Even more batteries included with Emacs

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Emacs’ built‑in tools like Dired, Org mode and various “batteries included” features are praised for making it an exceptionally powerful, extensible environment, but many users note that this power comes with a steep learning curve and occasional instability when combining large numbers of third‑party packages or using distributions like Doom and Spacemacs. Several comments argue that starting from a near‑vanilla setup leads to a more stable, maintainable configuration than relying on heavy distros, while others counter that curated distributions are essential for a good out‑of‑the‑box experience. Comparisons with Neovim and VS Code highlight trade‑offs between stability, ecosystem churn and extensibility, and some see emerging LLM integrations as a way to mitigate Emacs’ complexity by generating or debugging Emacs Lisp on demand.

Dired and file management

  • Some long-time Emacs users still find Dired confusing; others describe it as their primary file manager on all platforms.
  • wdired (writable Dired) is widely praised: edit filenames as text, then save to apply renames; works well with rectangles, multiple cursors, spell-check, and shell commands.
  • Discoverability and keybinding-heavy UX are pain points; several mention transient/context menus and alternative UIs like dirvish and sunrise-commander.
  • Specific feature wishes include better directory comparison / ediff integration and more intuitive sorting/operations.

Stability, configs, and distributions

  • Strong split in experience: some say Emacs (often vanilla or lightly customized) almost never breaks, even across major versions; others report frequent breakage.
  • Many problems are attributed to large “distributions” (Spacemacs, Doom, LazyVim, etc.) and complex configs where packages interact in unexpected ways.
  • Users note that understanding “the Emacs way” and building configs incrementally reduces breakage; others still find random incompatibilities and bitrot frustrating.
  • Some recommend tools like use-package (now bundled) and borg; others think newer built‑in Git package support makes such tools less necessary.

Emacs vs Neovim/Vim/VS Code

  • Emacs and Neovim are compared frequently. Neovim is seen as faster-moving with more ecosystem churn (multiple LSPs, package managers), though some say it’s stabilizing and adding more into core.
  • Some feel Neovim has “JavaScript-style” churn; others dispute this and praise recent core integrations.
  • Opinion that Emacs occasionally adopts leading community packages into core (eglot, use-package, themes), providing a stable baseline, whereas Neovim historically relied more on external plugins.
  • Several users simply prefer “a good text editor” and find Neovim or VS Code easier than embracing Emacs’s full Lisp platform.

LLMs and Emacs

  • Experiences are mixed: some say LLMs are “a godsend” for Emacs Lisp and config work; others report consistent hallucinations and broken configs.
  • A few describe sophisticated workflows where an LLM pilots a running Emacs instance for end‑to‑end testing and debugging, exploiting Emacs’s introspection.
  • There is interest in tighter Emacs–LLM integration (e.g., GPT/Claude modes, agent-shell), but also frustration with unreliable suggestions.

Emacs philosophy and adoption

  • Many insist Emacs is not just an editor but a Lisp platform for building personal tooling; mass adoption or VS Code‑style UX is not seen as a core goal.
  • Others argue that better out‑of‑the‑box defaults and ditching “vanilla-only” attitudes are essential if Emacs wants broader usage.
  • Discoverability vs learning investment: several say Emacs is fully discoverable if you learn its help system; others still see a steep barrier.