[HN Gopher] Bad Emacs Advice
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Bad Emacs Advice
        
       Author : grep4master
       Score  : 145 points
       Date   : 2022-01-20 12:55 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.masteringemacs.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.masteringemacs.org)
        
       | aidenn0 wrote:
       | For those picking up emacs for lisp development, I'll add another
       | piece of terrible advice: enabling paredit mode.
       | 
       | I think these all have a similar theme to them "I am more
       | productive _now_ since I have turned them on, so I wish I had
       | switched sooner " but they ignore the fact that each of those
       | things adds friction to learning the basics, and at some point
       | people will just nope-out.
        
         | felideon wrote:
         | Yes, good point. Learn how to balance parens with rainbow
         | delimiters (if anything) and, once you you're comfortable with
         | sexps, give paredit a try.
        
       | Yuioup wrote:
       | just like pizza with pineapple, people do occasionally give out
       | downright bad advice.
       | 
       | I really don't understand this pineapple on pizza meme. I think
       | it's delicious!
        
         | Koshkin wrote:
         | As is emacs without the menu, the toolbar, and the scrollbar!
        
           | convolvatron wrote:
           | I agree. when they added those things I immediately turned
           | them off and never looked back. the author argues that they
           | are just a couple lines..but they are a couple lines of
           | useless noise
        
             | Jtsummers wrote:
             | > but they are a couple lines of useless noise
             | 
             | for people who know the system. The menubar is useful for
             | discovery if you're new to the system, which seems to be
             | the audience they're writing for.
        
         | bananamerica wrote:
         | This meme is so popular because the overwhelming majority of
         | people thinks pineapple on pizza is a disgusting abomination. I
         | empathize with you, it's tough being the contrarian sometimes.
         | I say that as someone who likes the Star Wars prequels :P
        
           | asciimov wrote:
           | There is definitely a silent majority of people who love
           | pineapple on their pizza. My local pizza guy tells me
           | Hawaiian is one of his top selling pizzas.
           | 
           | Those that like pineapple on their pizza just don't speak up
           | because they don't feel the need to be harassed over their
           | pizza choices.
        
         | simiones wrote:
         | Most people in Europe especially, and especially in Southern
         | Europe (Eastern Europe as well, but that's less relevant to
         | pizza), tend to dislike sweet-and-salty combinations, with some
         | limited exceptions (such as carrots or peas).
        
         | mickeyp wrote:
         | OP here. I just like funny quips; it's just there to break up
         | my rambling monologuing :-)
        
         | euroderf wrote:
         | But are you quite prepared for tuna on pizza ?
        
         | going_ham wrote:
         | I think that pineapple topping on the pizza meme is designed by
         | pizza elitist to fool normal people from trying it out. Once
         | you try pizza with pineapple toppings, it gives this
         | extraordinary taste. Sweet, sour and salty. All at same time!
        
           | bryanlarsen wrote:
           | Just like a good salad, a pizza has 6 things: salt, crunch,
           | fat (cheese), acid (tomatoes), sweet (pineapple/mango/fig or
           | a stewed sweet tomato sauce) and umami (Parmigiano
           | Reggiano/Grana Padano/etc or anchovy). But not all 6 in every
           | bite.
           | 
           | Most Americans use a fairly sweet pizza sauce. Adding
           | pineapple to that makes it too sweet. But I like my sauce
           | with more tomato acid, so a little bit of fig or pineapple
           | complements the flavours. The nice thing about pineapple is
           | that you don't get it in every bite like you do with a sweet
           | sauce.
           | 
           | Edit: and now I sound like the pizza snob. :) It should be 7
           | -- good pizza has both crisp and chew.
        
             | lvass wrote:
             | Most americans use a fairly sweet everything. God even
             | their barbecue is full of sugar. I have the impression the
             | whole country is sugar addicted. I'm from a culture where
             | mixing salty and sweet stuff is considered abhorrent (south
             | america), I could not find a single food I liked in the
             | time I spent in the US (except desserts), and was soon
             | forced to cook myself or I'd barely eat at all.
        
               | Fwirt wrote:
               | It gets added to pretty much every prepared food here
               | whether you like it or not. Even "staples" like bread
               | have sugar added even to the "healthy" brands. It's easy
               | to get addicted when it's difficult to avoid unless you
               | cook every meal at home from scratch. (And even then you
               | have to be careful because some ingredients have sugar
               | added to them.) There are many of us that don't like the
               | situation but once you're addicted your tastes change and
               | when everything around you keeps sneaking it in it's hard
               | to eliminate from your diet.
        
         | Naga wrote:
         | Hawaiian pizza (cheese, ham and pineapple) is normalized here
         | in Canada. I'm not personally a fan, but I have always had a
         | hard time finding it unusual.
        
           | esclerofilo wrote:
           | Despite the name, it originated in Canada, you'd expect it to
           | be normal there.
        
             | pantulis wrote:
             | Pretty normal in Spain as well. In fact it's my go-to
             | choice when ordering.
        
         | szszrk wrote:
         | Tried pineapple pizza on multiple occasions and it never gave
         | me a bad advice!
        
         | toyg wrote:
         | It's because it was not a thing in Italy, so accepting it was
         | seen as the sign of being out of touch with "real pizza"
         | traditions. Sadly, a natural reaction of disgusted rejection by
         | Italians has been adopted by snobs all over the world.
         | 
         | Nowadays you'll find it even in Italy, because tourists demand
         | it and they pay hard cash, so fuck it all anyway.
        
           | jjice wrote:
           | Some people don't like sweets with their acids/savory foods.
           | Claiming it's an argument over traditional pizza is a bit
           | overkill.
        
             | ska wrote:
             | How often are the same people as vociferous about disliking
             | pork chops & apple sauce, chinese bbq, etc. ?
             | 
             | It's seems a pretty silly thing to get worked up about.
             | There are vastly more egregious slights to the good name of
             | pizza in nearly every american frozen food aisle, after
             | all.
        
           | prussian wrote:
           | >It's because it was not a thing in Italy
           | 
           | I'm pretty sure even Tomatoes weren't. I hope this isn't the
           | reason for the disdain.
        
             | _jal wrote:
             | I'm fine with disdain. If pizza were French, there'd be
             | legislation about it.
        
               | ycombinete wrote:
               | "Of course it's not _real_ pizza, that'd have to be
               | imported from the Pizza region in Italy"
        
               | Zababa wrote:
               | I fail to see the problem with this. Especially when it's
               | products made from animals that eat the grass around that
               | place. Or anything soil-dependant really. Wine is very
               | different depending on where it comes from.
        
               | Bayart wrote:
               | That sentence works if you replace _pizza_ with
               | _parmesan_ , or any of the Italian protected origin
               | foods.
        
               | ska wrote:
               | It's easy to poke fun, but DOP isn't just about region
               | and it does matter, at least for many things.
               | 
               | I don't know that "you can't call it X" is the right
               | approach, but there should be some really clear to
               | consumers way of saying "X was made to a particular
               | standard" vs "all bets are off with Y" - then let them
               | decide.
        
               | Bayart wrote:
               | I'm not the one poking fun, my comment was
               | straightforward.
               | 
               | I'm French, we invented this legal device, I know how it
               | works and why it exists (and I think it's got every right
               | to).
        
               | ska wrote:
               | My mistake, I thought I was replying to parent.
        
           | leephillips wrote:
           | > it was seen as the sign of being out of touch with "real
           | pizza" traditions.
           | 
           | ...by people who don't know where what they think of as
           | "Italian pizza" actually comes from. Look up "pizza effect."
        
             | rincewind wrote:
             | I have tried to find the roots of this "pizza effect" myth,
             | but all I could find is somebody making a point about
             | mindfulness meditation and yoga, and I am not even sure how
             | it holds up WRT yoga, because Indian yogis who do not-
             | Western yoga are still a thing.
             | 
             | WRT pizza, it's clearly false. Pizza was a thing in Italy
             | before World War II and it spread through Europe from
             | Italy, not from the USA. You can trace the history of many
             | pizzerias in Italy back far further than the "pizza effect"
             | would have you believe, so you can easily de-bunk it by
             | going to the web site of a pizza place in Napoli.
        
               | mtts wrote:
               | Agreed, it's false. Pizza in Italy (and in the rest of
               | Europe, for that matter) is very little like pizza in the
               | US.
               | 
               | Amusingly, however, while it's influence on the food
               | itself is at the very least debatable, the influence of
               | the US on how pizza is consumed is in fact very real: the
               | fact that Italians nowadays drink beer with their pizza
               | is something they learned from American GIs in WWII who
               | brought the practice over from home.
               | 
               | Before that time, there was no overlap between Italians
               | who drank beer (Northerners) and Italians who ate pizza
               | (Southerners). Thanks the American soldiers Southerners
               | learned to drink beer and Northerners learned about
               | pizza.
        
               | leephillips wrote:
               | People who discuss the pizza effect are well aware that
               | it started in Italy. The interesting "effect" part is
               | that the version that is popular now in Italy was heavily
               | influenced by the development of pizza in, largely, New
               | York, by Italian immigrants. It was re-imported back into
               | Italy. It's a cautionary tale for people who fret about
               | cultural appropriation and a reminder that the idea of
               | the "original" or "authentic" version of something is
               | often more complicated than we imagine.
        
               | gpderetta wrote:
               | One of the most popular if not the most popular versions
               | of pizzas in Italy is the pizza margherita (and in fact a
               | lot of pizzas are just margheritas with additional
               | toppings).
               | 
               | Pizza margherita existed in the IXX XIX century already
               | in its modern form.
        
               | leephillips wrote:
               | I'm not familiar with this century.
        
               | Koshkin wrote:
               | I wish we stopped using the Roman numerals. (On the other
               | hand, they are good for coding interviews, and MMXXII
               | looks pretty!)
        
               | gpderetta wrote:
               | fixed /facepalm
        
               | leephillips wrote:
               | Thought so, but wasn't sure. I was fond of the pizza
               | effect story, and am holding on to the hope that it's at
               | least partly true. But you supply a powerful counter-
               | fact.
        
               | krageon wrote:
               | I have trouble believing this, given that I have tasted
               | pizza from both places and it is not alike.
        
             | toyg wrote:
             | I would take what a "Austrian-born Hindu monk and professor
             | of Anthropology at Syracuse University" says on the history
             | of a traditional staple of my own country's diet with a
             | massive grain of salt.
             | 
             | Pizza existed before Italian migration to North America was
             | even a thing. It gained tomatoes when they became more
             | readily available and better known in the early XIX
             | century, and that's about it. The explosion in Italian
             | migration happened later, by then most of the traditional
             | pizzas had long been codified.
        
           | marcosdumay wrote:
           | Nah, It can not be because a lot of people just dislike
           | pineapple mixed with their food. No way, it can't be.
        
           | ycombinete wrote:
           | Also some of us just find the taste of things like pineapple
           | on pizza and burgers, or maple syrup with bacon etc.
           | disgusting
        
           | ravi-delia wrote:
           | I feel like it's probably because a typical American pizza
           | has savory toppings, and pineapple is unusual in that
           | respect. At least, that's why people around me complain about
           | it. The Italian pizza ship sailed a looong time ago.
        
           | hbn wrote:
           | This is the first I've heard as it being some kind of "it's
           | not traditional" argument
           | 
           | Everyone I've ever talked to that has an issue with it just
           | think it's gross. And they're usually people that are not
           | very big risk-takers with their tastes, and order the exact
           | same item at a restaurant every time they go. And only want
           | either cheese pizza or pepperoni.
        
           | krageon wrote:
           | > snobs
           | 
           | I don't like fruit as part of a main course (i.e. not a
           | dessert) or appetizer. That doesn't make me a snob, it just
           | means I don't think fruit belongs there and don't appreciate
           | when it is.
        
             | nescioquid wrote:
             | I suppose you won't eat a pizza with that red berry paste
             | on it then?
        
             | JoeAltmaier wrote:
             | Plums in chicken? Orange in sauces? Pear in a salad?
             | Pineapple on ham? Lemon in anything?
        
               | aidenn0 wrote:
               | Not the person who said it first, but I dislike all of
               | those things except lemon[1]. In addition, my wife likes
               | cranberry preserves with poultry and applesauce with
               | pork, both of which I find distasteful.
               | 
               | However pineapple with _anything_ savory is by far the
               | worst for me. I prefer to not even sit next to my wife
               | and kids when they are eating pizza with pineapple on it
               | because the smell from it is enough to throw the taste
               | off.
               | 
               | 1: Okay, there are _some_ sauces that technically have
               | some orange or orange juice in them, but have so many
               | other ingredients that it really just adds the tiniest
               | hint of tangyness. but e.g. duck a l 'orange is too much
               | orange for me.
        
             | beepbooptheory wrote:
             | No tomatoes? No salads with fruits? No Duck a l'Orange? No
             | fried plantains?
        
           | wiredfool wrote:
           | There are lots of things which are non traditional but good
           | on pizza.
           | 
           | Fish and chips for one. Curry wurst. Apple, persimmon, pine
           | nut and blue cheese. Halloumi, pea, and mint. Mushroom, goat
           | cheese and chipotle. Cranberry and white pudding. (Or
           | cranberry and goat cheese) Christmas dinner. (Turkey,
           | stuffing, ham, cranberry). Pulled pork. Roast pineapple and
           | mint. Bacon and egg. Berry and cream cheese. Salmon and cream
           | cheese and wasabi.
           | 
           | I have been known to make specific dinners in order to have
           | the leftovers to put on pizza.
        
             | Shared404 wrote:
             | Hard agree.
             | 
             | My first job was a pizza place where we had "Pizza of the
             | Month" deals which were unusual pizza's. Street taco pizza?
             | Amazing. Thanksgiving pizza? Amazing. Spicy honey + fresh
             | mozzarella? Amazing. Baked potato pizza? Amazing.
             | 
             | Just gotta remember to not use tomato sauce for some of
             | those.
        
               | mauvehaus wrote:
               | If you find yourself near Slade, KY, you might find
               | Miguel's worth a visit[0]. Their list of toppings and
               | sauces is extensive, in part reflecting that it's
               | anything in the kitchen that might reasonably be a pizza
               | topping, salad component, or breakfast burrito filling.
               | Hell, they'll put rotini on your pizza if you want, since
               | they have it on hand for people who prefer pasta to pizza
               | as their dinner substrate.
               | 
               | I suspect you could experiment to your hearts content for
               | a long while there.
               | 
               | [0] It's unlikely that you'll "find" yourself in Slade
               | without already knowing about Miguel's.
        
         | C4stor wrote:
         | If think the joke is that author himself don't side with the
         | (mostly pointless) debate about pizza and pineapple, so
         | whatever your own opinion, you can see his point.
        
         | black6 wrote:
         | OT: mango is another good topping.
        
         | memling wrote:
         | > I really don't understand this pineapple on pizza meme. I
         | think it's delicious!
         | 
         | Arnold has an opinion.[0]
         | 
         | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKV74qkokmk
        
         | siver_john wrote:
         | To be fair when I push the meme I do it because I personally
         | dislike Pineapple, I sincerely don't care what people put on
         | their personal pizza, just don't put it on mine. Counter, I
         | have enjoyed Brussel Sprouts on pizza and I feel that is a much
         | bigger sin.
        
           | retzkek wrote:
           | Shaved Brussels sprouts, fried (or roasted), with a balsamic
           | glaze? Sounds good to me!
        
       | bitwize wrote:
       | I agree that the tool and menu bars are helpful for beginners. I
       | disable mine to reclaim the vertical space (precious in a 16:9
       | world), to focus my attention on using the command keys, and
       | because I'm a relatively experienced Emacs user! If keeping them
       | helps you get your way around Emacs, by all means go nuts!
        
       | aww_dang wrote:
       | Feels like these problems mostly relate to the tech-wizard
       | elitism theme. By all means use the help features and GUI menus
       | if that's what you need. I believe when you run these commands
       | via GUI you also get feedback explaining the equivalent keystroke
       | sequence.
       | 
       | Reminds me of the old days of IRC posturing, newbie bashing and
       | RTFMing. Today most info can be obtained by a well crafted search
       | query.
        
       | 0xdky wrote:
       | Another lesson I learned from almost 2+ decades of using Emacs:
       | 
       | Track your customizations in a version control. Using customize
       | package and reading the diff in dot Emacs file has taught me
       | quite a bit about certain aspects of the package.
       | 
       | Side note: It would be awesome if Emacs could do the versioning
       | as part of saving the customizations - build Emacs with libgit2
       | and make it a native git client.
        
         | TacticalCoder wrote:
         | for a reason I forgot my .emacs.d/ ("hidden" dir) is a symlink
         | to emacsdotd/ (not hidden) and, yup, it's in git. Some are
         | going to say: _" why stop there!? version your entire user
         | dir"_ and I can see the appeal (but haven't tried yet).
         | 
         | I'm one of those who track everything Emacs: including all the
         | packages. When I upgrade packages, I first check that nothing
         | broke then I commit "Bump avy to 20220114" or whatever. This
         | way I can easily share the exact same config on several
         | machines/several user accounts and I know I can easily roll
         | back to a known fully working setup. YMMV.
        
           | oblio wrote:
           | If by "version your entire user dir" you mean "version all
           | your manually edited configs", that can work.
           | 
           | Init a git repo in your $HOME, add a .gitignore that by
           | default excludes everything then manually add just the files
           | and folders you want to track.
           | 
           | Especially if you want to publish the repo, be careful,
           | because it's <<extremely>> easy to accidentally expose
           | confidential stuff.
        
         | tom_ wrote:
         | Yes. Also, don't put your own stuff in init.el. Put your own
         | stuff in another file, and load it with load-file from init.el.
         | This massively decreases the chances that Emacs will make a
         | mess when it adds or updates its own stuff.
        
         | mickeyp wrote:
         | You could probably write it. Emacs is able to track which
         | settings you've _applied_ but not yet saved; that could serve
         | as the linchpin for generating versioned changes.
        
         | bananamerica wrote:
         | The customize interface is quite useful. It's probably more
         | adequate if you don't have a huge intricate init. With time,
         | custom.el (or init.el if you keep everything in the same file)
         | can get difficult to manage. When that happen, a lot of people
         | opt for something more readable and human friendly, like use-
         | package or a distribution such as doom-emacs.
         | 
         | The author mentions that some things can be hard to do outside
         | of the customize interface. That is true. When that happens, I
         | just use the interface and then move the setting from custom.el
         | to use-package. But that's rare, I can't remember the last time
         | I did that.
        
       | mynameismon wrote:
       | Maybe it's me, but starting out with Emacs the previous month, I
       | tried using Doom Emacs the other week, and the number of packages
       | it was being used frightened me. Building your own init.el is
       | much much better, because you know your Emacs in and out, and
       | dont have random keybindings triggering stuff. Maybe I'll never
       | get the popularity of Doom
        
         | rprospero wrote:
         | > ... don't have random keybindings triggering stuff.
         | 
         | As a long time Emacs user, I feel that this is slightly unfair.
         | When I first started out, I found that my documents from Emacs
         | were far more common than in other editors. It took me two
         | years to realise that I was often bumping C-t where trying to
         | hit C-r or C-y and silently transposing two characters. In over
         | twenty years of Emacs usage, I have never once used C-t on
         | purpose. I feel that this perfectly matches the "keybindings
         | triggering random stuff" experience and it is fully there in
         | vanilla Emacs.
         | 
         | With twenty years of experience, I have my own, esoteric init
         | file that I would not recommend on any newbie. However, I
         | personally feel that Emacs has succeeded despite its default
         | keybindings.
        
           | chipotle_coyote wrote:
           | > In over twenty years of Emacs usage, I have never once used
           | C-t on purpose.
           | 
           | This is funny to me because, while I'm not an Emacs user, I'm
           | a Mac user who's gotten used to the tiny subset of Emacs
           | keybindings built into Cocoa text fields, and I use C-t
           | fairly frequently! Apparently you do not make character
           | transposition errors as often as I do.
        
             | rprospero wrote:
             | That is really interesting. To be fair, I should have
             | prefaced that I have cerebral palsy, so my typing patterns
             | are likely different from most of the population.
        
             | __david__ wrote:
             | I just wish M-t worked in the Cocoa text fields, I somehow
             | use that more than C-t. And M-d, too--I accidentally type
             | "[?]" a lot. :-(
        
               | mrtranscendence wrote:
               | You can enhance the set of keybindings by placing this
               | file in ~/Library/KeyBindings, which will solve the M-d
               | problem (though not the M-t one):
               | 
               | https://github.com/ppwwyyxx/dotfiles/blob/master/macOS/Li
               | bra...
               | 
               | It's a life saver.
        
         | thom wrote:
         | Some people like ready made Emacs distros, some people like
         | hand coding their init.el (don't forget your early-init.el!)
         | Some people like Arch, some people like Ubuntu. Some people
         | like Linux From Scratch, some people like typewriters. Live
         | your life, be free.
        
           | thom wrote:
           | It sometimes seems to me that there's this idea that unless
           | you're customising Emacs and gaining complete understanding
           | and mastery of its primitives, there's no reason to use it
           | over another editor. As if the core editing experience is so
           | horrible, why would you go through all that if you're not
           | going to use the superpowered bits? I think this is doing a
           | big injustice to how good most of Emacs and the packaged up
           | versions are, even without a line of elisp.
        
         | donio wrote:
         | Yes, gradually building your own config is a much better
         | approach on the long run. Start lean, learn the basics and add
         | one thing at a time as you learn. Always have complete mastery
         | of your .emacs and understand every line: why it is there, what
         | exactly it does. Never blindly copy random stuff wholesale
         | without understanding it.
        
           | sping wrote:
           | I have to say I don't particularly see the wisdom of this
           | (common) view.
           | 
           | It's acceptable to people to use the standard Elisp, and
           | Emacs itself, without digesting that code, but somehow using
           | a canned config is bad. I find the choice of where to draw
           | the dividing line somewhat arbitrary.
        
         | mcbuilder wrote:
         | If you have spent years writing your own config, you appreciate
         | all the things doom brings to the table. I know I'd never end
         | up writing such a good system from the ground up.
        
         | remedan wrote:
         | I had a very similar experience when I decided to learn Emacs
         | recently. The first thing I did was try Doom Emacs. It was nice
         | but I felt that there is this big layer of stuff separating me
         | from having complete control over my editor.
         | 
         | So I deleted my config. Went through the tutorial with vanilla
         | setup. Then I continuously kept adding packages and tinkering
         | with my config. After about two weeks, I felt that my
         | productivity was on par with what it was previously in Neovim.
         | 
         | I've been using Emacs for a couple of months now and I'm happy
         | I went this route. It is a tool I use almost daily and thus
         | having a deep level of understanding and control is worth it.
        
           | lambdaba wrote:
           | This is what I did (after brief stint with Spacemacs), only
           | what I did is gradually break apart doom-emacs from inside
           | it, as in remove abstractions and stuff I didn't use until it
           | was a plain (single file) emacs config, then went the other
           | direction with modularisation.
           | 
           | This was very educative and I learned a lot about Emacs and
           | Elisp.
           | 
           | The irony is after all of this I'm back to Vim and I don't
           | feel like going back to Emacs (yet).
        
         | uncletaco wrote:
         | > Maybe I'll never get the popularity of doom
         | 
         | Honestly its a double edged sword here. Doom has so many built
         | in convenience functions like `set-font!` and `set-repl!` that
         | an experienced elisp programmer would probably love it for
         | building their own configuration.
         | 
         | On the other hand it bundles so much that an inexperienced
         | emacs user might be more keen to do the bare minimum and rely
         | on the packages bundled with doom to give them all the cool
         | stuff without much effort. After all, why "reinvent the wheel"?
         | I personally don't agree with that sentiment, I think learning
         | how to build and maintain a personal emacs config makes a
         | person a better programmer generally, and makes them prone to
         | reading and writing documentation rather than copying
         | solutions.
         | 
         | I started off with doom and even though I don't use it anymore
         | I still find myself reading its source to figure out how Henrik
         | approached a solution. Love it or hate it, Doom is great in
         | both very good and bad ways for emacs users.
        
           | bananamerica wrote:
           | I'd just like to point out that every single one of Doom's
           | modules is optional, and you can install it without any
           | external packages whatsoever (including Evil) if that's what
           | you want.
        
           | mynameismon wrote:
           | > Doom has so many built in convenience functions like `set-
           | font!` and `set-repl!` that an experienced elisp programmer
           | would probably love it for building their own configuration.
           | 
           | Fair enough, I came from a background of JavaScript and
           | Python, and Lisp was entirely foreign to me, let alone Elisp.
           | 
           | > After all, why "reinvent the wheel"?
           | 
           | I think its not of "reinvent the wheel", but let the other
           | person do the decision making for you, including picking
           | packages, setting up the modeline, so on and so forth.
           | Starting out with a bare Emacs installation, you have to
           | piece together the various packages that you would want to
           | use, where as with Doom, you get everything out of the box.
           | Also, maintaining your own init.el helps one learn Elisp
           | 
           | > I still find myself reading its source to figure out how
           | Henrik approached a solution
           | 
           | For example?
        
         | tharne wrote:
         | I think doom is really good for inspiration. I used it for a
         | while and it gave me a lot of good ideas on the _kinds_ of
         | things I could do with emacs and elisp.
         | 
         | I now use my own much simpler config, but I've borrowed heavily
         | from the things I like about Doom.
        
           | clircle wrote:
           | Yes, this is exactly how I use Doom. When I first found it, I
           | transplanted its startup optimizations into my existing
           | config, but left everything else alone. When I look to do
           | something new in Emacs, one of my first instincts is "well,
           | let's see how Doom is doing it."
           | 
           | It's works well because I fall into the Evil+Use-package
           | Emacs hegemony with my custom config.
        
         | bananamerica wrote:
         | Doom Emacs is excellent. I believe you were negatively
         | impressed by the default install, but you can install it
         | without any packages you don't wan't, or any package at all.
         | You can even remove Evil altogether.
         | 
         | You can also easily remove anything afterwards.
         | 
         | Doom is essential for my sanity, and extremely flexible. I can
         | do everything I want, just like on a barebones install. But I
         | do it in a way that is way simpler, more practical, and
         | performant. I'd use Doom even without any of its modules, just
         | for the macros, the speed, and the sane configuration layout.
         | 
         | I tried the build your own route for 2 years, ended up with a
         | huge messy init impossible to maintain. Doom removes a lot of
         | complexity and provides extremely useful macros. The guy really
         | knows what he's doing, and the optimizations that he uses are
         | impressive.
        
       | taeric wrote:
       | I do disable those things. But mostly out of aesthetics. That and
       | I am easily distracted. I remember used to trying to find how to
       | accommodate all items in the menu bar into my use.
       | 
       | Completely agree with this article, though. Happy with my
       | purchase of this book a while back.
        
       | beepbooptheory wrote:
       | Just to add: the built-in "Introduction to Programming in Emacs
       | Lisp" is also really really great. I have been using emacs for a
       | while, with one framework or another, but always hesitated
       | actually learning lisp. I was too focused on learning the kinds
       | of languages and systems that might get me a job, and it felt
       | like too big of a venture in learning a whole language _just_ for
       | my development environment. Now, I have a given up on the
       | employable thing, and have been enlightened by SICP and lispey
       | languages, and in general, the simple beauty of Emacs _itself_ ,
       | not just what I can make it do. It takes only a little time to
       | get comfortable with the nested (), and weird vocabulary, and it
       | just really will click with you at some point, how simple it all
       | really is, how every function bears on the simple syntactic
       | principles of the language as whole, its lists all the way down!
       | 
       | You can _see_ the language work, by looking at the code.
       | 
       | It may not get me a fancy computer job, but I think I am happier
       | on the whole anyway, giving myself to lisp. Something therapeutic
       | about it.
        
         | gypsyharlot wrote:
         | How do you access the built-in "Introduction to Programming in
         | Emacs Lisp"?
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | JJMcJ wrote:
           | Using the menu bar, remember don't disable that,
           | Help => More Manuals => Introduction to Emacs Lisp
        
           | nanna wrote:
           | C-h i m 'Emacs Lisp Intro'
        
             | BeetleB wrote:
             | More in line with the submission's advice:
             | 
             | Help menu --> More manuals --> Introduction to Emacs Lisp
        
             | gypsyharlot wrote:
             | That doesn't work for me.
        
               | marcosdumay wrote:
               | Are you using Debian, and if so, do you have the non-free
               | documentation installed (emacs-common-non-dfsg)?
        
               | gypsyharlot wrote:
               | This is Debian, yes. Thank you, I will try that.
        
               | Jtsummers wrote:
               | Don't use the quotes for the phrase, just type it
               | verbatim. If that still doesn't work then either the info
               | page isn't installed (weird) or something else is up. You
               | can also, from the first info page at C-h i, type "C-s
               | emacs lisp intro" which should bring you to it. And
               | again, if it's not there then something is wonky with
               | your install.
        
               | gypsyharlot wrote:
               | I have a totally standard Emacs install, but it's not
               | there. C-h i and searching with C-s for "lisp" finds
               | nothing either.
        
               | dfinninger wrote:
               | I found it on my Mac in the menu bar. Like the one at the
               | top of the screen next to the Apple logo. Clicking with
               | my mouse: Help > More Manuals > Introduction to Emacs
               | Lisp.
               | 
               | I assume in Windows/Linux this would actually be attached
               | to the window frame at the top.
        
               | Jtsummers wrote:
               | So the only thing I can find is that for emacs before
               | emacs 21 it was not included (I didn't know that, I guess
               | I installed it through my package manager or some other
               | means back then and forgot). After that, it is included
               | by default. But you can check to see if your package
               | manager includes a separate `emacs-lisp-intro` or similar
               | package. Short that, you'll have to download it from the
               | site and install it manually to see it in emacs or just
               | use the HTML version.
               | 
               | https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/eintr.html
        
               | ska wrote:
               | It should on a standard install.
               | 
               | If you have things remapped, try M-x info, then search
               | for "Emacs List Intro" but it should be near the top
               | anyway.
        
               | gypsyharlot wrote:
               | M-x info, C-s lisp... nothing.
        
               | ska wrote:
               | I suspect you have an idiosyncratic install.
        
               | JJMcJ wrote:
               | Takes me to information on keymaps
        
               | BeetleB wrote:
               | Something must have clearly gone wrong with the install
               | (or perhaps there is a minimal install version...?) If
               | this were Gentoo, I would suggest that perhaps the "doc"
               | USE flag was not enabled?
        
               | mindcrime wrote:
               | Looks like Debian/Ubuntu and derivatives don't install
               | the Emacs manuals by default. I had to do this to get it
               | on my PopOS box:
               | 
               | sudo apt-get -y install emacs-common-non-dfsg
        
               | mindcrime wrote:
               | Same. I have a vanilla Emacs install and the Lisp Intro
               | doesn't seem to be there.
               | 
               | You can find it online though:
               | 
               | https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsLispIntro
               | 
               | Edit: I'm on an Ubuntu derived distro, so this may be the
               | issue:
               | 
               | https://emacs.stackexchange.com/questions/48211/emacs-
               | manual...
               | 
               | Edit2:
               | 
               | Yeah, at least for me that was the problem. This fixed
               | it:
               | 
               | sudo apt-get -y install emacs-common-non-dfsg
        
               | donio wrote:
               | C-h i d m Emacs Lisp Intro RET
               | 
               | Need that d to take you back to the top directory if you
               | happen to be browsing some other info manual already.
        
               | gypsyharlot wrote:
               | C-h i d m Emacs<press space>Lisp<press space>[no match]
        
         | TacticalCoder wrote:
         | > ... and have been enlightened by SICP and lispey languages,
         | 
         | Fun anecdote: I've got my copy of SICP signed by both authors
         | for Sussman invited me to have tea in his office and when I
         | arrived the next day, by sheer chance, Abelson was there too!
         | They joked that had I been there 30 minutes early Sussman's
         | wife, who proofread the book, would have signed it too! I've
         | got a cool pic taken at that moment: me standing along these
         | two legends and proudly holding the purple book... I'll post
         | that pic and full story the day I have a blog.
         | 
         | Besides that I pretty much live inside Emacs. The occasional
         | elisp (3000 lines of custom elisp hackery over the decades) and
         | lots of Clojure/ClojureScript.
        
           | beepbooptheory wrote:
           | Wow so cool! I have been working through it with just the
           | HTML version, but recently resolved to get the physical book,
           | its just one those I gotta have.. Then, one day when I have
           | the money, I will get the full volumes of _The Art of
           | Computer Programming_ by Knuth.
        
             | 908B64B197 wrote:
             | I wonder how much he could raise for charity by selling
             | autographed copies. The man is a legend.
        
             | icedata wrote:
             | I just printed out the pdf version of the book. I found a
             | shop that would bind it for me and print it double-sided.
        
       | jmclnx wrote:
       | Correct, I did not know about 'C-h k', very nice !
       | 
       | very nice write up
        
       | thom wrote:
       | I dunno, everything the menu does can be recreated in the
       | minibuffer (and you have things like apropos if you're really
       | lost). Personally I like to reclaim as much space as possible, so
       | I turn off modelines too (I have a bit of status info written
       | into the minibuffer, but I'd kill that too if you could).
        
       | distantsounds wrote:
       | so let me get this straight:
       | 
       | - read the manual - follow the tutorial - customize it to your
       | liking
       | 
       | wow, what enlightening advice! this must be unique to emacs and
       | not _any_other piece of software!
       | 
       | once again, all you need to get FP'd on hackernews is to put the
       | word "emacs" in your title. zoom! to the front page!
        
         | fabianmg wrote:
         | We have found the vim user...
        
         | bananamerica wrote:
         | Acessing manual, documentation, values, functions, and source
         | code on Emacs is so easy that it would be hard to summarize all
         | the ways you can do it. It's an integral part of your workflow,
         | and literally unlike anything else. Unlike other programs, that
         | really can and _should_ be an integral part of your daily
         | routine.
         | 
         | One thing I dislike about the manual is that it rarely presents
         | examples, but commands like describe-variable and describe-
         | function often help elucidate usage. Not to mention external
         | packages that makes all that even easier.
        
         | alpaca128 wrote:
         | It would be great if every other software had documentation
         | comparable to Emacs', but that's simply not the case.
        
         | drothlis wrote:
         | I suspect it's because so many Emacs tutorials out there cover
         | the same material as the built-in tutorial. And so many pre-
         | packaged Emacs configuration files disable the menu-bar for no
         | good reason other than that's what everyone else seems to be
         | doing.
         | 
         | e.g. "Emacs Prelude", one such configuration or "distribution"
         | of Emacs, used to disable the menu-bar by default as recently
         | as a year ago:
         | https://github.com/bbatsov/prelude/commit/878cffb
        
       | drothlis wrote:
       | Years ago I wrote the Emacs tutorial I wish had existed when I
       | was learning Emacs: https://david.rothlis.net/emacs/tutorial.html
       | 
       | It follows a similar philosophy as the OP: Start by reading
       | Emacs's built-in tutorial, and then my tutorial shows you how to
       | leverage the built-in help system to figure out how to achieve
       | what you want to do.
        
         | mickeyp wrote:
         | I'm the OP. That's a nice tutorial, and I agree with your
         | sentiment that you should build on Emacs's ability to query it
         | to figure out what to do. That's the main focus of my book,
         | too, for the exact same reason.
        
         | NateEag wrote:
         | When people ask me how to learn Emacs, I point them to your
         | tutorial.
         | 
         | It was hugely helpful to me in learning Emacs.
         | 
         | Thank you so much for writing it!
        
       | dark-star wrote:
       | "But just like pizza with pineapple, people do occasionally give
       | out downright bad advice."
       | 
       | I stopped reading after this. If you want to look like you're
       | objective, don't use pizza as an argument
        
         | jrumbut wrote:
         | This is advice for how to give text editor configuration
         | advice. The pizza comparison is apt because it's a matter of
         | taste.
         | 
         | If the author tried to look objective it would be a false
         | front.
        
         | oblio wrote:
         | It's just a joke.
        
       | rbanffy wrote:
       | I have been turning off the menu bar for quite some time because
       | I get distracted easily and any content that's not necessary just
       | gets in the way.
       | 
       | That said, you can always call it up as a pop-up menu.
        
         | forgetfulness wrote:
         | The menu bar is pretty good for discovery, you'll have to rely
         | more on naming convention and documentation without it.
         | 
         | The toolbar is pretty fungible though, few modes do anything
         | with it and the core functionality you get from the standard
         | chords you find in the tutorial, little bang for the pixels.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-01-20 23:03 UTC)