Emacs and the mouse: A modest defense of the rodent

Keyboard vs Mouse Efficiency & Flow

• Several commenters stress that “faster” is partly about perceived smoothness and maintaining mental context, not just stopwatch time.
• Some find keyboard navigation clearly faster for discrete commands (save, search, project navigation), while others find mouse-driven scrolling, jumping to distant code, and window selection more fluid.
• The famous Apple quote claiming mousing is faster is called dated and likely context‑ and task‑specific; people cite newer critiques arguing those studies were weak.
• One researcher in the thread argues: mouse excels at continuous actions (scrolling, drawing) where movement directly maps to progress; keyboard excels at discrete, composable steps with consistent, reproducible results.
• There’s broad agreement that switching devices (keyboard ↔ mouse) incurs friction, but disagreement about how costly that is in practice.

Emacs Workflows and Mouse Usage

• Some long‑time users disabled the mouse early to force keyboard mastery and now rarely feel a need for pointing. Others regret avoiding graphical Emacs and now rely on mouse support heavily.
• Common mouse uses in Emacs: smooth scrolling, precise cursor placement, rectangular selection, multiple cursors, context menus, hover docs, and Ctrl‑click “go to definition.”
• Strokes/gesture packages divide opinion: some see them as promising for infrequent but complex actions; others report poor recognition and prefer programmable mouse buttons or keyboard shortcuts.
• Many emphasize Emacs’ flexibility: it works entirely from TTY, fully GUI with rich mouse integration, or mixed.

Customization, Power‑User Culture, and Yak Shaving

• One camp prefers near‑defaults and avoiding endless tweaking, arguing it improves focus on actual work.
• Another sees configuration and small automation (e.g., one‑keystroke generation of rich GitHub links) as part of the job of programming, even if each tweak yields only tiny efficiency gains.
• There’s some pushback against the stereotype that Emacs users customize for its own sake; they frame it as deliberate investment.

Pointing Hardware and Ergonomics

• Discussion covers mice, trackpads, trackpoints, and trackballs.
• Central touchpads and laptop layouts are praised for reducing reach and making mixed input more ergonomic; others dislike laptop keyboards and prefer external split/ergo keyboards with integrated pointing devices.
• Open‑source, firmware‑configurable peripherals (mice and keyboards) are highlighted for enabling layered bindings and deep integration with editors.

Acme and Alternative Interaction Models

• Some strongly endorse trying Acme for a month, claiming it transforms how you think about mouse‑centric editing and plumbing between tools.
• Others question its practicality: missing or weaker modern features (LSP, rich macros), scaling limits of filesystem‑as‑API ideas, and reliance on clicking to execute actions, which can be error‑prone.
• A few would like an Acme‑like experience inside Emacs to get its mouse‑driven fluidity without leaving their existing ecosystem.

Remote Editing and Environment Constraints

• Emacs’ ability to run with full keyboard workflows over plain terminals (e.g., on HPC servers without a window system) is contrasted with VS Code’s reliance on remote extensions and a separate GUI client.
• Some see remote GUI editing as fine; others prefer editing directly on the target machine for simplicity and perceived security.

Cultural / Meta Observations

• Commenters caution against purity: insisting on “no mouse ever” or “mouse only” is seen as counterproductive; many mix tools depending on task (exploratory vs focused coding).
• There’s concern that fewer new programmers touch‑type or adopt keyboard‑heavy editors, especially as voice and AI‑assisted workflows spread, though others accept this as an inevitable shift.
• The keyboard vs mouse debate is described as evergreen; the consensus here is that both are complementary, with best choice depending on task, hardware, and personal preference.