
Why I Use Emacs - snotrockets
http://shayelk.in/why-i-use-emacs/
======
sprash
I don't like Emacs. Emacs key-bindings are neither ergonomic nor do they make
any sense in any way. They are barely consitent across modes, only if you are
lucky. They are the way they are because they are old. And old people don't
like change. Emacs has also several other problems. It lacks multi threading,
the cursor can not be moved off screen. Autocomplete for C-like languages is a
mess and really inferior to everything else I used. Compared to all other Lisp
dialects, Elisp is the worst. It is not only by far the slowest, it also lacks
essential features like namespaces. And then there is complete clusterfuck of
conflicting "modes" and the lack of disposition to cooperate and unify within
the community.

The reason why I'm so upset is, if you are a newcomer and look at Emacs what
you see at first glance on the outside is basically total crap. But then
people tell you that the learning curve is high and everything is awesome if
you just learn.

Well my experience was, the more I learned the more crap appeared. One layer
of crap after the other. Luckily everything could somehow be fixed with a lot
of configuration and scripts. But the points I mention above are the lowest
layer which can not be fixed with just a bunch of lines of Lisp like in the
previous layers. So even at the core Emacs is crap.

~~~
TacticalCoder
I do totally agree the key-bindings are neither ergonomic (they're actually
inducing RSI issues) nor do they make any sense in any way, which is your
first point.

However this is _trivially_ fixed because in Emacs everything is configurable.
Keymappings are very easy to change (I'm using my own, completely custom ones,
in my own keymapping minor-mode). There's also the "evil mode" reproducing the
very superior (compared to Emacs) vim keybindings. So it's not true that they
cannot be fixed. Not only can keybindings be fixed but a) they should and b)
it's trivial to do so.

I'm using my own minor-mode which contains all my keymappings. Doing it that
way you'll hardly ever have conflicting shortcuts.

evil-mode is an option too for people who want the (way better) vi(m)
keybindings.

~~~
jbeja
I am using evil-mode since i switch from Vim to Emacs and i am obsessed. Don't
get me wrong , VIM is well VIM (awesome!), but some emacs plugins are more
polished that VIM's ones and i can't stand vimscript.

~~~
pekk
But you like sucky elisp?

~~~
jbeja
IMHO is better than sucky vimscript.

------
timr
I've tried just about every editor under the sun. I keep coming back to emacs.
It Just Works, it's flexible, it's configurable, it doesn't impose any
particular workflow on you, and it's basically everywhere that I need it --
terminals, GUIs, unix, linux, OSX.

I most recently tried sublime text, and it was okay, but it fell over in some
pretty serious ways with basic stuff. Like indenting -- I'd have to go back
and find the problem again, but there was a ridiculous indentation problem
that was a deal-breaker, and the response from the ST community was,
essentially: _" I don't know anyone who indents that way, so we're not going
to support it."_

OK then. Back to emacs. It Just Works.

------
e3pi
"... its various Ctrl-Meta key-chords will seem not merely satisfyingly
ergonomic for the typical arthropod, but also direct evidence for the
universe’s Intelligent Design by some six-legged, multi-jointed God.”

It just feels good. Do it today!

~~~
mattl
[http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/its-
cover.png](http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/its-cover.png)

------
Myrmornis
Two links away that led me to [http://mph.puddingbowl.org/2010/02/org-mode-in-
your-pocket-i...](http://mph.puddingbowl.org/2010/02/org-mode-in-your-pocket-
is-a-gnu-shaped-devil/) which is hilarious and very true. Source committed
emacs user, I've contributed to org-mode, and it is great. But still, true.

------
McUsr
Hello. The keybindings file I use in OS X for simulating some Emacs behaviour,
was too long to be saved as a comment. Below are references for how to make
Emacs like shortcuts that works through the whole OS X, at least through all
programs that uses the Cocoa Text System. Xcode got its own system. BBEdit
uses its own, and at least the Omnifocus programs I use, also use their own.

    
    
         *    
         * References:    
         * https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/EventOverview/TextDefaultsBindings/TextDefaultsBindings.html    
         * Above is Apples Documentation on the subject which is Mandatory reading!    
         *    
         * Mandatory reading as well: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jrus/Site/system-bindings.html    
         * This page lists Apple's keybindings and standard keyboard functionaliaty to a further extent than Apple's documentation further above.    
         *    
         * A Must read concerning customizing the cocoa text system: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jrus/site/cocoa-text.html    
         *     
         * *Very Useful Page* when you want to make your own bindings: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jrus/site/KeyBindings/Windows%20Bindings.dict    
         *     
         *     
         *    
         * http://www.cocoawithlove.com/2009/12/multiple-copy-buffers-cursor-and-tab.html    
         * Above mostly for how to utilize the kill-ring, which doesn't work well with the setup here,     
         * and it is focused towards XCode, which has it separate keybindings file, but works after the    
         * same principles. Beware: XCode uses a string list, instead of array. It is important to     
         * keep the space after the comma!     
         * "select:", "do someth:"    
         *    
         * http://wttools.sourceforge.net/emacs-stuff/emacs-keybindings.html    
         * Above is a keybindings table, which is of use only to see the keyboard shortcuts.    
         * The commands we use on OS X is not named equivalently to Emacs.

~~~
chm
Why not Aquamacs?

~~~
McUsr
I have my keybindings work everywhere, in Spotlight, I can captialize, or
lower case words everywhere, and such, I have and extra yank/kill buffer apart
from the paste board. It is not about the editor really, it is more about the
whole user interface, and I use BBedit for editing, which doesn't use it. But
sometimes, it feels very good to just use TextEdit, and have a multi-window
environment for writing small texts, and to set a mark and such, when the text
grows longer. All that kind of stuff that I feel making the work more fun. :)

------
StevePerkins
Java guy here. I've never understood how retro types can criticize IDE's,
relative to the "clean, simple elegance" of a text editor... and then reveal
that their text editor is Emacs. In terms of learning curve and simplicity,
IntelliJ might as well be "ed" in comparison to Emacs... or even Vim to a
lesser extent.

I spent years using Eclipse, and even though I now concede that IntelliJ is
superior, it still took quite awhile to get up the learning curve and let go
of my Eclipse bias. If you write a lot of code in any language, then you
invest a significant amount of time and energy into learning how to maximize
productivity in your tool of choice. That tool is then the best tool, because
you are invested and most productive with it.

~~~
baddox
I don't think cleanness, simplicity, elegance, or learning curve are ever the
advantages touted by Emacs users. It's all about extensibility and
customizability.

------
dsr_
Fair warning: I'm a sysadmin.

My basic attitude has been unchanged for fifteen or twenty years now:
programmers need programmable editors because they can be more productive when
they are comfortable; sysadmins need an editor which is installed on every
system and works the same way by default.

emacs is pretty good, and was what once heavyweight is rendered small and fast
by the march of technological progress. But if you, as a programmer, want to
devote yourself to becoming an expert in something else, go right ahead.

------
mattattaque
I've never tried Emacs, but tales of the unergonomic nature if its keybindings
have steered me far far away. On a side note though the author wrote "I don’t
think I could learn another set this side of river Styx." and I just find
myself really liking this expression. Cheers!

------
dbbolton
I'm going to paint with a broad brush here, but usually it seems like
emacs/vim (chosen here to represent broad categories of editors) evangalists
haven't given a whole lot of time to try out the other side.

I'd say it took me only a few minutes to get the hang of vim, but several
weeks of regular use to really appreciate it. I have never given emacs the
same opportunity simply because I've never felt the need to leave vim. But I
certainly would do so before I recommended vim over emacs to anyone else.

~~~
snotrockets
I gave Sublime four months; and in those four months, I only used Emacs once
on a remote machine.

I really did try, but the experience left me wanting, and made me realize I'm
never going to try another editor ever again: I'm just not ready for another
four months of hate directed at my main working tool before I'll revert to the
One True Editor™.

------
waterfowl
Why does stuff like this get so high on HN all the time? It isn't news, emacs
has been around for approx forever and obviously is a good editor slash
operating system for all the serious devotees. What do these pieces add?
Literally never will the "vim vs. emacs" thing be resolved if it isn't now.
Note to self, write a piece about how "I use <editor> because I know how to
use <editor> well" if I ever want to be big on hn.

~~~
StevePerkins
Bonus points if you can tie <editor> to the NSA or Bitcoin.

------
parallelist
I like this post for many reasons. One of them is introducing me to the word
retrogrouch

------
jonsen
Apparently emacs is excellent in defend-mode.

------
wodenokoto
tl;dr: Emacs is forever, because I got used to the key-bindings.

Seriously?

~~~
noarchy
You'll hear similar things from vim users. And for those of us who use
neither, we also like what is familiar, and it may keep some of us _away_ from
both emacs and vim.

~~~
SmileyKeith
(As a vim user) I like to think that the keybindings actually make sense.
There are tons of articles out there about the verbage of vim commands. Once
you get used to the vocabulary vim makes a lot of sense. (But it could just be
Stockholm syndrome for most of us)

~~~
sdrothrock
As someone who spent about a year getting used to VIM, I can actually document
the progress of Stockholm Syndrome in my own chat history.

The first few weeks are filled with things like "Why is (d)elete cut?! I want
to delete it, not put it in the buffer! And why do I have to push 'd' twice?
This is stupid." or "Who thinks (w)rite makes more sense than (s)ave?"

But then over time, I started internalizing the commands and whenever someone
else would echo the same complaints back to me, I'd usually find myself
responding "Well, vim is pretty old, so you have to forgive it for not being
up on modern terminology. If you just remember the keywords, it usually helps
a bit. Plus a good configuration makes it a lot easier to use!"

Now I'm at a point where I find myself hitting ":wq" more often than not
regardless of whether I'm actually in vim... and I started looking up ways to
use vim keybindings in Sublime Text.

------
jbeja
Emacs is good, man!.

