Am Montag, dem 25.09.2023 um 14:19 +0300 schrieb MSavoritias: > > On 9/24/23 11:51, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > > [...] > > It's fine if you prefer another editor, but don't count on us to > > write documentation for every editor out there [...] > > How about we start with two editors then besides vanilla Emacs then? > > Because we don't even have two now. Well, assuming you count Emacs variants (given the "vanilla" prefix it'd only be fair if you did), we actually have at least four covered with the manual, if not more. :)
As for other editors, I point to the sign above, with "us" being folks who are happy to contribute to Guix from Emacs. I know there are vi folk out there who could probably make our section on "The Perfect Setup" less biased, but I neither want nor am able to speak on their behalf when it comes to actually doing so. > > > > It's been me believing exactly such lies that scared me away > > > > from starting with Emacs for years, lost years in a way; > > > > something I deeply regret: this has to stop. > > > I want to clarify that I'm not just repeating rumors and I > > > actually have tried to use emacs. > > There is a wide span of "tried emacs". I personally wouldn't say > > I've "tried" vi after hitting ESC :q once and being done or even > > that I've tried using ed after vaguely figuring out how you can > > make it actually change the contents of a file. > > > > Now whether you want to qualify your experience further or not is > > up to you, and even if you do, your personal choice of a suitable > > editor remains personal. However, I don't think that repeating the > > age old jokes of "herp derp, me no likes defaults" as has happened > > in other branches of this topic is helpful. *The defaults in Emacs > > do not matter.* You don't need to be happy with the editor you get > > out of the box. You can change it into the editor you want and > > there's ample documentation on how to do so. Coming full circle, > > this is why we reference Emacs in the manual, enough people > > collaborated to suggest a workflow that works for them or at least > > goes in the right direction. However, I think it's fair to say > > that most folks' setup will differ ever so slightly from what is > > presented there. > > > > Cheers > > > > > That's the thing you are missing. > > The default of Emacs absolutely do matter. > > Because > > 1. not everybody has time to learn elisp and configure Emacs so it > doesn't break. > > 2. By how the defaults are you see how the community around a program > is. > > If the defaults are good and empower the person using the program > that means that the community is open to suggestions and changes at > the very least. which is not what happens with Emacs. > > This is from someone who uses Emacs. I share neither the experience nor the argument. Now granted, I do see the appeal of preconfigured Emacsen for those who don't want to go through the trouble of configuring it for themselves; however, there is no "one size fits all" solution among these offerings as far as I can see. In fact, I'd argue the opposite, as they themselves have to offer customization so to appeal to a broader audience. For all the rant about how insane the defaults of Emacs are, the various "sane defaults" offered by others sure tend in various different directions. It's almost as though coding for the common case leaves many people out and the customization mechanism is what actually empowers users. Cheers
