←back to thread

538 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.954s | source
Show context
klntsky ◴[] No.44358290[source]
It is sad that we have to know how to configure tens of small utilities just to be productive. I ended up using emacs with some packages that I configure minimally, after spending a few hundreds of hours on ricing the shell, file managers, tmux, etc
replies(3): >>44358353 #>>44358366 #>>44358801 #
agentultra ◴[] No.44358353[source]
Emacs is why I can't go back to terminals.
replies(2): >>44358546 #>>44358955 #
iLemming ◴[] No.44358955[source]
With Emacs one can do some shit in terminal that otherwise would just sound absurd. Like

- in Emacs' Eshell, one can pipe results in and out of buffers, e.g., you can run a command, then pipe it to grep/ripgrep, then pipe the results into a buffer (without any intermediate files).

- Conversely, you can read a buffer content and pipe it into a command.

- Or you can do simple calculations, you just need to use prefix notation e.g. `* 3 42` or `(* 2 pi)`.

- You can run regular emacs functions, like `dired .` or `magit-status`, `find-file ~/foo` or `(calendar)`.

- Or you can use Emacs vars and functions directly, e.g., `cd $org-directory`, or `cd (projectile-project-root)`, or `mkdir (format-time-string "backup-%Y%m%d")`

- You can absolutely delegate some (potentially long running) tasks to run in an outside terminal. I wrote this command eshell-send-detached-input-to-kitty¹, it uses Kitty Terminal's socket control feature.

There are integrations that you can only dream about, one recent example is John Wiegley (creator of Eshell) and Karthik (author of gptel package) having to experiment with piping things in and out of LLMs.

Sure, the backwards is also possible - you can emacs from a terminal, but terminaling from inside emacs is way more cooler.

___

¹ https://github.com/agzam/.doom.d/blob/main/modules/custom/sh...

replies(2): >>44361105 #>>44363453 #
1. ◴[] No.44361105[source]