelligence (or ignorance about better options), not the other way around. Nobody said that emacs is objectively perfect. It's merely better than every alternative.
>I can't imagine how far detached you are from regular people if you can't even sympathize with users of the second most autistic text editor on the planet.
I can sympathize with a vim user who has enough sense to know that his software is objectively garbage, I can also sympathize with a wordpad user who just doesn't know/care to know any better. What I can't do is sympathize with a person who has brainwashed themselves into believing that vim is somehow not inferior to emacs.

All of what you typed is irrelevant. That post retardedly claims that vim is merely a text editor. Interpreting a programming language isn't text-editing, thus vim isn't merely a text editor.

OP, you seem confused. First you say the thread is about the greatest OS of all time, but then you say it's about emacs. Well, which is it?

emacs was the plan9 port of the 80's.
Poor wittle lispers losing out to Unix.

Ah, I see, you don't think people are stupid because of the text editor they use, you can merely tell if they're stupid by the text editor they use, and you don't think your editor is objectively perfect, just that it is objectively the most perfect. You have proved me wrong. You definitely aren't far up your own ass.

Emacs is a great OS, it just needs an editor.

You're a retard. Is GIMP not an image editor because it supports scripting? Vim comes with scripting abilities since people found it to be useful on a full-featured editor, that's all there is to it.

@71232076
Thanks for proving your own inability to read English. How is noticing the simple fact that using vim instead of emacs correlates with lower intelligence somehow "judging" people's intelligence based on the editor they use? How is being objectively perfect the same as merely being better than anything currently available? Is English even your first language?

Any discussion between Vim and Emacs that brings up the self contained interpreter in Vim is implicitly about Elisp and the differences in how Emacs and Vim compare languages. There is no other reason to make the comparison than to draw attention to what Emacs does differently.

No one gives a shit about Plan 9 or plan9port (which are still Unix offspring). Meanwhile, Guix is finally here and Emacs is still alive.
Lispfags will win.

ok kid

No. You're the retarded one here.
>Is GIMP not an image editor because it supports scripting?
It's an image editor, but it's not MERELY an image editor. This distinction isn't usually important unless some retard starts calling GIMP a "minimalistic" image-editor which does nothing more than edit images.

>implicitly about Elisp
No, that's just you being insecure about your shitty choices in software. I just pointed out how calling vim a mere text editor is just plain wrong.

>It's a text editor, but it's not MERELY a text editor.
And you're calling me a retard? How is the situation any different between GIMP and Vim? Did anybody claim Vim is good because it can't be scripted?

If you're going to be pedantic, that guy said he uses "vim, a text editor". He did not say ONLY a text editor, or MERELY a text editor. It's just as accurate as saying he uses "gimp, a text editor". The implication is not necessarily that Vim is less than Emacs, just that Emacs does not do it well for one reason or another.

Emacs is not an editor, you idiots. Emacs is a lisp interpreter which happens to include an editor.

Emacs is (result of) an applied philosophy (all the nice things - DSLs, modules, GC, etc)

@71232195
>And you're calling me a retard?
That's because you clearly are one, or you're just ignoring context because of some social disability. I'll explain it in simple terms for you. Some kid claimed that he uses vim, a text editor (as opposed to something MORE than a text editor).
@71232215
>He did not say ONLY a text editor
Did you have major trouble learning language as a kid? The post he was replying to introduced the distinction between "software suite (in the sense of including a text editor and other programs, interpreters for programming languages being another program)" and "text editor", he then stated that he uses a "text editor", as in "something that edits text and is not a software suite".

Why are you bringing Emacs into this? It really seems like some sort of deep insecurity.

>Emacs is a lisp interpreter
Which is written in a better language called C.

A text editor with an interpreter is still a text editor. It is still distinct from a full software suite.

>better language
Better usually means "better in most ways", while C is only "better" because its implementations produce faster programs on contemporary architectures. It's worse in almost every other aspect.

Poof, a magically disappearing argument. Just like that, it's gone like it was never there.

@71232294
>A text editor with an interpreter is still a text editor.
It's a text editor, but not _merely_ a text editor, you imbecile. I don't know why you keep feeling the need to repeat this and ignore the obvious context.

Yes, Vim is a text editor that could be considered to function as a software suite secondarily. But even if you check the manpage for vim you'll see that its intended use is, indeed, being a text editor, even though you can interpret scripts with it. Just like GIMP.

Also, you need to learn to manage your temper.

ok kid

The same applies to every post you made in this thread. Weird how that works out.

Nobody has made the claim of Vim being "merely a text editor"

Now stop acting like an autist and using @ to quote people on 4channel

@71232324
>Vim is a text editor that could be considered to function as a software suite
I'm glad you agree that you're wrong. Didn't even read the rest.

weird considering how your argument was basically "waah vim is not an editor"

Try to keep up

@71232346
>Nobody has made the claim of Vim being "merely a text editor"
Learn to read English and try understanding the simple fact that using the exact combination of letters in "merely a text editor" isn't necessary to refer to something being "merely a text editor".
@71232366
My argument is that the kid who claimed it to be a text editor is wrong. Everything else is just your insecurities about using shit software.

Hey guys! sendmail isn't just an MTA it's a software suite since it contains a turing complete configuration language! hahah look how dumb I am! KILL ME!

>KILL ME!
I gladly would if I could. The world doesn't need such trash walking around.

Hey guys!, remind isn't just a calendaring software it's a Software Suite since it contains a turing complete configuration language. Look LOOK how dumb I am!

Hey, you forgot to use @

Why do Vim users feel the need to embed scripting languages into their minimalist editor? Could it be that the UNIX philosophy is being violated here? I thought applying the UNIX philosophy always lead to better software.

Attached: The_Thinker_Musee_Rodin.jpg (768x1024, 230K)

>KILL ME!
see

Could it be that scripting is a part of text editing?

Part of the unix philosophy is extensibility. Having a scripting language does not violate the Unix philosophy.

You're right, that's why most software was configured with m4 macros "back in the day".
Look at sendmail for example.

>vim being extensible by having a scripting language does not violate UNIX philosophy
>but emacs does
OH NO NO NO NO WTF VIMROS

The Unix philosophy has always been nothing but a vague collection of slogans, and obsessing over it is silly.
The main problem with the "do one thing well" approach is that, first of all, it's not always clear what is meant by "one thing", and most importantly, it focuses too much on "optimizing" the part, without taking the whole into account.
Ultimately, all actual work consists on many tasks. What matters is not how well each one is done individually, but how well everything is done collectively, as a whole, and how well each part is integrated with the rest. This is the main reason why I like Emacs and I tend to dislike Unix concepts in general.
Sure, there are many other great tools that do what some part of Emacs does, and they do it very well, sometimes arguably better. But using them all separately is ultimately inferior to the unified and integrated workflow that Emacs makes possible.
Besides, many things in Emacs actually do rely on external tools, but Emacs is able to provide a consistent interface to all of them.

Disclaimer: this post is not meant to shit on any editor (or software in general), so calm your autismo.

I suppose the line goes somewhere between re-defining a few keyboard shortcuts and using your intended-to-be-text-editor as an email client. I don't want to be rude, but the latter seems like a form of mental illness to me.

I didn't need to script anything to write this post. What is your philosophy paper reference for this deep concept of an interpreter for an explicit and separate Turing-complete language being necessary for editing text?

You already have a scripting language. It's called POSIX-compliant sh. Anything else is doing more than one thing and thus leads to a violation of the UNIX philosophy, and by extension to bad and bloated software like Vim.

Attached: philosophy_group.jpg (1019x551, 212K)

>But using them all separately is ultimately inferior to the unified and integrated workflow that Emacs makes possible.
Why? Doesn't your OS allow you to run multiple applications and switch between them seamlessly? How is Emacs' window management better than your OS's?

>intended-to-be-text-editor
Nobody cares about this if you have to actively ignore the real-world implementation to actually believe that it's just a text editor.

Modularity is also part of the Unix philosophy, A full software suite with self contained programs violates modularity, not extensibility. A text editor with an interpreter so it can interface with other programs in the system does not. Not that it really matters, it's a philosophy from before the internet that doesn't hold up for every different type of application. If you don't want to follow it, don't follow it. But don't go spouting off strawmen and talking about shit you don't know about.