Never used Nim before so I might be doing something wrong though.
I wish retro Amiga had Rust support. I've briefly skimmed what would be necessary to do, based on the rust-mos (Rust for commodore-64 fork), but I'm too weak in LLVM internals to actually do it.
I’ve myself compiled Nim on Windows 7, Windows XP, and Haiku, and have run simple Nim programs on the C64 and GameBoy Advance.
https://github.com/mrk-its/rust-mos
It works, and builds binaries that are ready to be executed by Vice emulator.
Good. For me, VSCode unlikely will ever become anything that I expect from my text editor.
For coding, sure, Emacs may not be great for any specific language except some Lisps, but for plain text manipulation, OMG, Emacs still is the king.
I just can't see it ever replacing it for note-taking - just yesterday I was showing someone "reproducible research" workflow example in Org-mode where I had a source block that sends http requests, then passes that into a bash block where the results get converted to EDN, then connected it to a Clojure REPL, explored and visualized data in it. Name one system that allows you to seamlessly pipe results of one computational block into another, mixing different languages.
Today I made a table with some formulas to calculate some numbers. Does your note-taking app has spreadsheets-capable tables and embedded math formulas?
Two weeks ago I was dealing with a slew of logs coming from k8s pod, and I want it to explore it in my editor - I piped from terminal directly into an Emacs buffer. I can similarly pipe the content of any given buffer into a different unix command.
I control video playback directly from Emacs - it's very nice when I'm taking notes. My pdf documents blend-in into my color theme, which btw. changes based on time of day automatically - Emacs has a built-in solar and lunar calendars.
I search through my browser history and through open tabs directly from Emacs - it's great for finding and grabbing specific piece of text from the browser - so I can put it into my notes.
I rarely need to open Jira in my browser, Emacs understands that "XYZ-12345" is a ticket and shows the ticket description in a tooltip, I can browse its content in-place, same is for RFCs. My Emacs understands that a url is a PR and allows me to review it in-place. It knows when it's looking at a GitHub repo url and allows me to clone it with a keypress, or explore CircleCI logs.
I never type anything longer than three words in any app. I've built a workflow that allows me to quickly move the text into my editor and back into the app. Why would I do it differently? I have all the tools I need - thesaurus, spellchecker, translation, etymology lookup, LLMs, etc.
Finally, once I got the plain text under control, I realized that code is nothing but structured text. I have things like fetching the path to exact line on GitHub, while supplementing the fully-qualified name of the function - my colleagues don't have to guess what they're staring at, they can simply see it without ever opening the link.
I'll install it again. I hope you're happy.
Having a text based Jira frontend seems attractive. (I've actually written myself a cmdline tool that uses Jira API so I don't need to visit the website)
I use over 300 hundred packages in my Emacs setup. I honestly not sure if I can install even half of that number of VSCode extensions and expect it to still run smoothly, maybe people do that, I just don't know.
They are called "packages" and not "extensions" for a reason - an extension that e.g., ships with a browser has limitations. In Emacs I can reuse functions of one package in another - in VSCode they have to be explicitly exposed via public API, must be activated in order, they need to be aware of their extension IDs, there's no discovery mechanism - in Elisp, I don't have to deal with any of that.
in Emacs I can explore, modify and bend the source code of any package - built-in or third-party. I can do it in a way that is simply impossible anywhere else. I can granularly change selected behavior of any command without having to rewrite it fully.
That "just works™" part I don't ever buy it - all software is faulty by nature. In Emacs, when something fails - I know exactly how to troubleshoot it, to the specific line in the specific package code; I can profile; debug and trace it. I can modify code in question in a scratch buffer and immediately check how it affects things. Not only I don't have to restart anything, I don't even have to save that code anywhere.
You call it "a legacy editor" without the slightest clue of what Emacs hackers are capable of doing - for what the most "modern" alternatives simply have no answers.
I agree, Emacs is not for the faint-hearted - many people (maybe most) lack the patience required to grok it. Yet make no mistake, those who have tamed this beast are not staying in it simply because "they don't know any better". They know - something better is yet to be made, if ever. VSCode is great, yet still not better.
Learning Emacs has liberated me from experiencing tool-FOMO ever again - I can switch to VSCode without abandoning Emacs, and I can even probably figure a way to control one from another if I get annoyed enough; I just never found a pragmatic reason to use VSCode more. So really, I have zero envy or crave to even become a full-time VSCode user; if anything, I might be forced into it by circumstances, but that's a different story.
You say like it's some kind of feature, but for me it sounds like a potential for name clash, and using private API which is prone to change/break.
> You call it "a legacy editor" without the slightest clue of what Emacs hackers are capable of doing
The thing is that is was VSCode which has brought us LSP, not "emacs hackers". It was VSCode which has brought us LLM Agent mode. All editors are catching up to VSCode, not the other way around.
LSP, LLM, ssh/docker/podman remote development, what's the Emacs answer to those? (I mean, nowadays vim+emacs have their own LSP clients built-in, years after VSCode)
Loading parent story...
Loading comment...
> Most technical problems are really people problems. Think about it. Why does technical debt exist? Because requirements weren't properly clarified before work began. Because a salesperson promised an unrealistic deadline to a customer. Because a developer chose an outdated technology because it was comfortable. Because management was too reactive and cancelled a project mid-flight. Because someone's ego wouldn't let them see a better way of doing things.
I mean true, technical debt is people's problem. Why it exists? Because there are not enough people in the team. Because they are not skilled enough. Because the devloper has promised they'll finish up the task before Christmas but failed to deliver.
I don't really like marketing, but they serve an important function: they convert code to money. Code itself isn't worth anything, only marketed code is worth something. That's why it's so hard to refactor.
Also there's this unofficial law in programming: code that is easy to refactor at some point is going to be replaced by code that is hard to refactor. Sometimes people misidentify what exactly is code debt and convert blocks of code that aren't code debt into exactly code debt which is later impossible to remove, because they thought they knew better.