http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=245249


in reply to Re: Re: Re: Emacs, Elisp and PerlMonks
in thread Emacs, Elisp and PerlMonks

No, it does not have "lisp built in". It is lisp. Emacs is a lisp engine that happens to let you edit text with a bajillion (or more) modes for different filetypes and applications.

Emacs is not for kids...its for people who are serious about editing text.

Seriously.

If all you need is a GUI application that lets you type text, then you aren't serious about manipulating text.

  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Emacs, Elisp and PerlMonks

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Emacs, Elisp and PerlMonks (vim++)
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Mar 23, 2003 at 12:02 UTC
    Emacs is a lisp engine that happens to let you edit text with a bajillion (or more) modes for different filetypes and applications.
    The lisp engine is really useful indeed - now if it had a good editor, that would be perfect. ;)

    Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Emacs, Elisp and PerlMonks
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 23, 2003 at 22:10 UTC
    If all you need is a GUI application that lets you type text, then you aren't serious about manipulating text.

    Ah, the Slackware/Gentoo argument. Yes... I remember these:

    h4x0r: slackware/gentoo r0x0rs - RedHate is for n00bs me: why? h4x0r: because it's not 1337 me: why? h4x0r: because serious h4x0rs use slackware/gentoo me: what can they do with it that I can't do with RedHat h4x0r: ummm... me: spending 3 hours of tedious (yet straightforward) time installing +doesn't make something useful. h4x0r: serious h4x0rs use slackware/gentoo me: go away

    Same deal. As for "serious text editing" I use Perl, hit up cpan, write the scripts as reuseable components, and laugh at everyone else like so: ha haha ha.

      If you want to spend 6 hours debugging a problem when one eventually crops up, because you have neither any idea how the underlying configuration works nor which layer of the config tools built on top of that to look at.

      Besides, what do you mean by "installing"? The initial system install? That's something you do once, and given Gentoo or Debian, probably never again (as you can seamlessly up/downgrade at will). If you mean software in general, thpfffft. emerge program-name is all it usually takes on Gentoo - and a bit of waiting possibly. On Debian it's apt-get install program-name and you're done.

      Slackware is much less comfortable, but when I'm setting up a server I know what I want, and what I certainly do not want is pretty GUI tools (or an entire X server and all of its stability problems for that matter) on the box. I certainly don't have fancy graphics cards, fancy "multimedia devices" or anything of that sort to justify a clickety cute installer with lots of doodads.

      Have you had a look at Knoppix, perchance? It's a full fledged Debian live filesystem that boots off of CD and detects your hardware automatically, and with great success according to most everyone I heard talking about it. Comes with a KDE3 desktop (if you want such a thing), OpenOffice, Mozilla and lots of other stuff (they squeezed over 1GB uncompressed onto the ISO). And you can install it on HD and have an actual Debian install ready. Doesn't get easier than that, even with RedHat.

      Not to mention these distros are not full of bloated scripts that bog down the machine and spiked with repair-myself-automatically mechanisms that just get in your way.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

        If you want to spend 6 hours debugging a problem when one eventually crops up, because you have neither any idea how the underlying configuration works nor which layer of the config tools built on top of that to look at.

        I'm having trouble seeing how this militates for any distribution over any other1. Basically, what your complaint comes down to is that it pays to know how configuration files work. Apparently you think RH discourages learning how to use them, while more barebones distributions such as Debian and Gentoo encourage ... well, ok, demand, but I won't put that word in your mouth ... that kind of learning. You know what? If you use RH, you can do it all by editing text files if you want to. You don't have to use any of the custom tools they provide, whether X or curses based. If you want to run a server for a serious purpose, you're remiss if you don't do this anyway. You're also likely remiss if you don't compile all the interesting bits from source.

        Anonymonk was right in the first place when he pointed out that the mere fact that something takes longer to install doesn't make it better. The mere fact that it takes more knowledge to install doesn't make it better either. If you're arguing that distributions that don't impose extra Darwinian overhead2 ought not to be used or are for that reason worse than distributions which do, then I don't see the point so clearly. Easier gets it more accepted; more knowledgeable admins makes it more secure. Both have a role to play. And the already knowledgable can use both effectively.

        1 I'm also failing to see why it should take any longer to figure out why something isn't working under RH than under, say Gentoo, provided one is familiar with the system in question. Even if it's true that it takes RH users longer to debug problems, that is more likely to result from a difference in general skill level than from any inherent defect in the system they're using.

        2 if this characterization strikes you as rhetorically slanted, read it the other way: some distributions remove Darwinian overhead while others do not.

        If not P, what? Q maybe?
        "Sidney Morgenbesser"

        I certainly don't have fancy graphics cards, fancy "multimedia devices" or anything of that sort to justify a clickety cute installer with lots of doodads.

        Then you can install in text mode, it's still easier.

        I really don't think the distro makes much of a different though, I end up tweaking them to the point where it's even hard to call it "redhat" or "debian" anymore. Same kernel, same compiler, same GUI, same apps. The only difference is installer, package management, and little extras (like the redhat config tools). Barely even worth discussing IMHO.

        There is also something to be said for binaries that are compiled (and optimized) specifically for the platform (architecture, really) that they're going to be run on (which is a big complaint of *BSD ports users against Red Hat type stock packages).