How I am deeply integrating Emacs

Tooling vs “sharpening the axe”

• Some argue that deeply tuning Emacs is like craftsmen maintaining tools: it reduces friction across many daily tasks (mail, feeds, coding) in one stable interface.
• Others warn this can become distraction: yak‑shaving configs, music, feeds, etc. may invade “thinking space” more than they sharpen it.
• Multiple people reject the idea that better tools alone produce “world‑class” results; motivation, practice, and skill are primary, tooling just removes obstacles.

Emacs as an Integrated Computing Environment

• Strong enthusiasm for Emacs as an alternative to the desktop/app metaphor: one programmable environment instead of many siloed GUIs.
• The Lisp core and composable commands are seen as changing the “big‑O” of workflow: a single feature (search, repeat, project navigation) applies everywhere rather than per‑app.
• Critics feel Emacs itself took a wrong fork (Elisp vs more general Lisps, idiosyncratic Org mode, monastic culture, weak team‑tooling story, poor security isolation).

Customization vs Convenience and Time

• Emacs suits people who enjoy tinkering and gradually shaping a personal environment; some report large long‑term productivity gains.
• Others, including developers, don’t want to spend scarce “decision/time budget” on editor configs; they prefer tools that “just work” with minimal options.
• Opinionated distros (Doom, Spacemacs) help beginners get a powerful setup quickly, but can obscure how Emacs works and feel rigid once users want to go off the happy path; several recommend eventually moving to a minimal, self‑understood config.

Keyboard, Mouse, and Ergonomics

• Many value Emacs for near‑total keyboard control, citing speed and reduced mouse‑related RSI; others say pure‑keyboard workflows can cause their own strain and that mixing inputs is healthier.
• Several downplay the “keyboard vs mouse” flamewar, emphasizing subjective comfort and the fact that editing speed is rarely the real bottleneck in programming.
• Ergonomic advice surfaces (split keyboards, using multiple modifier fingers, trackballs), but some call the “mouse is worse” narrative culturally entrenched rather than evidence‑based.

Window Management and EXWM

• Some dislike Emacs’ internal window/buffer model as a “WM inside a WM,” wishing all sub‑buffers were true OS‑level windows.
• EXWM fans enjoy living inside Emacs-as-window-manager, but others see single‑threaded Emacs as a bad fit: blocking calls can freeze the whole system.
• Suggestions include running multiple Emacs instances or delegating WM duties to an external process that consults Emacs but can operate independently when Emacs blocks.

Performance and Remote Work

• Recent Emacs versions are reported as fast enough for large files and big Org documents, with caveats around extremely long lines and some heavy operations or modes.
• TRAMP and blocking call-process are frequently cited pain points; some prefer running Emacs directly on remote machines via emacsclient -nw instead.

Org Mode, Capture, and “One Editor”

• Several describe elaborate low‑friction capture workflows (Org capture from anywhere, mobile dictation shortcuts, SMS→todo pipelines) as transformative for their note‑taking and GTD systems.
• Others find Org weird, team‑unfriendly, or prefer simpler formats (Markdown, Google Docs).
• A meta‑thread wonders why we keep reinventing editors instead of converging on a single, extensible core; the counterargument is that any “perfect” editor will be called bloated and spawn new alternatives.

Learning Emacs as an Environment

• Recommended on‑ramps: built‑in tutorial, Emacs’ self‑documentation (C-h k/f/v), “Mastering Emacs,” System Crafters videos, Emacs Rocks clips, and the EmacsWiki.
• Multiple heavy users advise: start vanilla, learn core concepts, then add only features you understand, so Emacs becomes a general programmable environment rather than “just another editor.”