/prog/ - Emacs is unusable.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:02

For the love of God - use another text editor! If it's something that requires a foot pedal to work with it normally, then... well... frankly, I'm speechless. There is a multitude of powerful contemporary text editors out there that don't require you to memorize volumes of arcane keystrokes or buy fancy hardware.

You know, I can understand and accept a lot of things, but a foot pedal for a simple text editor is really where I draw the line.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:10

http://mykeyboard.co.uk/

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:12

Using your Control or Alt(Meta) keys is that hard?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 6:28

2deep4u bro.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 8:07

Foot pedals are actually quite nice. You should try them.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 8:27

>>1
It doesn't require you to learn a lot of keystrokes to work with it like with any other text editor. The difference is if you want to learn/add more you can.

The only problem i see with emacs keystrokes is that alt/control are in different places on every damn keyboard (and sometimes don't even exist)

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 9:02

>>6
The only problem i see with emacs keystrokes is that many of them are impossible to enter on non-english keyboard layouts.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 9:07

Programming with a non-english keyboard layout is a huge pain anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:42

I press Ctrl with my penis

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:53

If it ain't a Lisp machine space-cadet, it's shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:06

Emacs is too hard for people who can't remap the shortcuts. Emacs' not perfect either, it kind of sucks in its many special own ways, but it's the best out there right now, which may be sad but it's reality.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:09

>>11
And I suppose it's too difficult for your stupid ass to make an attempt at using the 'programming editor' on Plan 9.....

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:10

Which again, for the zillionth time..

>>11 Again is stupid. And again, has no possible future as a computer programming

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:11

>>13
*computer programmer*

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:12

>>2
http://texteditor.org/

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:31

>>11
Being forced to learn a programming language just because you're forced to completely reconfigure an editor just to be able to use its basic functionality is a monument of colossal fuckwittery and forever disqualifies Emacs from being included in any discussions on "good" except as a warning.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:38

>>16
I second that. No wonder it was that gross fucktard RMS who wrote it. Not that Vi is much better, for that sake.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:44

Eight Megapages And Constantly Swapping

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:45

>>18
Eight thousand forty-two Megabytes And Constantly Swapping.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:47

I'm no Emacs fan here, but this bullshit about Emacs requiring big hardware is laughable coming from 4chan. Emacs memory requirements were an issue on hardware that was built before you kids were born, and even then it was comically exaggerated.

In the 1980's people had Unix workstations with just a few megabytes of memory. I didn't use such machines at that time, but a similar situation echoed in the 1990's, with Linux becoming available the average hacker on cheap Intel hardware which again, had a few megabytes of memory, like those old workstations. People ran Linux on stuff like 25 Mhz 386SX boxes with 4 megs of RAM, and 40 meg hard drives. Emacs ran on that hardware. Heck, X11 with Emacs inside an xterm ran.

So you're just mindlessly propagating decades-old hand-me-down bullshit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:50

>>20
In the 1980's people had Unix workstations with just a few megabytes of memory. I didn't use such machines at that time, but a similar situation echoed in the 1990's,

Why speaking about something which you have no first hand experience with?

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-20 13:55

>>20
You sound like some "wise old" fuddy duddy trying to impress us kids with your "knowledge". Whatever. Go run off and repair another computer.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:58

>>22
go scrub another midget you fucking faggot toilet

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:59

>>23
I wasn't talking to you. Now hush up and go serve another customer.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:01

What's wrong with just using a plain text editor? I've been programming with microsoft .txt files for years.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:04

>>25
Because some of us set our editors such that variables tabs and everything else has spaces. Also, I don't want to have to reformat my code if someone writes shit in a different editor.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:05

>>25
Also, I like to be able to bookmark parts of my code.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:07

>>26
*such that variable has tabs*

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:10

>>25
Nothing wrong. Actually, you're just a sane and productive guy.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:15

>>29
The fact that you think there is nothing wrong with what >>25 is doing only reinforces my belief that you're too fucking stupid to ever become a computer programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:19

>>30
Hi there, Wal Mart greeter!

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:25

>>24
fuck off and die you cock sucking faggot storm, die in a fucking fire you little midget sucking nigger fag

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:32

>>31
That's about the extent of you mentality. Cripes. Again, you're stupid. And again, you have no possible future as a computer programmer.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:34

>>21

Ah, but although I didn't use those machines at that time, I did get my hands on some of them some years later. Very comparable performance to later model PC's.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:35

>>34
You should have said that in the first place you idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:35

>>33
nice doubles and kill yourself faggot

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:36

>>36
So do you use microsoft .txt files when writing your toy programs?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:38

>>22

It's a plain fact (confusing to you, I know) that Emacs was perfectly usable on machines with way, way smaller memories and way slower CPU's than what low-end consumer hardware has today. Even pocket, mobile hardware.

Try putting an extra level of quotes around "knowledge", and use fuddy duddy a few more times, and you might have the start of some counter-argument, ya never know.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:41

>>38
You're a moron. I don't argue with morons.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:20

>>39
go scrub another torah you mental goy

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:20

THE MENTAL MIDGETIZATION OF KODAK, THREAD OVER

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:59

>>41
If it ain't Kodak, it's a mental midget.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:00

>>42
Kodak is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:07

>>43
Go scrub another kodak you mental VIPPIN.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:32

ONE WORD, THE FORCED UNEMPLOYMENT OF KODAK, THREAD OVER

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:34

>>45
FUK

WHERE IS THE C?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:35

>>46
being raped by FrozenVoid

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:57

>>40
bahbahahaahahah

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:13

Emacs is a disgusting mess, but it's a very comfortable mess after a few hundred lines of elisp, and at least it has a borderline-usable shell, so I don't need to use a silly emulator for a '70s dumb terminal to issue operating system commands. I'm not that much into retrocomputing.

Acme is much nicer, but it's an ergonomic nightmare without a real three-button mouse, and I only have one available at home.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:20

>>43
1. If it ain't Kodak, it's a mental midget.
2. Kodak is toilet.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:04

>>39

Of course! Why would you argue against morons, when you can dive faster for a deeper low by arguing against facts?

fact is, whatever you think of the usability of Emacs, the resource argument against Emacs is obsolete by at least 20 years.

you're just regurgitating some crap written on usenet 20 years ago.

eight megabytes and constantly swaping. hahahahahaha ... yawn

eventually mallocs all core and swap. hahahahaha ... yawn

This one is much better (moving away from the resource use jabs):

Escape Meta Alt Ctrl Shift

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:47

>>51
Excrement Meconium Ass Crap Shit

Emacs is unusable.

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:02

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:10

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:12

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 6:28

5 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 8:07

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 8:27

7 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 9:02

8 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 9:07

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:42

10 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:53

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:06

12 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:09

13 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:10

14 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:11

15 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:12

16 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:31

17 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:38

18 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:44

19 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:45

20 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:47

21 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:50

22 Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-20 13:55

23 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:58

24 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:59

25 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:01

26 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:04

27 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:05

28 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:07

29 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:10

30 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:15

31 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:19

32 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:25

33 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:32

34 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:34

35 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:35

36 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:35

37 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:36

38 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:38

39 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:41

40 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:20

41 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:20

42 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:59

43 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:00

44 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:07

45 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:32

46 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:34

47 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:35

48 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:57

49 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:13

50 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:20

51 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:04

52 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:47

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:02

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:10

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 4:12

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 6:28

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 8:07

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 8:27

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 9:02

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 9:07

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:42

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:53

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:06

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:09

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:10

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:11

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:12

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:31

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:38

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:44

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:45

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:47

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:50

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-20 13:55

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:58

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:59

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:01

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:04

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:05

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:07

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:10

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:15

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:19

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:25

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:32

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:34

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:35

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:35

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:36

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:38

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:41

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:20

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:20

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:59

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:00

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:07

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:32

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:34

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:35

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:57

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:13

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:20

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:04

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:47