See I don't like this phrase because the text editor is actually not that bad but what I will say is that the default key bindings work way better on a real ergonomic keyboard
I have switched to emacs based on a lot of your (and others) vids. Being a nvim user, I use doom emacs config that I swiped the essence from your website and modified to fit my needs. I keep going back to your site to see if anything might have changed that I would like to copy to mine. I struggle with so many features that you can activate but muscle memory is taking over to my normal uses. I think that several months (years?) from now I will be proficient ;~) However, I enjoy the learning and use and sense of accomplishment when I get what I want to do without looking it up. I am currently using org mode to do a lot of documentation and tangled development. It ain't easy but its fun! PS -- I'm 76...
well friend, today we have the amazing help of AI, you can use chatgpt to help you with that and don't forget to tell it to show you links to websites and github repositories.
Hot take: I don't like when people say comparing Emacs to Vim is such a crazy comparison. At a high level both applications are solving the same issue for the end user. Under the hood yes they are vastly different but both can achieve very similar functionality to eachother. I just feel this message is misleading and confusing to beginner. Anyone who can appreciate the vast difference under the hood probably doesn't need a comparison video anyways.
Sure they can be comparable to some degree (in raw text editing, emacs has way more functionality), but the way how they approach that is way way different.
@@AggressiveHayBale I completely agree. The approach is very different. I just feel that overall the user experience is more similar than different, especially as a beginner. As a power user this statement is less true. All my point is is that describing them as "completely different" is a bit misleading and confusing, especially for beginners. This was exactly my struggle when I started out with Vim and Emacs years ago.
The point is not the differences/similarities in editing but how they are used. Vim is a text editor that you use in a "unix-y" environment (*sh, tmux, coreutils,WM...). Emacs is a program that replaces the "unix-y" environment + it has a text editor.
@@ratfuk9340 Yes, I understand that, and that is a very simple explanation that most beginners would understand. I'm saying I don't like when people over complicate the explanation, especially for beginners.
Vim: I need to edit something with lightning speed. I need to make this .txt file real quick. Emacs: The entire workspace. With a text editor included. Comparing Vim to Emacs is like comparing pond to sea. That's why no one can answer Vim vs Emacs: It's not a good comparison to begin with. And yes, I used both, just long enough to understand the scope of these programs.
Why are people still comparing Vim to Emacs though? Vim is fine as a preinstalled editor for servers, but there is no reason to not use Neovim now, especially since it's compatible with Lua for configurations.
The only reason to use Emacs is that it can be used to edit binary files. The main reason to not use Emacs is that you need a foot pedal to use it effectively.
What final got me was that I wanted one place to do a lot of my task. eMacs can do it without the typical worry of having to relearn tools that change in windows with each major upgrade. It allows a lot of customization where all the tools work seamlessly together. Files can be processed from downloading, automatically scraping what you need, then push that into your knowledge file and then check to see what has changed and give you a diff report. All done in one button. You can do other things like enter a todo, which then triggers an update in other files such that when you are looking for all the information upcoming vacation trip, you can print pdf file that has your itinerary, reservation numbers, pack list, weather report for days on your trip automatically
I used emacs for a solid handful of months then stopped for two reasons: 1) it actually crashed. I built releases from source but didn’t add any flags. 2) I used vim key bindings but they aren’t complete vim bindings you can’t search how to do things since it’s not actually running vim under the hood. The divide and overlap for how to do stuff made it awkward to really “lock-in” a consistent method for editing. With neovim, most people decide their environment and workflow involves just their shell and tmux. Especially with the new generation of shell tools like ripgrep, fzf, zoxide, fish, etc it’s a tougher sell to convince me I need a heavier environment manager.
Vim and tmux are a good diet, but I'd rather learn vanilla Emacs instead of NeoVim plug-ins and modern cli tools. It's not that heavy when it's vanilla.
@@theodorealenas3171 vanilla emacs has LSP and autocompletions from it now? Not sure you’re really comparing apples to apples anymore. And just because a lot of neovim plugins have advanced features and you can go crazy with it, you really don’t need to. I have a very basic set of plugins any developer would have using 99% configurations defaults, and everything works. Nothing to learn other than the keybinds like you would have to on emacs.
@@theodorealenas3171 I didn’t mean to call emacs that heavy in general. But what value do I have jumping into it over staying in the terminal where “everything and anything” can be done fluently anyways? Editing is editing, debugging is debugging, but everything else is just using the machine.
Emacs is stupid, if i want something with bloat i will go to an actual IDE and just install the VIM motions extension or plugin for that IDE. There is nothing that cannot be done from the terminal or with neovim. Ripgrep + fzf + tmux + telescope + harpoon + undotree + DAP + LSP + neovim is all i need!
I have Evil installed in Emacs, and I constantly switch back and forth between the two modes. I might recall how to do something in vim that I would have to look up in Emacs, and vice-versa. And I have configured my Emacs over the years for software development. It is now configured for a number of language -- Haskell, C++, Rust, Ruby, Elixir.... I have not played at all with VSCode, but I dont see me using VSCode for anything. Oh, and did I mention OrgMode and Org Agenda? And I have so many keybindngs configured that occasionally I have to grep my configuration files to find them! I should do a video about my Emacs configuration someday. Probably take me about an hour to cover it. You are absolutely right, DT.
Ok I mean I get the idea, but then I go to the Emacs website and the first thing I read there, *from the creators themselves*, is (verbatim) "An extensible, customizable, free/libre *text editor* - and more." If the first subject mentioned is "text editor" then the *core* of the thing is being a text editor and the rest is just the rest, that kinda nullifies the whole train of thought. It's literally the same logic as WINE - everyone automatically assumes it's an "emulator", but the first thing you read on their site is "WINE is a *compatibility layer*", which is not the same thing as defacto "emulation" *by concept* (also gentle reminder that the acronym itself reinforces the notion, in case people have forgotten about that fact). If the creator of the thing itself says one thing and everyone else says another, who do you believe more? Either WINE (and Emacs) forgot to update its own definition, *or*, what I think makes way more sense, "everyone is wrong". I don't believe in "death of the author", in fact I think that's just a pretty term for "intellectual communism", so by that POV alone, and considering only the *core* of the topic, Emacs and Vim remain one and the same to me - "text editor on steroids". Comparing "pure" Vim with "pure" Emacs (just the text editor component, no plugins) makes way more sense since now you're truly comparing apples with apples. Now whether you should use one or another is simply a question of personal preference - whether you prefer the "tried-and-true UNIX-philosophy-branded toolbelt", or the "jack-of-all-trades swiss knife that comes with a 1000-page manual".
I'm really unsure if you're doing it on purpose, but the very next sentence literally goes as "At its core is an interpreter for Emacs Lisp, a dialect of the Lisp programming language with extensions to support text editing.". And you also unhighlighted --- and more part as if that's just you trying to abbreviate other texts, when that's what emacs devs actually want you to know, that it's more than just simple text editor. Ngl, pretty misleading.
I will have to disagree with your rather callous dismissal of the "death of the author". While I agree that the words "intellectual communism" can be used to describe it, it doesn't exactly fully encapsulate what death of the author actually means. For one thing, death of the author came as an argument against popular art analysis at the time, which revolved around analysing what the artist meant when creating the art - "word of god", in other words. Death of the author, at its core, means that any form of analysis occurs between the person and the object, not between the person and the creator. It gives the power of interpretation solely on the person. And in that sense, it can be "intellectual communism" in that it gives the "means of production" (analysis) back to the person, rather than the analysis be solely bound to the creator. Let's root this in our current discussion. Vim was originally conceptualised as an extension of vi, a Unix-based text editor meant primarily for editing code. I use it for writing my essays. Had I bound myself to using vim only for coding, I would have limited my engagement with it. And that, at its core, is what death of the author really is. The ability for the person to engage with something, free from anyone else's influence, least of all the author's. It is the ability to engage with the world in your own way. If you're observant, you would notice that I said that the death of the author means analysis free from the author. In reality, however, I think it would be almost impossible for that to really happen. I do still use vim for programming. Authorial intent still exists, and is very much prevalent in everything. So my main point is this: both the creator, and the interpreter are right. And wrong. Due to our specific contexts, each and every one of us will have our own take on the matter. Sure, it will have similarities with others (the existence of dogma proves it), but it's often different in subtle ways. Each of us engage with vim and Emacs in our own way, and all we can really do is show others how we did it, and then they tailor it to their experience. So no, I don't agree that your comparison is valid. You strip the intricacies of modern vim and Emacs into simply a "text editor on steroids", failing to consider the many differing use-cases each may have. While vim was originally used to edit text, that didn't stop people from making plugins to solve issues that they had (and then forking it to make it use lua instead of vimscript). While Emacs may have the words "text editor" as core of the product, that didn't stop people from pushing it until it runs practically half of their computer. For better or for worse, the usage of these programs have evolved over the years, to a point where they are no longer just text editors. Any comparison, therefore, must track how they are now, what solutions they provide now, what problems they may cause now, and most importantly, what audience they target now. The world has changed, now. It is no longer vim versus Emacs. It is vim, Emacs, and the rest of the world. The world is no longer black and white.
@@user-oe4id9eu4v I said what counts is the first subject, and that remains "text editor" no matter what comes next (hence why I didn't include the "and more", because it *literally doesn't matter* once you've read the first subject of the phrase - basic language semantics, the subject defines what that thing is, everything else is unnecessary details). Taking Vim's website as an example, it says (verbatim) "Vim is a highly configurable *text editor*". There, that's all I need to know what Vim is. A text editor. The phrase does extend beyond that, but again, *it doesn't matter*, Vim is already defined as a text editor by the time you read the phrase up to that point. Same thing with Sublime - "Sublime Text is a sophisticated *text editor*". Boom. Same thing with Emacs. Emacs is an extensible *text editor*. Now, IMO, if you're labeling yourself as one specific thing first and foremost, and then you completely flip the tables and declare you're something else, that's at the very minimum cognitive dissonance and at the very maximum false propaganda to me. Emacs' website seems to be the only one who does that. Vim's website sticks to the premise of "text editor" just fine, Sublime's does too. Who's being misleading here? Certainly not me. If Emacs devs want Emacs to be known as "more than just a simple text editor" then why didn't they just said that out of the gate? It's a matter of changing *one phrase* to better reflect the devs' vision (again, either everyone is wrong or...). If the phrase was "an extensible, customizable, free/libre *Lisp interpreter* - also a text editor", I wouldn't have an issue with it because the actual core feature comes FIRST in the phrase, AND that aligns with the devs' actual vision. If Emacs' core feature is "being a List interpreter", then communicate that first. The question is "why doesn't it?".
@@halleyscomet0867 I get your point, but I still don't see how my comparison isn't valid. There *is* a single source of truth for everything, we're all constantly heading towards that one common point that forms reality as we perceive it today. Interpreting something the way you want (which includes the creator's own vision by your logic, just for the sake of having some consistence in the argument) doesn't make you, the creator or anyone else "canonically right or wrong" by any means, sure, I can see that to some extent. But it does bring you to a "unique" path... which in the end will loop itself back again to the same single source of truth, that one hard fact we can't deny no matter how much we try our hardest to. Riddle me this - if you can use a hammer to remove nails from a wooden plank, why do you still call it a "hammer"? Because that is the single source of truth about the object - *it is a hammer*. It hammers. That's its main function. Whoever invented it has done so with that main point in mind. Everything else is welcome, but secondary. No amount of "interpretation" or "alternative usage" is gonna change that fact. You *can* do it, and nothing's stopping you from doing it, BUT it is a hammer nonetheless. That's why I compare "death of the author" to "communism" - not because it "gives back the power to the person" (which really means "power to corrupt elite dictatorships" to anyone with a sane mind), but because it *takes away* the power of the individual - in this case, the person who invented it - and uses the former as a stupid excuse to do so by force. That's wrong. Going back to the discussion at hand - I do use (Neo)Vim for coding, but I don't call it an "IDE". Because it's not. It's a text editor. The "IDE" here (under the UNIX philosophy mindset) is an abstract concept formed by the union of "text editor + compiler + debugger + maybe extra tools like a linter" (e.g. vim + gcc + gdb + valgrind + maybe cppcheck if you're particularly anal about good coding standards). Vim *by itself* is *not* an IDE. It's a text editor. You can extend it (and Emacs) to the point it "resembles" an IDE, or something the human mind can't even comprehend. I applaud you for that effort by the way. BUT. If you strip everything away from it, at its immutable core, Vim remains a "text editor", just like Emacs. It doesn't matter if "everyone's both right and wrong", this is the palpable reality we live in today. The point here is not even "Vim vs Emacs", I seriously could care less about that. The point is I don't believe in "death of the author" and I take the original source as the single source of truth, so if Emacs' own website labels it as "a customizable TEXT EDITOR", why am I gonna argue against that? Again, if it's so adamant for the devs to define Emacs as a Lisp interpreter first and text editor second, why isn't that on the front of the first phrase we read on their website? I take it they know what they're doing so if they tell me it's a text editor first I'll believe that, and whatever comes next is just an added bonus. It's the same logic as believing the GNU zealots who scream "it's GNU/Linux not Linux" vs. believing Linus Torvalds, with the added insult on injury that Linux is used on Android (thus non-GNU) AND Alpine uses musl instead of glibc (thus again non-GNU). If you take GNU out of GNU/Linux, what's left...?
@@user-oe4id9eu4v I'm retyping this in a summed up way because apparently my original reply to you got removed/censored for some reason I'm not aware of (I have a rough idea of what may have happened, but honestly I'm not gonna bother). If the whole point of Emacs is to be "an interpreter for Lisp" then why isn't that the first thing that's written on the phrase? If you want to know what something is, you usually read up to the first subject and that answers the question. As it is stated - a "customizable text editor -- and more". Why isn't it then "a customizable Lisp interpreter -- also a text editor"? Basic language semantics y'know. Who's being misleading again? The "unhighlighting part" is because of TH-cam's bugged Markdown, the whole phrase wasn't even supposed to be highlighted, just the "from the creators themselves" and the "text editor" parts. Apparently TH-cam is too drunk to parse asterisks correctly (the proof is in the pudding btw, see how some asterisks are there popping out on their own - that wasn't planted on purpose andI haven't edited the comment, TH-cam literally is too stupid to parse that correctly). All in all, if the Emacs devs want their software to be known as "more than a simple text editor" then why not make it clear from the get go? It's just a matter of changing one phrase. Unless... the point IS that it's "a text editor first and foremost", and if that's the case my point still stands.
Vim vs Emacs is nonsensical, but Neovim vs Emacs is relevant. The reality is that Emacs is so much more mature when it comes to the ecosystem, and Neovim is playing catchup. Magit has no equal, but Neogit, a Magit clone, is catching up. Haven't looked into it, but I suspect it might be a similar situation for Emacs org mode. I started with Emacs and then moved on to Neovim out of curiosity. Honestly, I think the best option is the one you learn well enough to be able to configure it to fit your own needs. And that really comes down to do you want to use Lua or ELisp for configurations? That's assuming you don't have some specific use case that's solved better in one or the other. But as far as just being text editors goes, they are equal since Emacs include evil-mode.
I was willing to use emacs, but I could not use vterm on windows (yes, I sometimes use windows for my work) I spent a lot of time learning it, when I installed my setup on windows I found out that it cannot work the same way as on linux.
The issue with emacs is that I already have an OS. I don't need something that does everything. There's many different programs that do each of the individual things that emacs does, and often better. It's a good operating system. But I use Linux.
100% Also, there's zero reason to 'choose', just use all the editors, nerd snipe everyone and get them arguing about editor superiority, and get back to doing useful things.
I honestly don't think it's "just" a preference. I don't have recorded data, but Vim seems to me to be objectively a more streamlined text editing experience. I think this something that is measurable though. Emacs is objectively more flexible and "advanced" at integrating plugins and functionality beyond text editing (managing Kubernetes, Git, etc...). It's literally a GUI framework that you can reprogram on the fly. Vim is more polished and less buggy than Emacs, but that's because the "live" reprograming you can do in Emacs: with great power comes great responsibility. I use both at the same time, and I love both. Emacs with Evil mode for managing cross-language, complicated tasks. I still use Vim by itself for getting in and out really fast.
@@usopenplayer I use Vim as my IDE. You just need the right keybindings set in your ~/.vimrc and you're well on your way. On occasion I even ctrl+z to drop to a terminal, then fg to get back into editing. Of course I've got keybindings for common actions like running make, so that's just for small things. And I use tabs instead of buffers.
the thing, that makes vim vim can be done with a plugin, so extend your emacs and get the best of both worlds... or don't do it, because it will just be pain... try both, then use what you think fits you best
I'm realizing that. I spent a week looking up tweaks to write an init file to male it a text editor I would like but it's not there. There's a lot emacs can't do compaired to sublime. I like the buffer paradigm but for editing it needs a lot of hacks and packages for things.
The primary purpose/use-case of the software is editing code in a terminal environment, which makes them extremely comparable. The nuance of running within an existing shell versus providing its own shell doesn't mean that we are comparing apples and oranges. Electron is a its own shell also. Is Discord runs in Electron, so is it more comparable to Emacs than Vim because of this? I respectfully disagree with the premise of your argument, but thank you for the thought-provoking video.
I was somewhat a Linux user for my University (of course I also use Windows because its cool for what I need), and I really think that - if you like the software, then you can, and should use it. - It is like everybody hating on Ubuntu (okay I started myself with Mint and said everyone to do aswell), but overall somebody might not get why somebody uses Arch over Debian and etc etc. So how about everyone just uses whatever he/she likes And Yes, Derek Taylor did a good job saying the paradigma like switching from Notepad to Steam. It is really just a thing of using something that suits you
I haven't messed with Emacs yet, is it like VSCODE in that it is extensible? That is what I am picturing. You could technically write plain text in VSCODE but it is designed more as a programming 'environment' or IDE
I guess its more like the terminal in that it tries to do everything with some scripting. Just the interface is very different- not a repl, but centered around text buffers.
Wouldn't it be better to compare Emacs to an IDE with more features? Like I get it, Emacs has way more features than vim, which is just a text editor, but why the heck would I want to browse the internet or check email in Emacs?
My best answer is, whichever one you pick to be your daily use editor, you should be familiar with the other, at least the basics, so you don't get caught flat footed, so to speak. My question is can it be run in Wayland, or only X?
The problem with emacs and why vim / neovim is a lot more popular is that Emacs is a jack of all trades and doesn't excel at any of them. It's basically a GUI framework for e-lisp that you can write anything in (git client, emails, editing text), and it's not even that good at it because it makes emacs a hard dependency, it's single threaded, uses an obscure language nobody knows and isn't very scalable for large apps when compared to something like Rust / Python / JS. It makes a lot more sense to just make your own terminal app than to write something for emacs.
Where performance and multiple threads are needed you can use them. For example, for the lsp in emacs you can use rust to improve performance, if you don't like the included single threaded package manager you can install elpaca etc. Emacs is entirely what you make it, that comes with benefits and costs.
If the planets align just right when I need a new phone, I am planing on getting a PinePhone and will probably install NixOS on it. Right now, I'm stuck with a Samsung phone with LineageOS (which isn't really Android, but pretty much is).
@@halfsourlizard9319 addendum: you will also be forever cursed to look for vim key bindings in every app you use or you will never feel ok. thats how i am now.
I think it just means that out of the box, vim is better set up for text editing than emacs, although emacs can be configured to almost work like vim as a text editor.
@@theodorealenas3171 Please elaborate on what you mean then, if you disagree that vim is better set up for text editing. What I meant is that the default emacs key bindings are clunky and cumbersome, while vim keybindings are unintuitive to learn but allow for very powerful and efficient edits for an experienced user.
Emacs has all the features of tmux builtin, multiple screens and windows, you can close emacs and it will leave your work running in the background, then you can reconnect to your background session just like tmux.
Very good comparision, thanks for video. I just started using emacs, because I will be learing agda and agda recommends using emacs for best experience. Coming from helix, which for me is better then vim and I will try to use meow to simulate helix in emacs.
@@theodorealenas3171 My point _exactly_ at least one more key in their motions sequence. Wonder what they do to open latter opened file CTRL + oo in [neo]vi[m].
I feel the tmux+nvim+lua gives almost the same experience that emacs gave since a long time ago. I tried lazyvim a short while ago and I was really impressed, as finally there is a sensible default configuration with enough stuff to code. LSPs integration change neovim to be actually usable. vim is a good editor but the coding experience was bad (no comment shortcut no thanks). the plugins were too disperse and melpa was just too good. But with the current neovim hype I feel more and more people will use neovim and the larger community usually has the better tooling (just look at VSCode).
When you make the dive, be sure to check out Evil mode. The last time I tried Emacs, there were a couple of obstacles I couldn't overcome -- but Evil mode was very helpful!
OK, let's agree on this: Emacs is a Lisp interpreter with a good terminal emulator, a good file manager, a superb planner/markup program and a reasonable editor. The editor may be greatly enhanced by using evil-mode.🙂
Hey DT you inspired me to use eMacs I’ve been using eMacs for over a year now and I’ve really benefited from org mode. I’ve been using evil as well. Every time I try to leave evil to something else I always come back. What about those glasses? Are they blue light? do they work well? I miss you saying cheesy comments at the end of the videos what happened? Maybe I should leave Arco Linux for node JS? Lol.
The question is: “if writing code, what’s the best integrated development experience: neovim (with IDE plugins), emacs, vscode, jetbrains product, something else.” Neovim with plugins is an integrated development experience and not just a text editor.
Most of vim's users are tinkerers. 99.5% of Emacs's users are dismal tinkerers on steroids three levels down their mom's basement whom the world hasn't seen in several years.😎
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 99.5% of Emacs users do it becomes it makes them feel special, not realizing they could learn more useful things like C, C++, RUST, go instead. Like I said not all. Then they explode on people me like for preferring VIM not realizing that some of us have even contributed code to projects like marco for mate desktop.
Finally! I'm not good at vim motions, using LazyVim or vim for editing some config files mostly and now the main question for me: should I learn more vim for fast editing or forget about this idia and start from doom emacs just because everybudy says that it's tool of God and you don' need enything else if learn doom emacs and org mode. I tryed a little basics of doom emacs for some terraform editing, split windows with term, but every tiled manager gives you that. With terminal what you want, else. Even tubs and tmux or zellij not always needed. So, a lot of topics for thinking. Do I really need org mode if don't feel that need some organization tools? Sounds more rithorical...Neovim for speed editing, window manager for split and focus. At this moment I think its enough. Maybe if I was needed edit and read tones of code, different or big projects, okay, maybe here emacs can came to help. But for casual using? Not sure...
It's just a tool, if you don't feel it or think you don't want to learn it just don't do it. Emacs was good for me because it allows me to integrate multiple text parsing tools in one space thus not having the need to switch my brain to navigation between different tools and provides uniform visual style. So, notes, RSS,email, irc, coding and multiple small programs. I like it but everything is okey if you don't.
I think it'll end up super confusing with the weird fusion of 'vim'/evil-mode (BUT WITHOUT its :help) on top of Emacs… Maybe one who has learned 'pure' vim thoroughly will do better (won't need its help texts). That's how it was for me. But maybe I'm missing something and there's a way to use vim's help in Emacs?
@@internallyinteral some said that main feature is that You don't need emacs on all your servers to edit files on them. But, what stop you to upload your nvim config via ansible and feel the same way? I use Termius like terminal for work. It have tags, manage my ssh keys, etc. So, why emacs in such workflow? Don't have answer for that now. I don't want write custom modules for my program or serf web through the console. People who says that this is important feature, like writing own modules in DWM on C, etc...do we see a lot of them on github? No, It's just one new opportunity to say "I use smth by the way because it have a lot of potential". In mean time we have browser for browsing, ebookreaders for book reading, ipod's for listening music without notification from messengers. This unification and multi-tool trend with "open world" freedom makes us more unfocused and frustrated. You entered this program for what? Reading emails and play the game? Common...It's ADHD simulation.
@@AggressiveHayBale agree. But I think it's more for multitasking mind\brain people. I love some separation between my programs it give me isolation feels and extended concentration. I don't need all buffers is to be open in the same time, I'd better close all another staff and launch it when I really need it.
@@AggressiveHayBale I believe recent versions of vim can launch a terminal buffer though, that was how I configured vim to somewhat work as an ide, although rudimentary, limited and clunky to use.
because no one really asks. To say one TTY editor is better than other you need, atleast for yourself, learn both. To learn both you need learn how to... eeee what? how to write text into the text file? Really? It's really a problem worth to bother, to store dotfiles of finely tuned emacs/vim/other_new_text_editor_for_terminal? To learn their hotkeys, to install them into the systems which may be not yours? Maybe just work with something GUI based or just what convenient for you. For a regular human being it's enought to learn ctrl+c :w and :q as long as vi/vim is default in much cases or just use a nano which seems to be the new default text editor
@@DistroTube Well, it *can* be; you can also run `emacs -nw` (or compile Emacs without GUI support for a TTY-only system) ... Basically Emacs is ... whatever you configure it to be ... for better or worse.
Oh, sure, Nano is just fine, if you just need to pop in here and there, to make a change or two to a file or two. But when you're wrestling with multiple files, making substantial changes, and creating significant amounts of text day in and day out, it makes a *lot* of sense to try out other options -- whether Vim, Emacs, or even some sort of IDE. In my experience, there's also a beauty in using the command line itself. I much prefer using command-line Git over any of the other fancy tools, for example, because the commands can flow from my fingers in ways that these other tools (and *especially* the GUI ones) do not permit.
@@Ateshtesh If you give such a strict definition, then I would also like to hear your intuition about why it is exactly that. In my opinion, propaganda is any attempt to influence the opinion of another person. This term should be defined in this way because the purpose of any propaganda, unlike other forms of communication of opinion, is to force a person to adopt a specific viewpoint. Any methods will be used to achieve this goal, so that it is implemented as optimally as possible. If the assessment shows that those who should be influenced by propaganda are more likely to believe emotional arguments, then emotional arguments will be used. If they need some confirmation, then facts and statistics will be cited.
@@daiske2867 When you convince someone appealing to the logic, you are not spreading propaganda, you are making an argument and discussing ideas. Propaganda appeals to feelings because wants to change your position about something without discuss something in order to find the truth, but just through manipulation.
@@Ateshtesh Logical arguments are a tool of persuasion. Arguments to emotion are a tool of persuasion. A tool is just a means to an end. Propaganda is a process that aims to convince a target group of the idea of X. In order to convince the group, you can use different tools. Discussing the truth is a process aimed at finding the truth. YOU do not show why logical arguments have the right to be used exclusively in the search for truth. You are substituting a concept. In other respects, this is the most important proof, in this case, propaganda of the correct interpretation of propaganda is taking place, acceptable methods are used for this. In this case, the construction of an axiomatics in which the process is assigned to the tool used. That's exactly what I'm doing, trying to convince you that your interpretation of propaganda is not correct. So it would be fine if your interpretation had a place of use, but in fact most of the propaganda, which is considered as such, leads arguments based on logical conclusions.
@@daiske2867 So if I believe the arguments you are giving to me now is because you give me better propaganda? or is because your arguments were logic, correct and better than mine ones? I'm not denying that propaganda can also include "arguments" that seems to be logic. But in this case, this video about emacs at least doesn't fit the requirements to be considered as "propaganda". Propaganda would be more like. "Emacs is the best editor written ever! will make you better programmer just by using it, you have to use it because will improve your editing skills a lot, believe me!"
![Interview with an Emacs Enthusiast in 2023 [Colorized]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/urcL86UpqZc/mqdefault.jpg)
"Emacs is a great OS, all it needs is a good text editor"
@@darthvader1191 This fine gentleman does not know what a joke is.
See I don't like this phrase because the text editor is actually not that bad but what I will say is that the default key bindings work way better on a real ergonomic keyboard
@@darthvader1191 I find your lack of humor disturbing.
@MacroAcc No way. :PogU:
@@canoshizrocks A side-effect of switching to the dark side.
I have switched to emacs based on a lot of your (and others) vids. Being a nvim user, I use doom emacs config that I swiped the essence from your website and modified to fit my needs. I keep going back to your site to see if anything might have changed that I would like to copy to mine. I struggle with so many features that you can activate but muscle memory is taking over to my normal uses. I think that several months (years?) from now I will be proficient ;~) However, I enjoy the learning and use and sense of accomplishment when I get what I want to do without looking it up. I am currently using org mode to do a lot of documentation and tangled development.
It ain't easy but its fun!
PS -- I'm 76...
well friend, today we have the amazing help of AI, you can use chatgpt to help you with that and don't forget to tell it to show you links to websites and github repositories.
emacs is what a lisp-based computer/OS would look like. it's basically an e-lisp interpreter with a GUI window to display your elisp programs.
Hot take: I don't like when people say comparing Emacs to Vim is such a crazy comparison. At a high level both applications are solving the same issue for the end user. Under the hood yes they are vastly different but both can achieve very similar functionality to eachother. I just feel this message is misleading and confusing to beginner. Anyone who can appreciate the vast difference under the hood probably doesn't need a comparison video anyways.
Sure they can be comparable to some degree (in raw text editing, emacs has way more functionality), but the way how they approach that is way way different.
@@AggressiveHayBale I completely agree. The approach is very different. I just feel that overall the user experience is more similar than different, especially as a beginner. As a power user this statement is less true. All my point is is that describing them as "completely different" is a bit misleading and confusing, especially for beginners. This was exactly my struggle when I started out with Vim and Emacs years ago.
The point is not the differences/similarities in editing but how they are used. Vim is a text editor that you use in a "unix-y" environment (*sh, tmux, coreutils,WM...). Emacs is a program that replaces the "unix-y" environment + it has a text editor.
@@ratfuk9340 Yes, I understand that, and that is a very simple explanation that most beginners would understand. I'm saying I don't like when people over complicate the explanation, especially for beginners.
@@punchedchunk3483 Yeah I mean a 15 minute video to labor this point seems excessive lol
Vim: I need to edit something with lightning speed. I need to make this .txt file real quick.
Emacs: The entire workspace. With a text editor included.
Comparing Vim to Emacs is like comparing pond to sea. That's why no one can answer Vim vs Emacs: It's not a good comparison to begin with. And yes, I used both, just long enough to understand the scope of these programs.
Use nano or emacsclient is enough for speed editing.
Learning vimscript infact makes the vim, the ocean but the emacs maybe the pond. You are right that you cant compare them in that sense 😅
Why are people still comparing Vim to Emacs though? Vim is fine as a preinstalled editor for servers, but there is no reason to not use Neovim now, especially since it's compatible with Lua for configurations.
vi
Great analogy! What are you using these days? Still with Vim or Emacs, or have you switched to something else entirely?
The only reason to use Emacs is that it can be used to edit binary files.
The main reason to not use Emacs is that you need a foot pedal to use it effectively.
I've wanted to try this for a while now. Is it easy to install a pedal for a Ctrl key of shall I put a second keyboard under my foot?
Escape-Meta-Alt-Control-Shift
Haha nonsense😅
"Emacs is an interstellar spacecraft that's primarily used to drive nails. Vim is a hammer..." - don't remember whom I'm quoting here.
You know what's your problem? When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
@@edwardyang8254And when all you have is an asshole, everywhere looks like a place to take a shit... Your point?
@@edwardyang8254 when all you have is an asshole, everywhere looks like a place to take a shit... your point?
@@edwardyang8254 when all you have is an a*hole, everything looks like a place to take a s*t... your point?
this is secretly an ad for emacs
What final got me was that I wanted one place to do a lot of my task. eMacs can do it without the typical worry of having to relearn tools that change in windows with each major upgrade. It allows a lot of customization where all the tools work seamlessly together. Files can be processed from downloading, automatically scraping what you need, then push that into your knowledge file and then check to see what has changed and give you a diff report. All done in one button. You can do other things like enter a todo, which then triggers an update in other files such that when you are looking for all the information upcoming vacation trip, you can print pdf file that has your itinerary, reservation numbers, pack list, weather report for days on your trip automatically
Well said.
Been on emacs for a few years now. My entire workflow is now in emacs. Doom emacs to be specific so I am using evil mode...
Emacs is Life
- Open a terminal in emacs
- Open vim
No one can answer because they all use VSCode.
with the vim plugin
in emacs
Exactly what I was loking for...something beyond the typical text editor showdown. You have opened my eyes. Thank you :)
I used emacs for a solid handful of months then stopped for two reasons: 1) it actually crashed. I built releases from source but didn’t add any flags. 2) I used vim key bindings but they aren’t complete vim bindings you can’t search how to do things since it’s not actually running vim under the hood. The divide and overlap for how to do stuff made it awkward to really “lock-in” a consistent method for editing.
With neovim, most people decide their environment and workflow involves just their shell and tmux. Especially with the new generation of shell tools like ripgrep, fzf, zoxide, fish, etc it’s a tougher sell to convince me I need a heavier environment manager.
Vim and tmux are a good diet, but I'd rather learn vanilla Emacs instead of NeoVim plug-ins and modern cli tools. It's not that heavy when it's vanilla.
@@theodorealenas3171 vanilla emacs has LSP and autocompletions from it now? Not sure you’re really comparing apples to apples anymore. And just because a lot of neovim plugins have advanced features and you can go crazy with it, you really don’t need to. I have a very basic set of plugins any developer would have using 99% configurations defaults, and everything works. Nothing to learn other than the keybinds like you would have to on emacs.
@@theodorealenas3171 I didn’t mean to call emacs that heavy in general. But what value do I have jumping into it over staying in the terminal where “everything and anything” can be done fluently anyways? Editing is editing, debugging is debugging, but everything else is just using the machine.
Emacs is stupid, if i want something with bloat i will go to an actual IDE and just install the VIM motions extension or plugin for that IDE. There is nothing that cannot be done from the terminal or with neovim. Ripgrep + fzf + tmux + telescope + harpoon + undotree + DAP + LSP + neovim is all i need!
I have Evil installed in Emacs, and I constantly switch back and forth between the two modes. I might recall how to do something in vim that I would have to look up in Emacs, and vice-versa.
And I have configured my Emacs over the years for software development. It is now configured for a number of language -- Haskell, C++, Rust, Ruby, Elixir.... I have not played at all with VSCode, but I dont see me using VSCode for anything. Oh, and did I mention OrgMode and Org Agenda?
And I have so many keybindngs configured that occasionally I have to grep my configuration files to find them! I should do a video about my Emacs configuration someday. Probably take me about an hour to cover it.
You are absolutely right, DT.
Ok I mean I get the idea, but then I go to the Emacs website and the first thing I read there, *from the creators themselves*, is (verbatim) "An extensible, customizable, free/libre *text editor* - and more." If the first subject mentioned is "text editor" then the *core* of the thing is being a text editor and the rest is just the rest, that kinda nullifies the whole train of thought.
It's literally the same logic as WINE - everyone automatically assumes it's an "emulator", but the first thing you read on their site is "WINE is a *compatibility layer*", which is not the same thing as defacto "emulation" *by concept* (also gentle reminder that the acronym itself reinforces the notion, in case people have forgotten about that fact). If the creator of the thing itself says one thing and everyone else says another, who do you believe more? Either WINE (and Emacs) forgot to update its own definition, *or*, what I think makes way more sense, "everyone is wrong".
I don't believe in "death of the author", in fact I think that's just a pretty term for "intellectual communism", so by that POV alone, and considering only the *core* of the topic, Emacs and Vim remain one and the same to me - "text editor on steroids". Comparing "pure" Vim with "pure" Emacs (just the text editor component, no plugins) makes way more sense since now you're truly comparing apples with apples. Now whether you should use one or another is simply a question of personal preference - whether you prefer the "tried-and-true UNIX-philosophy-branded toolbelt", or the "jack-of-all-trades swiss knife that comes with a 1000-page manual".
I'm really unsure if you're doing it on purpose, but the very next sentence literally goes as "At its core is an interpreter for Emacs Lisp, a dialect of the Lisp programming language with extensions to support text editing.". And you also unhighlighted --- and more part as if that's just you trying to abbreviate other texts, when that's what emacs devs actually want you to know, that it's more than just simple text editor. Ngl, pretty misleading.
I will have to disagree with your rather callous dismissal of the "death of the author". While I agree that the words "intellectual communism" can be used to describe it, it doesn't exactly fully encapsulate what death of the author actually means.
For one thing, death of the author came as an argument against popular art analysis at the time, which revolved around analysing what the artist meant when creating the art - "word of god", in other words. Death of the author, at its core, means that any form of analysis occurs between the person and the object, not between the person and the creator. It gives the power of interpretation solely on the person. And in that sense, it can be "intellectual communism" in that it gives the "means of production" (analysis) back to the person, rather than the analysis be solely bound to the creator.
Let's root this in our current discussion. Vim was originally conceptualised as an extension of vi, a Unix-based text editor meant primarily for editing code. I use it for writing my essays. Had I bound myself to using vim only for coding, I would have limited my engagement with it.
And that, at its core, is what death of the author really is. The ability for the person to engage with something, free from anyone else's influence, least of all the author's. It is the ability to engage with the world in your own way.
If you're observant, you would notice that I said that the death of the author means analysis free from the author. In reality, however, I think it would be almost impossible for that to really happen. I do still use vim for programming. Authorial intent still exists, and is very much prevalent in everything.
So my main point is this: both the creator, and the interpreter are right. And wrong. Due to our specific contexts, each and every one of us will have our own take on the matter. Sure, it will have similarities with others (the existence of dogma proves it), but it's often different in subtle ways. Each of us engage with vim and Emacs in our own way, and all we can really do is show others how we did it, and then they tailor it to their experience.
So no, I don't agree that your comparison is valid. You strip the intricacies of modern vim and Emacs into simply a "text editor on steroids", failing to consider the many differing use-cases each may have. While vim was originally used to edit text, that didn't stop people from making plugins to solve issues that they had (and then forking it to make it use lua instead of vimscript). While Emacs may have the words "text editor" as core of the product, that didn't stop people from pushing it until it runs practically half of their computer. For better or for worse, the usage of these programs have evolved over the years, to a point where they are no longer just text editors. Any comparison, therefore, must track how they are now, what solutions they provide now, what problems they may cause now, and most importantly, what audience they target now. The world has changed, now. It is no longer vim versus Emacs. It is vim, Emacs, and the rest of the world. The world is no longer black and white.
@@user-oe4id9eu4v I said what counts is the first subject, and that remains "text editor" no matter what comes next (hence why I didn't include the "and more", because it *literally doesn't matter* once you've read the first subject of the phrase - basic language semantics, the subject defines what that thing is, everything else is unnecessary details).
Taking Vim's website as an example, it says (verbatim) "Vim is a highly configurable *text editor*". There, that's all I need to know what Vim is. A text editor. The phrase does extend beyond that, but again, *it doesn't matter*, Vim is already defined as a text editor by the time you read the phrase up to that point. Same thing with Sublime - "Sublime Text is a sophisticated *text editor*". Boom. Same thing with Emacs. Emacs is an extensible *text editor*.
Now, IMO, if you're labeling yourself as one specific thing first and foremost, and then you completely flip the tables and declare you're something else, that's at the very minimum cognitive dissonance and at the very maximum false propaganda to me. Emacs' website seems to be the only one who does that. Vim's website sticks to the premise of "text editor" just fine, Sublime's does too. Who's being misleading here? Certainly not me.
If Emacs devs want Emacs to be known as "more than just a simple text editor" then why didn't they just said that out of the gate? It's a matter of changing *one phrase* to better reflect the devs' vision (again, either everyone is wrong or...). If the phrase was "an extensible, customizable, free/libre *Lisp interpreter* - also a text editor", I wouldn't have an issue with it because the actual core feature comes FIRST in the phrase, AND that aligns with the devs' actual vision. If Emacs' core feature is "being a List interpreter", then communicate that first. The question is "why doesn't it?".
@@halleyscomet0867 I get your point, but I still don't see how my comparison isn't valid. There *is* a single source of truth for everything, we're all constantly heading towards that one common point that forms reality as we perceive it today. Interpreting something the way you want (which includes the creator's own vision by your logic, just for the sake of having some consistence in the argument) doesn't make you, the creator or anyone else "canonically right or wrong" by any means, sure, I can see that to some extent. But it does bring you to a "unique" path... which in the end will loop itself back again to the same single source of truth, that one hard fact we can't deny no matter how much we try our hardest to.
Riddle me this - if you can use a hammer to remove nails from a wooden plank, why do you still call it a "hammer"? Because that is the single source of truth about the object - *it is a hammer*. It hammers. That's its main function. Whoever invented it has done so with that main point in mind. Everything else is welcome, but secondary. No amount of "interpretation" or "alternative usage" is gonna change that fact. You *can* do it, and nothing's stopping you from doing it, BUT it is a hammer nonetheless. That's why I compare "death of the author" to "communism" - not because it "gives back the power to the person" (which really means "power to corrupt elite dictatorships" to anyone with a sane mind), but because it *takes away* the power of the individual - in this case, the person who invented it - and uses the former as a stupid excuse to do so by force. That's wrong.
Going back to the discussion at hand - I do use (Neo)Vim for coding, but I don't call it an "IDE". Because it's not. It's a text editor. The "IDE" here (under the UNIX philosophy mindset) is an abstract concept formed by the union of "text editor + compiler + debugger + maybe extra tools like a linter" (e.g. vim + gcc + gdb + valgrind + maybe cppcheck if you're particularly anal about good coding standards). Vim *by itself* is *not* an IDE. It's a text editor. You can extend it (and Emacs) to the point it "resembles" an IDE, or something the human mind can't even comprehend. I applaud you for that effort by the way. BUT. If you strip everything away from it, at its immutable core, Vim remains a "text editor", just like Emacs. It doesn't matter if "everyone's both right and wrong", this is the palpable reality we live in today.
The point here is not even "Vim vs Emacs", I seriously could care less about that. The point is I don't believe in "death of the author" and I take the original source as the single source of truth, so if Emacs' own website labels it as "a customizable TEXT EDITOR", why am I gonna argue against that? Again, if it's so adamant for the devs to define Emacs as a Lisp interpreter first and text editor second, why isn't that on the front of the first phrase we read on their website? I take it they know what they're doing so if they tell me it's a text editor first I'll believe that, and whatever comes next is just an added bonus. It's the same logic as believing the GNU zealots who scream "it's GNU/Linux not Linux" vs. believing Linus Torvalds, with the added insult on injury that Linux is used on Android (thus non-GNU) AND Alpine uses musl instead of glibc (thus again non-GNU). If you take GNU out of GNU/Linux, what's left...?
@@user-oe4id9eu4v I'm retyping this in a summed up way because apparently my original reply to you got removed/censored for some reason I'm not aware of (I have a rough idea of what may have happened, but honestly I'm not gonna bother).
If the whole point of Emacs is to be "an interpreter for Lisp" then why isn't that the first thing that's written on the phrase? If you want to know what something is, you usually read up to the first subject and that answers the question. As it is stated - a "customizable text editor -- and more". Why isn't it then "a customizable Lisp interpreter -- also a text editor"? Basic language semantics y'know. Who's being misleading again?
The "unhighlighting part" is because of TH-cam's bugged Markdown, the whole phrase wasn't even supposed to be highlighted, just the "from the creators themselves" and the "text editor" parts. Apparently TH-cam is too drunk to parse asterisks correctly (the proof is in the pudding btw, see how some asterisks are there popping out on their own - that wasn't planted on purpose andI haven't edited the comment, TH-cam literally is too stupid to parse that correctly).
All in all, if the Emacs devs want their software to be known as "more than a simple text editor" then why not make it clear from the get go? It's just a matter of changing one phrase. Unless... the point IS that it's "a text editor first and foremost", and if that's the case my point still stands.
The glasses make you almost look intellectual.
Makes him look more like Howie Mandell than he usually does.
The ability to type almost make you not a monkey.
Vim vs Emacs is nonsensical, but Neovim vs Emacs is relevant. The reality is that Emacs is so much more mature when it comes to the ecosystem, and Neovim is playing catchup. Magit has no equal, but Neogit, a Magit clone, is catching up. Haven't looked into it, but I suspect it might be a similar situation for Emacs org mode.
I started with Emacs and then moved on to Neovim out of curiosity. Honestly, I think the best option is the one you learn well enough to be able to configure it to fit your own needs. And that really comes down to do you want to use Lua or ELisp for configurations? That's assuming you don't have some specific use case that's solved better in one or the other. But as far as just being text editors goes, they are equal since Emacs include evil-mode.
I was willing to use emacs, but I could not use vterm on windows (yes, I sometimes use windows for my work) I spent a lot of time learning it, when I installed my setup on windows I found out that it cannot work the same way as on linux.
WSL2 ... you can very easily run either the GUI (X11) or terminal Emacs on Windows.
@halfsourlizard9319 Yeah, but I would like not have to
@@jd4rce It's your funeral 🤷♀️
The issue with emacs is that I already have an OS. I don't need something that does everything. There's many different programs that do each of the individual things that emacs does, and often better.
It's a good operating system. But I use Linux.
i use nano (and gentoo)
I wanted to like it, but the number of likes at the moment is 777 and I don't want to destroy such beauty
its literally a preference stop fighting over it and use what you want
100% Also, there's zero reason to 'choose', just use all the editors, nerd snipe everyone and get them arguing about editor superiority, and get back to doing useful things.
This is the correct answer hehe
@@darthvader1191 Right ... and ... ?
I honestly don't think it's "just" a preference.
I don't have recorded data, but Vim seems to me to be objectively a more streamlined text editing experience. I think this something that is measurable though.
Emacs is objectively more flexible and "advanced" at integrating plugins and functionality beyond text editing (managing Kubernetes, Git, etc...). It's literally a GUI framework that you can reprogram on the fly.
Vim is more polished and less buggy than Emacs, but that's because the "live" reprograming you can do in Emacs: with great power comes great responsibility.
I use both at the same time, and I love both. Emacs with Evil mode for managing cross-language, complicated tasks.
I still use Vim by itself for getting in and out really fast.
@@usopenplayer I use Vim as my IDE. You just need the right keybindings set in your ~/.vimrc and you're well on your way. On occasion I even ctrl+z to drop to a terminal, then fg to get back into editing. Of course I've got keybindings for common actions like running make, so that's just for small things. And I use tabs instead of buffers.
the thing, that makes vim vim can be done with a plugin, so extend your emacs and get the best of both worlds... or don't do it, because it will just be pain... try both, then use what you think fits you best
I'm realizing that. I spent a week looking up tweaks to write an init file to male it a text editor I would like but it's not there. There's a lot emacs can't do compaired to sublime. I like the buffer paradigm but for editing it needs a lot of hacks and packages for things.
The primary purpose/use-case of the software is editing code in a terminal environment, which makes them extremely comparable. The nuance of running within an existing shell versus providing its own shell doesn't mean that we are comparing apples and oranges. Electron is a its own shell also. Is Discord runs in Electron, so is it more comparable to Emacs than Vim because of this? I respectfully disagree with the premise of your argument, but thank you for the thought-provoking video.
I was somewhat a Linux user for my University (of course I also use Windows because its cool for what I need), and I really think that - if you like the software, then you can, and should use it. - It is like everybody hating on Ubuntu (okay I started myself with Mint and said everyone to do aswell), but overall somebody might not get why somebody uses Arch over Debian and etc etc.
So how about everyone just uses whatever he/she likes
And Yes, Derek Taylor did a good job saying the paradigma like switching from Notepad to Steam. It is really just a thing of using something that suits you
I haven't messed with Emacs yet, is it like VSCODE in that it is extensible? That is what I am picturing. You could technically write plain text in VSCODE but it is designed more as a programming 'environment' or IDE
No, it's more than an IDE. You wouldn't manage your system through VSC, and even that's not the extent of it.
I guess its more like the terminal in that it tries to do everything with some scripting. Just the interface is very different- not a repl, but centered around text buffers.
I swear to God.
Just finish the "Harley Hahn Emacs' Guide" throughly and slowly. Then read "Mastering Emacs" book. Thanks me later.
DT, is your glasses have to protective coating ( yellowish look) from computer monitors? Rays from it.
Finally, the lightbulb for this went on for me. Great explanation sir. This should continue to keep me distanced from EdLin well into the future.
Fun fact: emacs stands for editor macros. That's how it started. As some macros on top of an editor (teco iirc)
E xtensible
M odular
A rchitecture for
C ommand-line
S tandardization
(should be named)
Wouldn't it be better to compare Emacs to an IDE with more features? Like I get it, Emacs has way more features than vim, which is just a text editor, but why the heck would I want to browse the internet or check email in Emacs?
My best answer is, whichever one you pick to be your daily use editor, you should be familiar with the other, at least the basics, so you don't get caught flat footed, so to speak.
My question is can it be run in Wayland, or only X?
Emacs? Runs in wayland. Since 29 we also have it as a native gtk app which runs on wayland natively
@@hansdampf2284 😊 thanks
love your videos have learned many things through your vids keep moving forward
luv from india
I think a good analogy for what Emacs is is to compare it to Notion.
If only the title was like that
"Emacs is "just" not a vim replacement"😢
then I would have been gone to the depressed till my entire life.
The problem with emacs and why vim / neovim is a lot more popular is that Emacs is a jack of all trades and doesn't excel at any of them. It's basically a GUI framework for e-lisp that you can write anything in (git client, emails, editing text), and it's not even that good at it because it makes emacs a hard dependency, it's single threaded, uses an obscure language nobody knows and isn't very scalable for large apps when compared to something like Rust / Python / JS. It makes a lot more sense to just make your own terminal app than to write something for emacs.
Where performance and multiple threads are needed you can use them. For example, for the lsp in emacs you can use rust to improve performance, if you don't like the included single threaded package manager you can install elpaca etc.
Emacs is entirely what you make it, that comes with benefits and costs.
Emacs has text editor? I have never expected that it will happen. Really Emacs contains text editor?
Love your content!
Can you make
The video about
Helix text editor?
I love the Helix text editor but it hasn't gotten much love from the big Linux TH-camrs.
I think both vim and emacs are losing the war to Neovim, someone needs to create NeoEmacs to continue the endless war
I feel this video was made for me, Thank you, DT
My iphone is getting slow. Should I switch to Nix or Gentoo?
Haven't you try Nintendo?
What about raspbianOS?
If the planets align just right when I need a new phone, I am planing on getting a PinePhone and will probably install NixOS on it. Right now, I'm stuck with a Samsung phone with LineageOS (which isn't really Android, but pretty much is).
I am on my journey of learning vim
You will not regret it. But, it will become increasingly horrifying to watch non-Vim people faffing around trying to edit text.
@@halfsourlizard9319 Yes! 15 minutes in, I wonder how they keep going like that.
@@halfsourlizard9319 addendum: you will also be forever cursed to look for vim key bindings in every app you use or you will never feel ok. thats how i am now.
beautiful
i could never get used to hjkl,, it messes up my mind.
C-n C-p
next previous. its so logical in emacs
Vim is a text editor in steroids. Emacs is a tool to build text editors, IDEs, and whatever you can shoehorn into its UI.
So what most are asking is emacs text editor better than vim. The existence of evil mode kinda shows vim is better than emacs text editor
That's not what it shows lol. That's nit what it shows, at all. I just think it shows something else.
Who cares about Evil….Its one of the zillion packages …many vimmers who converted to Emacs use Evil…but it’s one of the many ways of using eMacs.
I think it just means that out of the box, vim is better set up for text editing than emacs, although emacs can be configured to almost work like vim as a text editor.
@@mingyi456 Vim is not set up better for text editing. That's just not how it works man.
@@theodorealenas3171 Please elaborate on what you mean then, if you disagree that vim is better set up for text editing. What I meant is that the default emacs key bindings are clunky and cumbersome, while vim keybindings are unintuitive to learn but allow for very powerful and efficient edits for an experienced user.
Nothing about Nano, Ed, edlin and VI? Very segmented opinion. I think it's a bit offset, due to influence 😂
Ed ftw!
😅😂😅
Edlin? What am I missing?
@@theodorealenas3171 The ability to do a 2-second Web search, I should imagine?
@@theodorealenas3171 ex?
Do ppl use Tmux inside Emacs ?
Emacs has all the features of tmux builtin, multiple screens and windows, you can close emacs and it will leave your work running in the background, then you can reconnect to your background session just like tmux.
emacs is great yes it like he said an OS and I would have used it only if it had a good text editor..
Very good comparision, thanks for video. I just started using emacs, because I will be learing agda and agda recommends using emacs for best experience. Coming from helix, which for me is better then vim and I will try to use meow to simulate helix in emacs.
Emacs is for vim users that prefers to memorize at least one more key in their motions sequence to get their chores done.
Vim: dd
Emacs: hold Ctrl, a, Space, n, w, release Ctrl
@@theodorealenas3171 My point _exactly_ at least one more key in their motions sequence. Wonder what they do to open latter opened file CTRL + oo in [neo]vi[m].
@@gjermundification In Vi, first of all, it's Ctrl + ^. In Emacs it's Ctrl + x b Enter, it's not that bad
@@theodorealenas3171 Must admit I have not really used vi since vim was released. 92? It was under AmigaOS 3.1
EMACS is like using Java to edit a file.
That's a bad example. Java would be trying to find a class 20 dirs deep and waiting for intelij to load up
systemctl --user enable emacs && systemctl --user restart emacs
Or a JavaScript engine? Everyone does that with VS Code already though.
emacs is a great OS
Once again nano wins.
Vim > nano
nano for config files and code oss for code
clearly you have yet to hear of micro
🤢
I want to try emacs one day not today ive invested too much time in tmux and nvim
I feel the tmux+nvim+lua gives almost the same experience that emacs gave since a long time ago. I tried lazyvim a short while ago and I was really impressed, as finally there is a sensible default configuration with enough stuff to code. LSPs integration change neovim to be actually usable. vim is a good editor but the coding experience was bad (no comment shortcut no thanks). the plugins were too disperse and melpa was just too good. But with the current neovim hype I feel more and more people will use neovim and the larger community usually has the better tooling (just look at VSCode).
When you make the dive, be sure to check out Evil mode. The last time I tried Emacs, there were a couple of obstacles I couldn't overcome -- but Evil mode was very helpful!
Why should I, the Nano user, switch to Vim?
For all the chicks you’ll get by being a vim user
You should switch to micro.
OK, let's agree on this: Emacs is a Lisp interpreter with a good terminal emulator, a good file manager, a superb planner/markup program and a reasonable editor. The editor may be greatly enhanced by using evil-mode.🙂
Beautiful explanation!
Emacs is an extremely Moldable text editor…and a terminal emulator
I use emacs for everything but for a shell. It’s just too slow, even eat and vterm.
Hey DT you inspired me to use eMacs I’ve been using eMacs for over a year now and I’ve really benefited from org mode. I’ve been using evil as well. Every time I try to leave evil to something else I always come back. What about those glasses? Are they blue light? do they work well? I miss you saying cheesy comments at the end of the videos what happened? Maybe I should leave Arco Linux for node JS? Lol.
Should I change from alacritty to emacs?
If you don't SSH OK! Some programs kind of need a terminal and Emacs doesn't have the best ones in the market
Well Played Sir ..!!!
The answer is Vim ofc
I use Emacs because it is fun.
yup, now I know what emacs is.
The question is: “if writing code, what’s the best integrated development experience: neovim (with IDE plugins), emacs, vscode, jetbrains product, something else.”
Neovim with plugins is an integrated development experience and not just a text editor.
Vim is a text editor, emacs is something wacky people like to stare all day.
Most of vim's users are tinkerers.
99.5% of Emacs's users are dismal tinkerers on steroids three levels down their mom's basement whom the world hasn't seen in several years.😎
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 99.5% of Emacs users do it becomes it makes them feel special, not realizing they could learn more useful things like C, C++, RUST, go instead. Like I said not all. Then they explode on people me like for preferring VIM not realizing that some of us have even contributed code to projects like marco for mate desktop.
So, it's ChromeOS with a terminal? 🤮😏
Finally! I'm not good at vim motions, using LazyVim or vim for editing some config files mostly and now the main question for me: should I learn more vim for fast editing or forget about this idia and start from doom emacs just because everybudy says that it's tool of God and you don' need enything else if learn doom emacs and org mode. I tryed a little basics of doom emacs for some terraform editing, split windows with term, but every tiled manager gives you that. With terminal what you want, else. Even tubs and tmux or zellij not always needed. So, a lot of topics for thinking. Do I really need org mode if don't feel that need some organization tools? Sounds more rithorical...Neovim for speed editing, window manager for split and focus. At this moment I think its enough. Maybe if I was needed edit and read tones of code, different or big projects, okay, maybe here emacs can came to help. But for casual using? Not sure...
For all that work you could've just gotten Vim down. Just print out the commands and keep them near your desk.
It's just a tool, if you don't feel it or think you don't want to learn it just don't do it.
Emacs was good for me because it allows me to integrate multiple text parsing tools in one space thus not having the need to switch my brain to navigation between different tools and provides uniform visual style. So, notes, RSS,email, irc, coding and multiple small programs. I like it but everything is okey if you don't.
I think it'll end up super confusing with the weird fusion of 'vim'/evil-mode (BUT WITHOUT its :help) on top of Emacs… Maybe one who has learned 'pure' vim thoroughly will do better (won't need its help texts).
That's how it was for me. But maybe I'm missing something and there's a way to use vim's help in Emacs?
@@internallyinteral some said that main feature is that You don't need emacs on all your servers to edit files on them. But, what stop you to upload your nvim config via ansible and feel the same way? I use Termius like terminal for work. It have tags, manage my ssh keys, etc. So, why emacs in such workflow? Don't have answer for that now. I don't want write custom modules for my program or serf web through the console. People who says that this is important feature, like writing own modules in DWM on C, etc...do we see a lot of them on github? No, It's just one new opportunity to say "I use smth by the way because it have a lot of potential". In mean time we have browser for browsing, ebookreaders for book reading, ipod's for listening music without notification from messengers. This unification and multi-tool trend with "open world" freedom makes us more unfocused and frustrated. You entered this program for what? Reading emails and play the game? Common...It's ADHD simulation.
@@AggressiveHayBale agree. But I think it's more for multitasking mind\brain people. I love some separation between my programs it give me isolation feels and extended concentration. I don't need all buffers is to be open in the same time, I'd better close all another staff and launch it when I really need it.
You have to install emacs, but vim is already on every system. Vim won. Long live vim.
You can run vim inside emacs, but you can't in reverse emacs wins.
Not on Arch...
not on nixos, nano ftw!
@@AggressiveHayBale I believe recent versions of vim can launch a terminal buffer though, that was how I configured vim to somewhat work as an ide, although rudimentary, limited and clunky to use.
Vim is not already on every system. Maybe you are thinking about vi.
Emacs is everything but a text editor.
Never used emacs so yeah
I went from caring about vim or emacs to using vscode and micro , because i want stuff done amd extensions on vscode are really great
it's the wrong question. I use them both
ty
emacs is an operating system just lacking a good editor :D
for me tmux is (almost) my window manager and vim is the editor, so emacs is more like tmux
How is the progress in writing your book "Why Trump is awsome"?
Gomer?
neovim is better for coding and emacs is better for everything else writitng stuff and shit
because no one really asks. To say one TTY editor is better than other you need, atleast for yourself, learn both. To learn both you need learn how to... eeee what? how to write text into the text file? Really? It's really a problem worth to bother, to store dotfiles of finely tuned emacs/vim/other_new_text_editor_for_terminal? To learn their hotkeys, to install them into the systems which may be not yours? Maybe just work with something GUI based or just what convenient for you. For a regular human being it's enought to learn ctrl+c :w and :q as long as vi/vim is default in much cases or just use a nano which seems to be the new default text editor
Emacs is a GUI program.
@@DistroTube in 2024, yes
@@DistroTube Well, it *can* be; you can also run `emacs -nw` (or compile Emacs without GUI support for a TTY-only system) ... Basically Emacs is ... whatever you configure it to be ... for better or worse.
Oh, sure, Nano is just fine, if you just need to pop in here and there, to make a change or two to a file or two.
But when you're wrestling with multiple files, making substantial changes, and creating significant amounts of text day in and day out, it makes a *lot* of sense to try out other options -- whether Vim, Emacs, or even some sort of IDE.
In my experience, there's also a beauty in using the command line itself. I much prefer using command-line Git over any of the other fancy tools, for example, because the commands can flow from my fingers in ways that these other tools (and *especially* the GUI ones) do not permit.
Nice beard
So the answer to the question "Should I use emacs and abandoned vim" is a BIG NO.
😄 🎉 ⚡️ 👍 👌
The only things that I don't like about emacs is that is full of bugs and is show af.
Emacs is a like Electron with technology from the 1980s.
as an emacs user i can tell you this video is emacs propaganda
Propaganda doesnt explain anything and just appeal to feelings.
Propaganda never had arguments but phrases that they repeat once an again.
@@Ateshtesh If you give such a strict definition, then I would also like to hear your intuition about why it is exactly that.
In my opinion, propaganda is any attempt to influence the opinion of another person. This term should be defined in this way because the purpose of any propaganda, unlike other forms of communication of opinion, is to force a person to adopt a specific viewpoint. Any methods will be used to achieve this goal, so that it is implemented as optimally as possible. If the assessment shows that those who should be influenced by propaganda are more likely to believe emotional arguments, then emotional arguments will be used. If they need some confirmation, then facts and statistics will be cited.
@@daiske2867 When you convince someone appealing to the logic, you are not spreading propaganda, you are making an argument and discussing ideas.
Propaganda appeals to feelings because wants to change your position about something without discuss something in order to find the truth, but just through manipulation.
@@Ateshtesh Logical arguments are a tool of persuasion.
Arguments to emotion are a tool of persuasion.
A tool is just a means to an end.
Propaganda is a process that aims to convince a target group of the idea of X. In order to convince the group, you can use different tools.
Discussing the truth is a process aimed at finding the truth.
YOU do not show why logical arguments have the right to be used exclusively in the search for truth. You are substituting a concept.
In other respects, this is the most important proof, in this case, propaganda of the correct interpretation of propaganda is taking place, acceptable methods are used for this. In this case, the construction of an axiomatics in which the process is assigned to the tool used. That's exactly what I'm doing, trying to convince you that your interpretation of propaganda is not correct.
So it would be fine if your interpretation had a place of use, but in fact most of the propaganda, which is considered as such, leads arguments based on logical conclusions.
@@daiske2867 So if I believe the arguments you are giving to me now is because you give me better propaganda? or is because your arguments were logic, correct and better than mine ones?
I'm not denying that propaganda can also include "arguments" that seems to be logic.
But in this case, this video about emacs at least doesn't fit the requirements to be considered as "propaganda".
Propaganda would be more like.
"Emacs is the best editor written ever! will make you better programmer just by using it, you have to use it because will improve your editing skills a lot, believe me!"
Howie
Bla bla bla. You tried really hard but I am not convinced that I should move to Emac from Neovim.
oh for petes sake you goshdarn emacs people are just WRONG ok
"Emacs is a great OS, all it needs is a good text editor"