Re: Changes for emacs 28

[Ergus]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:37:58PM +0000, Gregory Heytings wrote:
> > > > The defaults of emacs are really, really bad. And making the 
> > > > whole thing like what you get with DOOM Emacs is going to cost 
> > > > you lots of hours reading documentation and experimenting with 
> > > > your configuration.
> > >
> > > That's just wrong.  If you want Doom Emacs, you just have to type 
> > > two commands:
> > >
> > > git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hlissner/doom-emacs ~/.emacs.d
> > >
> > > ~/.emacs.d/bin/doom install
> > >
> > > The first commands takes two seconds to complete, the second one 
> > > about five minutes (it downloads and compiles about 200 MB of 
> > > code, fonts, icons, ...).  Then you start Emacs, and you're done.  
> > > That's clearly not "lots of hours".
> >
> > I think it refers to convert vanilla emacs in a "doomed like" 
> > experience.

Sorry, you don't get the point and I don't waste more time on this.

> I don't understand.  The two commands above do exactly that.
>
> Or does "convert vanilla emacs in a "doomed like" experience" means 
> "without using Doom Emacs, by doing everything by oneself"?  In that 
> case it's not wrong, it is ridiculous.  Almost as ridiculous as if he 
> had written "it would have taken me more time to develop Emacs by 
> myself than to develop Visual Studio by myself".
If a software we develop require a complex layer like doom (which could
be seen as a big set of patches) to be "attractive" for many users. But
also if there are many layer many of them doing the similar changes
again and again. Yes our software is missing something.

> BTW, I find that many of the defaults of Visual Studio are really bad, 
> and I'm pretty sure that making the whole thing like what you get with 
> vanilla Emacs would cost me lots of hours.  Can I conclude something 
> from this? Clearly not.

There is not such a thing like the "perfect" default. But we can learn
some things from similar newer software around. Sometimes the feeling is
that we don't change things not because they are fine, but because we
are used to how they are and we reject anything that other editors are
doing just because they are not us (the opposite is also an error;
trying to do everything the others are doing).

Any way there is a sort of consensus about the profiles No more
discussion is needed.