Skip Navigation
Linux @lemmy.ml throwawayish @lemmy.ml

Looking for input regarding finding an IDE (spoilers: involves Emacs and Vim)

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/9648279

I would like to premise this with the following:

  • The best approach is probably just testing out each and every editor that interests me until I've found what works best for me.
    • However, I wonder to what degree a test as such would be representative when the likes of Emacs and (Neo)Vim are considered; both of which are known for being a life time learning process.
  • I don't literally expect Emacs or (Neo)Vim to be drop-in replacements for any IDE. Some of the most basic IDE-functions are absent by default and some (perhaps more advanced) functionality might simply not be attainable at all.
  • I am not interested in anything that remotely resembles a flame war. The community at Lemmy has so far been very kind to me; let's keep it that way 😜.

Motivation

I've had experiences with Atom, VS Code and some of Jetbrains' IDEs like Pycharm and Rider. While I've been generally content with all of them, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth whenever I'm forced to switch IDEs because their lifetimes and/or lack of extensibility doesn't allow me to responsibly continue using them. As such, I'm interested in a long time investment that will grow as I will. Both Emacs and (Neo)Vim have passed the test of time and I honestly don't think they'll cease to exist in the upcoming decades, that's why I would love to start using either one of them.

Furthermore, Vi(m) keybindings seem to be somewhat ubiquitous and almost any IDE offers some support. As such, improving my Vi(m)-game should only net-positive my productivity (at least eventually). Also, fluency will benefit me whenever I'm remote accessing any random server as they will always have Vi(m) installed. Thankfully, this doesn't force me to use Vi(m) (or Neovim) just yet, because Emacs offers with Evil perhaps the single best Vi(m) implementation; outside of native Vi(m)*.

My setup:

  • I'm on a custom image of uBlue using their startingpoint as template. For those unaware; an oversimplification would be that it is Fedora Silverblue with some extras.
  • As such, I would like to have my developer environments local and have used Distrobox to that extent using steps similar to the ones outlined over here. But I'm not married to that specific way of utilizing local containers. So please feel free to recommend me something that's at least as good.
  • If I go for Emacs, then I will definitely rely on Evil.
  • If possible, I would like to use it for C#, Python and Rust. Furthermore, I engage in editing Bash scripts, Dockerfiles, Linux config files, texts written in Latex and/or Markdown and other files written in Nix or JSON. As both are very extensible, I don't expect any issues, but I might be wrong.

Questions:

  • First of all, does it make sense for me to only consider these two?
  • Can the split between Vim and Neovim be interpreted as the first schism and as such be a forebode for what's yet to come?
  • Google Trends suggests that Neo(Vim) is ever-popular. On the other hand; not only is Emacs relatively less popular, but its popularity seems to be slightly declining. Should this worry me regarding their long-time future? Especially considering that a thriving community is literally the lifeline for both of them.
  • For those that have used both extensively, which one do you prefer (if any) and why?
  • While I understand that the power of both of them lies primarily in how one can literally make them behave however suits their workflow best. Therefore, the use of premade configs and/or starter kits/distributions should (ideally) only be used either temporary or as a starting point. However, at this point, they provide a decent showcase of what each 'platform' has to offer. So:
67

You're viewing a single thread.

67 comments

  • Hi. I've briefly shared my experience with neo(vim) and emacs here. Going into all the details would require writing an encyclopedia because they're both so vast topics. I think the main factor of choice would be to know if you prefer to build your own perfect tool with just what you need and expand as you go (i.e. neovim) or just have a do-it-all ready tool right out of the box (i.e. emacs). Both will require some coding and maintenance anyway. In that regards, I personaly found neovim to be easier and more reliable but mileage may vary based on your needs and preferences. After years using vim 20 years ago, I made a break. Then I used emacs for a year before eventually going back to neovim. I would certainly recommend it vs vim and I would suggest starting from scratch (no lazyvim or similar) so you clearly understand how things work. This will certainly be useful in the long run anyway and that'll eventually save you time. Note that I've also tried welcome screens (startup) but really couldn't justify its use so I removed it after few months.

    • Hi!

      I’ve briefly shared my experience with neo(vim) and emacs here.

      Thanks for sharing that! I've just read through it and it was a very interesting read. Would you mind elaborating upon the following statement?

      "the lack of uniformity across plugins coding which sometimes created some conflicts"

      I think the main factor of choice would be to know if you prefer to build your own perfect tool with just what you need and expand as you go (i.e. neovim) or just have a do-it-all ready tool right out of the box (i.e. emacs).

      That is indeed something that concerns me regarding Emacs. Like being able to surf on the internet or using it as a email client isn't quite what I expect out of my IDE 😅. I guess the extensibility should allow 'minimal' installations, but this is something I should read more into. Thanks for pointing that out!

      • My statement about the lack of uniformity was in regards to several issues I had with some plugins in emacs. Even my friend who codes his own plugins for emacs was of no help because 1) there is too many approaches and dependencies to write plugins, 2) there was no solution. Also, there are too many plugins to serve the same purpose and I found it difficult (compared to neovim) to figure out the difference between them. At least twice I also experienced conflicts between plugins. Finally, the level of customization was also less granular than what offers neovim. Again, I can see why emacs is appealing to some. It's just not for me. As I like to say, the number of options available in the Linux world is one of the most beautiful things that makes this OS the only one you can tweak perfectly to any user's needs and preference.

        I would add that neovim and emacs both have a steep learning curve but I personaly found the level of support and core and plugins documentation for neovim more accessible, readable, and better organized.

        I completely share your vision about what an IDE should be doing. I'm old school and adhere to the "do one thing but do it right" philosophy. Also, I hate relying on one tool for several needs because if anything goes wrong it has multiple impacts. As a side note, I use neomutt as my email client and you can nicely couple neovim to it to write your emails ;)

        • I appreciate your input. Thank you!

          Also, there are too many plugins to serve the same purpose and I found it difficult (compared to neovim) to figure out the difference between them.

          Interesting.

          Finally, the level of customization was also less granular than what offers neovim.

          Very interesting. I'd love to hear more about this. Could you elaborate?

          I would add that neovim and emacs both have a steep learning curve but I personaly found the level of support and core and plugins documentation for neovim more accessible, readable, and better organized.

          I wouldn't be surprised if this is in part attributable to the fact that Emacs is both an older project and is generally-speaking a bigger and/or more capable piece of software.

          I completely share your vision about what an IDE should be doing. I’m old school and adhere to the “do one thing but do it right” philosophy. Also, I hate relying on one tool for several needs because if anything goes wrong it has multiple impacts.

          I've often heard Emacs users pose the argument that Emacs as an Elisp interpreter does just one thing. It's just that this single thing allows the myriad of functionality it offers. So in that sense comparing it to a terminal/console seems more apt than comparing it to a text editor. I wonder what you think of that argument.

          As a side note, I use neomutt as my email client and you can nicely couple neovim to it to write your emails ;)

          Hehe, that's cool! Currently I'm really happy with Thunderbird so I don't expect to move away anytime soon, but I'll keep it in mind.

          • I've often heard Emacs users pose the argument that Emacs as an Elisp interpreter does just one thing. It's just that this single thing allows the myriad of functionality it offers. So in that sense comparing it to a terminal/console seems more apt than comparing it to a text editor. I wonder what you think of that argument.

            I only used emacs for a year so I may be wrong but speaking only about how I used it and my current workflow I don't see a difference. Looking at the usage (and not the code), my very first impression of emacs was that it's acting as a terminal multiplexer which I was used to and so I liked this aspect. Anytime you need to do something that goes beyond the tasks of an IDE (calendar, email...) you switch window/panel (I've always been confused with the specific emacs terminology). That's exactly what I'm doing with Tmux where I run neovim and call other apps with a single keybinding. Then I can freely switch from one to another, close one, recall it in the state I've closed it...
            Again, this is related to the philosophies of emacs and neovim (i.e. do-it-all or do one thing). While neovim is "only" an IDE, emacs goes beyond, and for me this is not a negative criticism of either app. You build a tool with the coding language you need to implement some functionalities. In that sense, to compare apple to apple, emacs has to be compared to neovim coupled to a terminal multiplexer.

            Hehe, that's cool! Currently I'm really happy with Thunderbird so I don't expect to move away anytime soon, but I'll keep it in mind.

            I used Thunderbird as well and did the switch mainly to allow me to achieve the workflow described above. I do most of my tasks in the terminal. Neomutt would certainly be one additional layer of complexity in your transition to an IDE, unless you chose to use emacs for your emails. Actually configuring emacs as an email client or going with neomutt is pretty similar. But at the end - and this is an example of the higher level of granularity I mentioned earlier - neomutt is more customizable.
            Talking about the level of customization of the IDE functionality only, the plugins I use offer more configuration options in neovim as well.

            Orgmode is also one (the?) big star player in emacs and neovim is trying to attract some users by developing a similar thing here or there but this is not something that would benefit to my workflow. This is maybe one of the reason why people choose emacs vs neovim and why I could quit emacs easily. Going back to the coding language, you can see that the use of lua opens new doors to the original vim. What I appreciate though is that you don't have to implement any features if you don't use them in neovim so I can keep my system limited to my needs. This is also seen as a bad thing by some when you start because emacs is capable of quite a lot with a fresh installation while neovim can barely open itself ;)

            Overall we're all sharing personal experience so no generalization should be extrapolated from single visions and I'm aware of my own bias and preference for singl- task, lightweight, fast tool.

67 comments