Emacs thread

>you would probably be much faster writing all this stuff by hand.
In some scenarios yes, but I found hand written notes quickly turn unreadable. It's also difficult to get a good overview and search through my notes. It's more important that I can find and read my notes fast than writing them fast.
Also this lets me add images and links in an easy way.

not the guy , but do you have any recommendations on theme that are good for long work ??

>Uwu, notices ur carpal tunnel

Can/will you guys answer my stupid question?

Have you set up the Scheme interpreter correctly?

I have not done any setup of scheme interpreter. I basically just installed, went through most of the tutorial to learn navigation and a bit about how emacs works. Is this covered in the tutorial?

can't / or control-F on paper tho

Emacs uses ELisp which is not compatible with Scheme and even less with the kind of Scheme used in the 60s SICP.
It might be considered heresy, but does it HAVE to be Emacs for this? Just for learning you could install DrRacket and install the sicp compatability package (because even modern Schemes aren't fully compatible with SICP's 60s Scheme).
If you don't mind jumping through those hoops check this page: docs.racket-lang.org/guide/Emacs.html

I would say it has to be emacs because the purpose of my choice is to learn how to use emacs. It doesn't have to be lisp. I'm not a good programmer, I do physics, everything I know is basically something I have picked up on the fly. (Python, R, and C are what I used for all of my classwork projects.) My only formal programming classes were a C++ and java class I took in my first year. I just hear emacs is a very powerful tool for a lot of things outside of writing code. Additionally, a few companies I want to work for in my area list LISP as a programming language they want. I figured I would get two birds stoned at once with this.

Is ELisp that much different from scheme? So ELisp doesn't define variables with (define variable definition)? Or is my method of evaluating the statement wrong? (c-x c-e)

>So ELisp doesn't define variables with (define variable definition)?
Correct. ELisp is some kind of bastardized version of Common Lisp. It's perfect to be used as the extension language for Emacs, but that's about it.

Huh. Alright. Should I search to setup scheme as the language for scratch? Is that even possible?

Alternatively I'm going to make a file where I run small bits of code and evaluate them then erase them.

looks like fisherprice - the theme. perfect for a professional fizzbuzzer like you.

Attached: syntaxon.jpg (600x291, 47K)

Why not learn Common Lisp instead? Just pick your favorite implementation and install SLIME/SLY.

Thanks :)

I was going to SICP. I guess I could, but I figure just using scheme would make things a bit easier if I'm gonna go through a book which primarily deals in scheme. I can always pick up common lisp later.

Well, I don't really know what kind of Lisp the companies you want to work for use, but learning Common Lisp instead of Scheme has the benefits of having more support and giving you more portable code.
If you really want to learn Scheme, then you can either do what user said above and install Dr Racket with the SICP compatibility, or you can install geiser (nongnu.org/geiser/ ) and a Scheme implementation. If you've worked with C, you probably will like Chicken or Gambit Scheme. If you want to fall for the meme and use the Guix package manager, the learn Guile.

i decided i wanna give emacs a try after years of using vim
what's the best way/configuration to move over without too much of a hassle? i heard spacemacs is good for that.
i write c/c++ code mostly.

either doom emacs or spacemacs, or make your own config and use witchmacs as a base

spacemacs is awesome but it's bloated with packages that'll never use (unless you install spacemacs-base), doom-emacs offers the same functionality but with less bloat

To me, anything outside of vanilla emacs is just a pain. Installing packages and configuring them isn't as hard as you think.
tuhdo.github.io/c-ide.html
tuhdo.github.io/emacs-tutor.html
tuhdo.github.io/emacs-tutor3.html

Me 2 years ago but with Texstudio. Exact same topic. Memories.

Install Witchmacs
I finally added magit

github.com/snackon/Witchmacs

Attached: gnumarisa.png (667x731, 200K)

please

okay

user, if you are new to programming, do yourself a favor and use Python. After you know the basics then you can try a Lisp dialect (I recommend elisp if you want to tweak Emacs)

Best way to do spreadsheets?

Attached: The Absolute State.png (1305x879, 791K)

>43:01
Huh.

cute witch

after seeing some user do the same thing as you are doing, i tried it myself and i don't think it's worth that much.
sicp is a nice book that teaches fundamental things about lisp and programming, but it's not the only book about lisp.
as this user said, SLIME could be of use for you. the following link can teach you to use SLIME and CL.
gigamonkeys.com/book/

but if you really want scheme, use emacs to write your code and the scheme interpreter to run it, using scheme --quiet < program.scm

Start with vanilla. Don’t install some faggot meme distro.

Is that buffer in scheme-mode? M-x scheme-mode

Just install Racket and Geiser for emacs, or DrRacket for Racket's own IDE to get you started.

why do some people use -1 instead of 0 to disable things?

But why not a «nil»?

they think nil = -1

Why use emacs?

Чтoбы вce oхyeли, кaк ты мoжeшь

Out of curiosity, why use emacs instead of the simpler alternatives?

...

Cause it's the cutest.

It has potential to cover all the needs you may have, but find lacking in simpler alternatives. And by default it is very capable text editor.

Out of all the available text editors why choose emacs?

>alternatives
There are no viable alternative to emacs, not that I'm aware of at least.
>simpler
This is usually code for the "worse is better" Unix-style retardation.

Is there a emacs-chan?

What about he complexity? I tried Vim once or twice and even though there were some nice tools I found it rather difficult to get into it. Is emacs as complex? Heard it being compared to a whole OS often.

Nano, pico, gedit, sublime, word, notepad or any other text editor.
Not trying to front just trying to understand.

>Is emacs as complex? Heard it being compared to a whole OS often.

It definitely has a learning curve, but you don't have to jump into some complex shit and addons from the get-go. Do a built-in tutorial, get comfortable with just the text editing, then look up extensions. Most people seem to find org-mode very useful.

Vim has extensions (or addons, or whatever) too, but they are rather limited compared to Emacs.

>Nano, pico, gedit, sublime, word, notepad
The burden of proof is on you to show that these are viable emacs alternatives.

>Is emacs as complex?
It's complex in the sense that it can do a lot of things, but the core idea is really simple to understand and it's less hacked together than vim. Configuring it step-by-step to get the functionality you need is pretty simple too.

Get you head out from your ass, elitist. user is genuinely curious, and you're acting like using Emacs making you better just because

>user is genuinely curious
I'm also genuinely curious as to why he believes those programs are viable emacs alternatives. If he can answer that, he'll immediately answer his own question too.
>Get you head out from your ass, elitist.
>you're acting like using Emacs making you better just because
Seems like you're projecting some kind of deeply held insecurity onto my post.

Oh come on this is not a religious debate. I am just trying to understand why there is so much buzz around this programm and Vim. Something made you choose emacs over all the alternatives you tried and I am trying to understand what made you do that.

Why do you think makes them not viable on a practical level. There has to be a reason you choose emacs.

Thanks guys!

>What about he complexity?
you can make it as complex as you want

Attached: text-editor-learning-curve.jpg (600x400, 26K)

>I'm also genuinely curious as to why he believes those programs are viable emacs alternatives.

Because all of them can and are used for editing text files, that is why.

>why he believes those programs are viable emacs alternatives

Because they are all text editor, ffs.

I can use a swiss army knife to cut my bread, but a simple kitchen knife is a viable alternative for that task. But it stops being a viable alternative when you need to undo a screw or something. Ya dig?

IRC? whats the setup

>I am trying to understand what made you do that
I needed the most customizable interface for programming, writing prose and managing my agenda/todo.
>not viable on a practical level.
I didn't say that. I said they aren't viable as emacs alternatives, as in "programs you use instead of emacs".

So? Why do you think that a smaller program implementing a single piece of emacs' functionality makes that program a viable emacs "alternative"? You're assuming that people only use emacs to edit text. At least try being smarter and say something like "notepad + calcurse" is an emacs alternative for people who only use emacs as a text editor and a calendar.

>But it stops being a viable alternative when you need to undo a screw or something.
Exactly. Notepad stops being a viable emacs replacement as soon as you use emacs for anything beyond the most basic of its functionality.

>for anything beyond the most basic of its functionality.

The other user was essentially asking what Emacs can do beyond this functionality that makes it worth using.

And instead of answering that, we started arguing about semantics. Great.

>The other user was essentially asking what Emacs can do beyond this functionality that makes it worth using.
I don't see that anywhere in this reply chain. I only see some retarded mention of alternatives instead of actually asking about what emacs can do.
>Out of curiosity, why use emacs instead of the simpler alternatives?

Okay here is what I have taken away so far:
emacs is a highly adaptable but potentially very complex text editor with a lot of funtionality that can turn people into quasi religious zealots
also there are russians that think they are clever
I am going to check it out.

Thanks guys!

any good emacs tutorials or just the inbuilt and go from there?

>At least try being smarter and say something like "notepad + calcurse" is an emacs alternative for people who only use emacs as a text editor and a calendar.
How am I supposed to do that when I am just trying to get into emacs?

Why

do you

space your posts like this?

>How am I supposed to do that when I am just trying to get into emacs?
You do that by not spouting retarded nonsense like "nano is a viable emacs alternative" when you literally know nothing about the subject. Should be pretty easy to manage.

You could have just said "Because emacs can do a lot of shit other programs can't do. Here are some examples: ..."

>any good emacs tutorials or just the inbuilt and go from there?

When you open Emacs, there is a menu, just click on tutorial and by the end of it you'll know enough basics to get around.

for text editing it is though

Where does the initial question restrict the discussion to being about merely text-editing alternatives?

thanks

Attached: 1501757167074.jpg (1033x679, 89K)

Stop being so butthurt

Exactly. Instead he was acting like he was attended that someone dared to assume that Emacs is not a sacred piece of omnipotent software that has no equals.

Even this is debatable. You can't easily extend nano to make its text editing better.

i hate emacs

this post made by vim gang

This is leading nowhere.
You are somehow right, pat yourself on the back for being so right.

Are you lost, little redditor?

I don't believe in answering retardedly formed questions which seem to be phrased with the intent to start shitty discussion like this one.
>software that has no equals
What are some examples of other programs that are "equal" to emacs?

>attended
*offended
I had a brain fart.

>somehow
Weird how actually reading the shit you reply to has the tendency to make you right.

>What are some examples of other programs that are "equal" to emacs?

In doing what?
My fucking browser is fucking equal to Emacs since it supports add-ons and I can write webpages with Java to make it do anything.

>In doing what?
In being "equal to emacs", whatever you think that means (if that's even a meaningful thing to say (it isn't)).

Like you?

Oh, I don't know.

Try to think what tasks people actually do with Emacs.

Then it may occur to you that people need to do different set of things, and for some people all the functionality of Emacs is just an overkill.

And if pure functionality is not an issue, then there's a question of how comfortable or productive something is compared to Emacs while doing some similar tasks.

>since it supports add-ons and I can write webpages with Java to make it do anything
By your logic a bash interpreter is also somehow "equal" to emacs. "equality" usually implies similar levels of performance, usability and extensibility.

It's not my logic, it's a way to make finally say why do you think Emacs is superior to everything else to a degree that nothing is comparable.

Well, you finally said it:

>levels of performance, usability and extensibility.

>for some people all the functionality of Emacs is just an overkill
How is that relevant for showing that there is a program which can be considered "equal to emacs"? You can't seem to follow a basic discussion without injecting irrelevant garbage into it.
>how comfortable or productive something is compared to Emacs while doing some similar tasks
You still haven't produced an example of a program which does this better.

>You still haven't produced an example of a program which does this better.

Vim is equal to Emacs as a sophisticated text editor, or else we wouldn't have a few decades old holywar. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but if you need to edit text and not compile PDFs on the go or something, Vim is pretty much comparable. And many people seem to prefer Vim bindings, to in that sense Vim is better for them, for example.

>why do you think Emacs is superior to everything else to a degree that nothing is comparable
Because it seems to be the only program in the general category of extensible environments for doing text-based tasks. This by default makes it better than any other nonexistent program in same the category.

>a sophisticated text editor
Are you genuinely retarded or are you just purposefully ignoring context for some reason? How does vim supposedly doing some small part of emacs' functionality better make vim "equal to emacs"? You don't seem to understand that "equality" implies implementing all of emacs' features with similar levels of usability.

Go squat next to a liquor shop, Ivan.

>Are you genuinely retarded
No u.

You are ignoring the context.

It's like arguing that PC is the best gaming device because you can install office software and compile Gentoo from source on PC, but you can't do that on PS4.

I am! Doesn't stop me from shitposting on Jow Forums

>It's like arguing that PC is the best gaming device because you can install office software and compile Gentoo from source on PC, but you can't do that on PS4.
You're making zero sense, I guess the r*ddit-spacing is degenerating your brain somehow. Please explain how this argument is even close to what I'm suggesting? In this case it would be me claiming that the PC is the best general purpose computing device, and that you'd have to be legitimately delusional to call PS4 a "PC alternative" for this reason.

show me your emacs rices