[HN Gopher] How to type "blimpy" in Emacs [video]
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How to type "blimpy" in Emacs [video]
        
       Author : progfolio
       Score  : 293 points
       Date   : 2023-09-02 23:25 UTC (23 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
        
       | ivolimmen wrote:
       | It is just as weird as typing in vim. _ducks_
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | Duck typing?
        
       | roenxi wrote:
       | More than anything else I'm confused by the positive response
       | this is getting.
       | 
       | * Very few people use Emacs
       | 
       | * Anyone who nevertheless is using Emacs should be willing to
       | read documentation. The only way to learn Emacs is through
       | reading the docs.
       | 
       | * As illustrated, copy-pasting a use-package clause is an easy
       | way to get started with something. The pain point is the
       | alternative ways to set a package up that are distracting.
       | 
       | * This doesn't hit the traditional Emacs stereotypes of crazy
       | keyboard chords, insane customisability or digs at lisp syntax.
       | 
       | Can anyone articulate why there is a group of people who seem to
       | really like this video?
        
         | tempodox wrote:
         | Didn't you see that sharky blimp in the GitHub repo? Or is it a
         | blimpy shark? I find that funny. Also, as transpires elsewhere
         | in this thread, "blimpy" seems to be an alternative spelling of
         | "bloated". Could be emacs users not taking themselves too
         | seriously for a change. Refreshing!
         | 
         | And the comments here, how everyone's imagination goes off with
         | associations and interpretations? I'm not even sure there is a
         | single consistent explanation for all of this and how it's
         | funny. Maybe it cannot really be explained. Forget reason for a
         | minute, if you can, and just enjoy :)
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | progfolio wrote:
         | > Can anyone articulate why there is a group of people who seem
         | to really like this video?
         | 
         | blimpy
        
         | globular-toast wrote:
         | I'm with you, I don't get it. Is this an example of the
         | emperor's new clothes where nobody gets it (because it doesn't
         | make sense) but pretends to find it funny because they assume
         | it must be funny if only they understood emacs?
        
           | tmtvl wrote:
           | It's Neodada.
        
             | meepmorp wrote:
             | it's blimpy, actually
        
           | progfolio wrote:
           | > blimpy blimpy blimpy, blimpy blimp'y limpy b. blimpy blimpy
           | blimpy limpy b blimp'y blimpy blimpy blimpy blimpy blimpy
           | (limpy b blimp'y blimpy blimpy) blimpy blimpy limpy b blimpy
           | blimpy blimpy blimpy limpy b blimpy blimpy blimpy limpy b
           | limpy b?
           | 
           | Agreed
        
           | actionfromafar wrote:
           | How is that situation _not_ funny? GNU is Not Unix...
        
         | shadowgovt wrote:
         | As a long time emacs user, I've definitely felt this sinking my
         | teeth into a novel package and I imagine lots of people have
         | felt the same.
         | 
         | The fact that emacs even has a coherent package story is a
         | testament to people's dedication to making it work. On the
         | surface, it should be impossible; the editor is so configurable
         | that there was no particular guarantee that a coherent family
         | of behaviors would emerge. But the fact that packages and
         | package management not only exist but interoperate with each
         | other speaks volumes to the dedication of the software
         | engineers who made that happen.
         | 
         | > Anyone who nevertheless is using Emacs should be willing to
         | read documentation. The only way to learn Emacs is through
         | reading the docs.
         | 
         | Ah, assuming that's how people learn things these days is our
         | first mistake. ;) Emaxs does have excellent built-in
         | documentation... But in the StackOverflow era, I think a lot of
         | people learn their software by hopping from solution to
         | solution instead of digesting all of the documentation.
        
         | nvy wrote:
         | one time I was in Kyrgyzstan staring down a band of armed
         | marauders with AKs, me holding nothing but my pre-Lenovo
         | Thinkpad. The battery had long since died (it only lasts about
         | 38 minutes) and of course the WiFi doesn't work due to
         | proprietary drivers but I was able to plug in the six-pound AC
         | adapter to the back of a Unimog and after waiting for the 10
         | minute boot process to complete I quickly typed "C-c b" which
         | is my personal keybind for blimpy. The marauders were so
         | impressed that they gave me a camel and sent me on my way.
         | 
         | So I guess you could say that blimpy saves lives.
        
           | pjot wrote:
           | I've never seen a Unimog reference in the wild before!
           | 
           | What an amazing machine.
        
             | praptak wrote:
             | Maybe it's not very lightweight but pretty customizable,
             | just like Emacs.
        
         | joeman1000 wrote:
         | [flagged]
        
         | phist_mcgee wrote:
         | Can you articulate why this isn't funny?
        
           | roenxi wrote:
           | Well... one of the things groups do to bond is they develop
           | memes and in-jokes that are objectively nothing and exist
           | only to show who is in- and out- of the group. One of the
           | signs people are doing that is one word responses like
           | "blimpy". That sort of activity is purposefully low-content
           | because it is supposed to signal group membership and nothing
           | more. Which is what I think this is. That turns up in every
           | group although it can be a bit subtle at times.
           | 
           | But this is a bit weird because this isn't what Emacs users
           | have traditionally bonded over. The traditional stuff is
           | things like https://xkcd.com/378/ leaning on "Emacs does
           | everything and has long key combinations". This is more
           | saying the package manager is bad or something? Which isn't a
           | traditional joke. So either this is a new group of Emacs
           | users I'm not familiar with or there is a good joke here that
           | I've missed.
           | 
           | And I optimistically asked for an explanation of the joke in
           | case it is the latter. Based on the comments in response I
           | think this is a wave of Emacs users I'm not familiar with
           | doing group bonding. Which, fair enough. They do their thing.
           | Although even then the number of people involved seems high
           | and it'd be interesting to know where they are coming from.
        
             | actionfromafar wrote:
             | I use Emacs casually, but oh dear it can get absurdly
             | complicated for very little payoff. Yak shaving if there
             | ever was. This blimpy plugin/module points it out in a
             | deadpan way. It also reflects on a lot of tech in general.
             | Who hasn't spent a lot of time messing about with a system
             | for no apparent benefit?
             | 
             | It has little twists too like indirectly bringing vi into
             | it by supporting evil mode, furthering the futility of
             | adding options and configurability to ostensibly "simplify"
             | something. The video points out so many absurdities of IT
             | life through the lens of an editor and its ecosystem.
        
             | dwb wrote:
             | The joke is that it's overly complicated to do a simple
             | thing in Emacs, and you have to rely on blindly running
             | shakily-trustworthy third-party code to do that thing for
             | you. (I like Emacs very much, I use it every day, but there
             | is a kernel of truth to this and I laughed.)
        
               | umanwizard wrote:
               | What's a (real) example of a simple thing that's hard to
               | do in emacs?
        
               | dwb wrote:
               | I mean I think if you compare to, say, VSCode, writing
               | any amount of [Emacs] Lisp to customise anything at all
               | is "hard". I like it! It means I can customise more or
               | less whatever I like, but it's a different universe.
        
               | globular-toast wrote:
               | I mean, surely such a thing is harder in VS Code
               | considering you can't really do it.
        
               | roenxi wrote:
               | Definitely a younger crowd. Back in my day if you blindly
               | copied code without reading the documentation thoroughly
               | there is _no way_ that Emacs would be doing anything
               | remotely useful. That was the sort of thing Emacs was
               | mocked for, in fact - you really needed to get in amongst
               | Elisp to customise it and nobody goes out of their way to
               | learn Elisp.
               | 
               | Being able to blindly copy use-package statements has
               | been one of the best parts of the Emacs modernisation
               | effort.
        
               | dwb wrote:
               | Oh for sure, I agree, and I've blindly imported reams of
               | elisp dependencies myself!
        
             | Scarblac wrote:
             | It's also allowed to think up new jokes.
        
             | umanwizard wrote:
             | [dead]
        
         | fourthark wrote:
         | Looking for better ways to type blimpy in my document.
        
         | noelwelsh wrote:
         | To me it's just absurdist humour, like Monty Python.
         | 
         | I use Emacs and this video doesn't reflect my experience at
         | all. (I use Doom Emacs, and stuff Just Works.)
        
         | aulin wrote:
         | I believe it was mocking a redditor that has been spamming
         | /r/emacs with short how to videos with somewhat complicated
         | ways to do super trivial things.
        
       | pserwylo wrote:
       | Those who enjoyed this should also have a laugh at:
       | 
       | "Vim Exit% Speedrun [WR - 2.50:13]"
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLbfqZBL8t8
        
       | snicker7 wrote:
       | "Unwashed masses" == vim converts.
        
         | 38 wrote:
         | I wouldn't mind switching away from Vim, but I would never,
         | EVER switch to Emacs. this video only scratches the surface of
         | how bloated Emacs is.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | progfolio wrote:
           | > bloated
           | 
           | "blimpy"
        
           | Exuma wrote:
           | what dont you like about vim that would make you switch away
           | from it? There's no universe where I can imagine doing that
        
             | 38 wrote:
             | honestly Vim is pretty slow, and it utterly sucks with long
             | lines. you can do "g" motion, but I cant seem to get my
             | muscle memory to remember that. to me "down" should always
             | use whats visible on the screen, not just dumbly move to
             | the next line.
        
               | xk_id wrote:
               | you're supposed to learn the mechanics of vim and then
               | configure it in a way which you find intuitive. i find
               | that much more natural than software which tries to
               | anticipate (and indirectly reinforce) some arbitrary
               | "common sense".                 nnoremap <silent> k gk
               | nnoremap <silent> j gj       nnoremap <silent> 0 g0
               | nnoremap <silent> $ g$
        
               | Exuma wrote:
               | Ok I got you mane.. you have 2 solutions. By the way,
               | there is a sort of "common" set of configurations that
               | probably 90% of people have in their vim config, like
               | turning off the bell and stuff. Obviously there are
               | exceptions because those people know what they're doing,
               | but my point is that don't give up on it until you at
               | least try a common config to remove a lot of the basic
               | annoyances.
               | 
               | Solution 1: Add this to your vimrc. This will make it so
               | when going up and down, wrapped lines are properly
               | interpreted and not skipped
               | 
               | ``` " better up and down map j gj map k gk ```
               | 
               | Solution 2: If you want to make it where the cursor
               | literally goes ANYWHERE in the document, including in
               | space that doesn't even exist, do this below. I used this
               | mode for a very long time and it's amazing. I only
               | switched recently just to try something new to see if I
               | like it more, and right now I'm just 50/50 on if its
               | better or not
               | 
               | ``` " allow cursor to go anywhere set virtualedit=all ```
               | 
               | Lastly, try using `vimtutor` from terminal and practice
               | commands right there in your terminal.
               | 
               | And, if by "slow" you are talking about literal
               | performance, try Neovim. Neovim is basically a fork of
               | nvim that gets rid of vimscript (but still allows it if
               | you want to use it) and instead implements Lua, which is
               | an extremely (the fastest, actually) scripting language.
               | (The other comment you asked about was a Neovim lua
               | configuration which does the same thing as the vimscript
               | version).
               | 
               | Part of the Neovim idea is that they also set a lot more
               | "sane" default config thats more modern.
               | 
               | The best part about Neovim is that it supports LSP's in a
               | much better way, so you can complete VS-Code like IDE
               | experience, rather than relying on a complex array of
               | plugins. If you decide to do that, check out lsp-zero for
               | the easiest setup possible.
               | 
               | If you decide to give neovim a shot, I would 100%
               | recommend using this: https://github.com/nvim-
               | lua/kickstart.nvim
               | 
               | I recently transferred 10+ year vim config to lua and
               | neovim, and I saw people recommending this over and over.
               | Because I wasnt familiar with it I thought "I dont need
               | that, i want to start fresh". Well after doing that for
               | nearly a month, I realized how good kickstart is, it
               | REALLY is quite good, and does lots and lots that you
               | would want without doing too much. I didnt use it, but i
               | took tons of inspiration from it for setting up LSPs.
               | 
               | Let me know if you have any questions I'd love to not
               | lose vim friend over something stupid like moving on long
               | lines.
        
               | ntrz wrote:
               | > you can do "g" motion, but I cant seem to get my muscle
               | memory to remember that. to me "down" should always use
               | whats visible on the screen, not just dumbly move to the
               | next line.
               | 
               | You could always add key mappings to your .vimrc file so
               | it works this way.
        
               | umanwizard wrote:
               | From a colleague; I haven't tested it:
               | --Remap for dealing with word wrap
               | vim.keymap.set({ 'n', 'v' }, 'k', "v:count == 0 ? 'gk' :
               | 'k'", { noremap = true, expr = true, silent = true })
               | vim.keymap.set({ 'n', 'v' }, 'j', "v:count == 0 ? 'gj' :
               | 'j'", { noremap = true, expr = true, silent = true })
        
               | 38 wrote:
               | what is this? I dont recognize that language
        
               | jasonjmcghee wrote:
               | vimscript
        
               | 38 wrote:
               | No, it's not.
        
               | jasonjmcghee wrote:
               | mea culpa
        
               | auscompgeek wrote:
               | It's Lua. Presumably they're using Neovim.
        
               | umanwizard wrote:
               | Ah, my bad. Not a heavy vim user so I didn't realize this
               | was neovim-specific.
        
       | xg15 wrote:
       | It's actually very easy to type blimpy in ed, the standard text
       | editor.
        
         | rwmj wrote:
         | $ ed       blimpy       ?       exit       ?       quit       ?
         | stop       ?       go away       ?       ^C       ?
        
           | elteto wrote:
           | _pulls power cable_
           | 
           | Ah, so that's how you do it!
        
         | tempodox wrote:
         | For the uninitiated:
         | 
         | https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html
         | 
         | There are good reasons that ed is _the_ standard text editor.
        
       | b0afc375b5 wrote:
       | Hackernews during the weekends is something else.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | progfolio wrote:
         | blimpy?
        
           | PappGaborSandor wrote:
           | [dead]
        
       | cscurmudgeon wrote:
       | Not funny. Double flagged by click on flag button twice.
       | 
       | If Stallman ever figures out how to watch YouTube in Emacs,
       | someone is going to be in big trouble.
        
         | progfolio wrote:
         | limpy b :(
        
       | senkora wrote:
       | This is fairly accurate.
       | 
       | Of course, you should really be using the Doom module or
       | Spacemacs layer to add another level of abstraction that will
       | definitively fix any issues you might have run into.
        
         | progfolio wrote:
         | blimpy.
        
       | Waterluvian wrote:
       | I know this is a joke, but people should really give Emacs a try.
       | 
       | Check out this interview about Emacs if you're not convinced:
       | 
       | https://youtu.be/urcL86UpqZc?si=3ew2h0iI0FIT5Zmd
        
         | heyoni wrote:
         | You recommend using a framework like doom or building up your
         | own config?
        
           | Waterluvian wrote:
           | Bruh. Emacs!
        
           | globular-toast wrote:
           | I'd recommend starting from scratch. The whole point of emacs
           | is it's super easy to hack and make your own. So you'd just
           | end up "undoing" everything in a starter kit anyway. But you
           | should definitely look at those starter kits to see what you
           | can do.
        
             | heyoni wrote:
             | I feel like doing that with doom emacs. I'm not sure what
             | is a feature or a package and it feels like a bunch of
             | things are overlapping in terms of functionality.
        
           | sobkas wrote:
           | If you start with framework you might not learn enough to
           | solve problems later, but using it later to simplify your
           | config should be ok. For example ergoemacs
           | http://ergoemacs.github.io/ is a nice way to make Emacs more
           | ergonomic and easier to use(if having problems with default
           | configuration).
        
       | progfolio wrote:
       | A lot of people don't know how.
        
       | jt2190 wrote:
       | https://github.com/progfolio/blimpy/
        
       | Tao3300 wrote:
       | I opened vim and tried to type "blimpy" and nothing happened. I
       | also can't quit.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | Why would you want to quit?
        
           | d-lisp wrote:
           | Best answer
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | Scarblac wrote:
         | Quitting hasn't changed in forever, just open a second terminal
         | and killall vim.
        
           | thepostman0 wrote:
           | Unless you're on sunos...
        
             | benj111 wrote:
             | How does one do it in sunOS?
        
               | sp332 wrote:
               | On SunOS, killall actually kills everything.
        
               | DonHopkins wrote:
               | L1-A
               | 
               | Then you can program in FORTH, which has full Emacs key
               | binding support!
               | 
               | https://github.com/MitchBradley/openfirmware/blob/master/
               | for...
        
               | benj111 wrote:
               | So do you program the keybindings in Forth or lisp? Is
               | the lisp implemented in forth? Or the forth in lisp?
               | 
               | Are parentheses forth words??
               | 
               | This hurts my brain. (And/or makes me want to implement a
               | forth in lisp in forth, as a quine)
        
             | actionfromafar wrote:
             | Just pull the power cord
        
               | DonHopkins wrote:
               | Or load Deldo into Emacs and insert the plug!
               | 
               | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1sXuHnf_lo
        
               | d-lisp wrote:
               | (I see that the name of the channel is called poor life
               | choices)
        
             | ufodktztd wrote:
             | [dead]
        
         | aidenn0 wrote:
         | Really? You should end up with "mpy" in your buffer. Maybe your
         | configuration is messed up. Try deleting your .vimrc and try
         | again.
        
         | progfolio wrote:
         | :blimpy!
        
           | tempodox wrote:
           | E492: Not an editor command: blimpy!
        
         | alexvitkov wrote:
         | you can use the following script to quit vim, it kills random
         | processes until vim dies:                 while pgrep vim; do
         | ps axuw | awk '{print $2}' | grep -v PID | shuf -n 1 | sudo
         | kill -9       done
        
         | wincy wrote:
         | Due to some disagreements in the vim community about typing
         | blimpy not being a priority, I believe you have to download
         | blimpyvim to get this working.
        
           | DonHopkins wrote:
           | Just run a vimulator in emacs.
        
           | qingcharles wrote:
           | [dead]
        
           | JamesLeonis wrote:
           | Or set the compiler flag +blimpy if you're building it from
           | source. I would still recommend tpope's vim-pagliacci plugin
           | for the RECL.
           | 
           | EDIT: Read-Eval-Clown-Loop
        
         | tomjakubowski wrote:
         | In Emacs the editor is the operating system. To type "blimpy"
         | you download a software package and install it.
         | 
         | In Vim the editor is one part of a larger operating system,
         | called Unix. To type blimpy in Vim, combine several Unix tools
         | and read the output. Type this:                   :read ! cat
         | /dev/urandom | LC_CTYPE=C tr -cd 'blimpy' | head -c 1000000 |
         | fold -w 1 | sort | uniq | tr -d '\n'<RET>
         | 
         | (<RET> means "hit the RETURN key". don't type it!)
         | 
         | That gives us something just a little bit off but we can fix
         | that with only three keystrokes. Just type:
         | lxp
         | 
         | Now you have blimpy!
        
       | lacrimacida wrote:
       | Is this supposed to be funny and Im not getting it? Can anyone
       | kindly explain what am I missing out?
        
         | progfolio wrote:
         | limpy b
        
         | d-lisp wrote:
         | It is supposed to be funny, the author of the video is
         | obviously faking seriousness while presenting a joke package
         | for emacs. That's a kind of a sketch comedy with a computer.
        
       | SonOfLilit wrote:
       | Am I the only (former) emacs user in this thread very confused by
       | the "--INSERT---" line at the bottom of the screen in this video?
       | That's clearly a vi-ism?
        
         | ravi-delia wrote:
         | They're using evil mode! It briefly interfered with blimpy mode
        
         | Tao3300 wrote:
         | Evil mode, I guess
        
       | worik wrote:
       | I am not sure I approve of the inner mysteries being so paraded
       | in public.
        
         | tempodox wrote:
         | Don't worry, people who don't have the emacs gene will be lost
         | nevertheless.
        
       | p1mrx wrote:
       | Blimpy? Chicken chicken chicken!
       | 
       | chicken: https://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf
        
         | tempodox wrote:
         | I heard Chicken Scheme is especially efficient with that:
         | http://www.call-cc.org
         | 
         | And Schemers do use emacs.
        
       | cyclotron3k wrote:
       | Couldn't have found this video at a better time - I have an
       | assignment on blimpy due tomorrow.
        
         | progfolio wrote:
         | blimpy-mode forgave my student loan debt
        
           | shadowgovt wrote:
           | Oh, you had `helm` installed, I see.
        
       | CmdrKrool wrote:
       | In conjunction with the power of Magit this is going to make
       | cranking out those pesky commit messages so much easier.
        
         | progfolio wrote:
         | --force-blimpy
        
       | z500 wrote:
       | Why would I use blimpy-mode when you can access blimpytyper.net
       | from any machine anyway?
        
         | mbakke wrote:
         | Only if you have internet access. blimpy-mode is a lifesaver
         | when travelling.
        
           | NotYourLawyer wrote:
           | I run blimpytyperd locally and it's pretty slick.
        
       | LordShredda wrote:
       | Actually funny video, shows how absurd emacs can get. Although
       | you don't know, someone might earn a living typing blimpy or a
       | similar thing
        
         | progfolio wrote:
         | blimpy?
        
           | nobody9999 wrote:
           | I had to look it up myself and I'm guessing it's this
           | blimpy[0].
           | 
           | But I haven't watched to video to confirm. YMMV.
           | 
           | [0] https://pypi.org/project/blimpy/
        
             | chucksmash wrote:
             | It's this:
             | 
             | https://github.com/progfolio/blimpy
        
               | Exuma wrote:
               | I dont get it... does blimpy equate to some emacs
               | commands or something where you cant type it in emacs'
               | equivalent of insert mode?
        
               | progfolio wrote:
               | Please see https://github.com/progfolio/blimpy#usage
        
               | Exuma wrote:
               | this answers nothing
        
               | nobody9999 wrote:
               | >this answers nothing
               | 
               | Then listen to the music, not the song.
        
               | qingcharles wrote:
               | That's exactly what a vim user would say.
        
               | jolux wrote:
               | There's nothing to answer.
        
               | tempodox wrote:
               | You valiantly strove for the unattainable. Take solace in
               | the fact that nobody took it from you, it just wasn't
               | there to begin with.
        
               | nemo wrote:
               | limpy b
        
               | shadowgovt wrote:
               | No, I think the word was just chosen because it sounds
               | kind of funny. The crux of the video is making fun of how
               | simultaneously annoyingly fidgety and powerful emacs
               | packages can be.
        
               | actionfromafar wrote:
               | The warnings never mean anything
        
               | phist_mcgee wrote:
               | >B(000000)B
               | 
               | That's a blimpy sailing right over your head.
        
         | Tao3300 wrote:
         | The rogue blimpy optimizing AI will one day enslave us all into
         | typing blimpy. If you know how to do it the Correct Way in
         | Emacs, you'll get to live a little longer before your matter is
         | harvested for the blimpy typing nanobots.
        
           | progfolio wrote:
           | limpy b limpy b limpy b
        
       | C-x_C-f wrote:
       | The C-u C-u trick at 2:03 is such a neat hack. Goes to show how
       | with Emacs you don't have to compromise between customization and
       | productivity: a true hacker can have both.
        
         | tempodox wrote:
         | Thank Stallman there's a package for that! Saved my butt
         | countless times.
         | 
         | https://github.com/progfolio/blimpy/
        
         | Scarbutt wrote:
         | username checks out
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-09-03 23:02 UTC)