Re: helm vs ido

[Thierry Volpiatto]

Thorsten Jolitz <tjolitz@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi List, 
>
> I used ido-everywhere and smex for quite a while now as a happy
> user. Recently I discovered helm as an impressive replacement for
> autocomplete. However, helm is so powerful it might replace ido, smex,
> regexp-builder and other useful libraries. 
>
> There are some aspects I really like about helm, but others not so much,
> e.g.:
>
> - how to get rid of helm-completion in the mini-buffer? In Ido, there is
>   C-f, but helm seems to follow more a bondage&submission approach with
>   no way out (or I'm just a new user and did not discover the
>   trick). C-x C-w (write-file) is a good example were completion gets in
>   your way. 

If you want to get rid of helm completion in e.g `write-file' when
`helm-mode' is enabled, and you want `write-file' use ido, customize
`helm-completing-read-handlers-alist':
Add write-file => ido.
Now when using C-x C-w you will have ido completion instead of helm
completion.

> - is ido-completion smarter than helm-completion? Somehow I have the
>   (obviously subjective) feeling that I reach the searched
>   buffer/file/command ... with less effort using Ido. One example might
>   be M-x w3m - with Ido its typing M-x w3 RET, with helm the basic w3m
>   command is not necessary the first choice and some navigation in the
>   completion buffer or some more typing is necessary. 

You are using the M-x version enabled with `helm-mode' which is the same
than vanilla emacs M-x but with helm interface.
Use `helm-M-x' instead.

> Right now I'm back to ido-everywhere, but on the other hand I miss
> helm-grep, helm-regexp and other amazing stuff this package offers. Do I
> simply have to study helm more deeply

Yes, probably.

> to make it replace all its predecessors without regrets, or are there
> actually use cases where ido et.al. are still better than helm?

-- 
Thierry
Get my Gnupg key:
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 59F29997