The 1981 paper by RMS about Emacs' design is kind of an amazing read.

A lot of insight there into why certain design decisions would be important, and Emacs' longevity as, dare I say it, still the world's most powerful editor, is a testament to that.

Before vim users hop in, yes I know you love vim. But vi survived by becoming an emacs: it went from something bare-bones to adopting a lot of the ideas emacs was criticized for in its high scriptability.

Anyway, Spacemacs is there for you if you want it.

@cwebber "Yes, I know you love vim." is the greatest thing to say to a vim-lover ever. :D

@cwebber I didn't know this. That is pretty cool. Thanks for sharing that detail

Emacs emphasizes maximum flexibility in customization, but you can't take it with you. You can't take an emacs config into other editors/IDEs (usually) or other people's computers, etc. I've worked with countless programming languages and environments, and whatever the ideal IDE for that is, it has Vim-style modal editing. I'm a Vim user but I rarely use Vim. I'm not saying the Emacs approach is bad or anything, I just have never felt the need for hyper-customization of my text editor.

I have used Spacemacs before, when I was doing a lot of Common Lisp programming because that was the best IDE (Slime) for that language.

@cwebber My favourite part of this essay is when he explains what a mouse is: "a small box with wheels or balls on the bottom and buttons on the top, which the user moves on the table with his hand". Because 1981. 🐁 🖱️

@cwebber “It is not necessary for dynamic scope to be the only scope rule provided, just useful for it to be available.”

Too bad it took ~30 years to finally introduce lexical scoping in ELisp!

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!