Workflows hard to reproduce outside Emacs?Hi, I'm conducting an inquiry to outline, with evidence,…
انتشار: 2026/08/12 00:07 UTCدریافت: 2026/08/14 13:51 UTCآخرین مشاهده: 2026/08/14 13:51 UTC
Workflows hard to reproduce outside Emacs?Hi, I'm conducting an inquiry to outline, with evidence, how the tooling landscape has evolved over time.I'm a casual Emacs user myself. I find it cool, but as soon as I step into something a bit beyond the ordinary, I often have to rely on specialized tools that can achieve it in a blink of an eye. This seems to be a shared sentiment, and potentially one of the things limiting adoption, along with the cognitive overload caused by the sheer richness of the tool and its ecosystem. But that may also be on me and my own skill gaps.Since it's hard to sell Emacs to someone, especially because the key concepts it brings to the table are arguably unfamiliar to most people, even IT folks, I'd like to gauge the situation by inverting the process: what are the workflows that would be very hard to reproduce without Emacs?Once I collect enough examples, another group will try to figure out alternative ways to accomplish the same tasks with their own tools.So, to be clear, we'll start with a problem, and various tools and their respective communities will attempt to solve it with what they know, then we'll evaluate how difficult it was. Finally, I'll build a matrix comparing everything.So, give me your best shots. The results will be published around Christmas in a well known journal in Europe, so I'll be back! redd.it/1vlxuwt@r_emacs
تاریخچه بازدید مشاهدهشده
حدود 0 بازدید تازه در ساعت در این نمونهپستهای تلگرام — /r/emacs
Org-draw: Drawing inside org-mode using tl;drawyoutu.be/04zbf-tosNQhttps://redd.it/1vpon…
Magit Ricing?preview.redd.it/t1owu3yvkmjh1.png?width=9… really starting to like Magit from a functionality standpoint, but I hate to say it—it’s ugly. It’s probably the better choice for me practically, especially since I’m already using Emacs, but I really like the way Lazygit looks and feels.What I especially like about Lazygit is the panel-based layout. Files, branches, commits, diffs, etc. are visually separated into their own areas, which makes the interface feel much cleaner and easier to scan than having everything in one continuous buffer.Has anyone riced or customized Magit to get closer to that kind of look? I’m not necessarily trying to recreate Lazygit exactly, but I’d love stronger visual separation between sections and more of that clean, organized panel/dashboard feel.redd.it/1vphmxv@r_emacs
A Tour of Magit's Status InterfaceI just wrote a post about Magit's status screen, focusing on why it's powerful rather than just saying it is, I've always found the "why" gets asserted more than explained. It's written to be approachable for non-Emacs folks. Planning follow-ups on staging/committing and cherry-pick/rebase.For those who have been using Git CLI, what workflow did Magit make so painless you now take it for granted?heiwiper.com/posts/magit-status-tour/http…
Has anyone gotten org-display-remote-inline-images to work ?Found a post that says org-display-remote-inline-images only functional for TRAMP paths. Is this accurate ? I tried both 'cache and 'download options still getting "No images to display inline" Tried both with and without double brackets. (Local images work fine)emacs: 30.2 org mode : 9.7.11redd.it/1vpcccc@r_emacs
Gptel new interaction interface ?youtu.be/T9HSTSm7i5Mhttps://redd.it/1voxx…
Capture dotfiles using org-captureSince I discovered org mode, I always was balancing between using symlinks and org babel tangle to manage my configuration. Now I'm in point that work related items are org babel managed and system level config is symlinked, because, often tools write back to their files. Another reason why I did not go full on babel was that I don't like workflow:1. found file that requires backup2. copy file3. paste in to org mode4. fill all details5. tangle.But yesterday I was visited by GNU spirit and she gave mi this org-capture template that reduces adding new file to backup to C-c k (my capture prefix) b (backup) and then tangle that file to original place: * [[%(project-root (project-current))]] [[%(abbreviate-file-name (org-capture-get :original-file))][%(file-relative-name (org-capture-get :original-file) (project-root (project-current)))]] - repository :: [[%(project-root (project-current))]] - file :: [[%(abbreviate-file-name (org-capture-get :original-file))][%(file-relative-name (org-capture-get :original-file) (project-root (project-current)))]] #+header: :tangle %(abbreviate-file-name (org-capture-get :original-file)) #+begin_src %^{Language|shell|elixir|nix|python|elisp|fundamental|eshell|conf} %(with-temp-buffer (insert-file-contents (org-capture-get :original-file)) (buffer-string)) #+end_srcI cannot comprehend how simple it is and how I never realized I could do this. Two think I think would be nice in future: \- if only it can automatically group those captures by project, but thinking of creating project backup capture template and simply refile from capture buffer \- automatic detangle so I can get back changes written by tools to their files, but not all of them support comments and many of them don't patch but dump state to file, so probably unsolvable using build in tools, only by elisp scriptingI'm trying to avoid longer elisp scripting for now 😄 What do you think?redd.it/1vowo7f@r_emacs