Re: Time to consider/try Helm?

[YUE Daian]

On 2018-11-01 20:27, Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> wrote:
> On 2018-10-31, at 12:23, YUE Daian <sheepduke@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ivy can do these things, too.
>>
>> Sure. And dramatically after I tried Ivy since yesterday, I have already
>> uninstalled helm...
>
> Wow, that escalated quickly.
>
You know, since everyone here recommends Ivy I was really curious about
it. And after trying it I think it is really good :-D

>> Thank you guys, for helping me find a new tool that suits my taste more.
>
> As someone who used both Helm and Ivy, could you summarize the key
> differences?  I don't think I'm going to switch to Helm;-), but I'm just
> curious.
>
Sure.

Both are excellent and I think the choice between them more likes
personal taste.

- Complexity. Helm defines a set of operation logic while Ivy completes
  your habit in Emacs life. For example by default <tab> is used as
  invoke-action instead of performing completion in Helm. You have to
  configure much to make it behave in the way you like.
  
- Helm is more integrated. It contains literally every single bit of
  Emacs functions, e.g. calculator. On the contrary Ivy is more
  distributed thus feels more light-weight. IMO it is really funny to
  integrate calculator in Helm.
  
- Helm uses buffer to display its information, while Ivy uses
  mini-buffer. This may lead to very different experience. Sometimes C-g
  cannot fully quit current operation in Helm because the usage of
  window. This problem never happens in my (limited) Ivy life.

- Speed. My brief feeling is that Helm is slower most of the time, but
  helm-ag rocks counsel-ag really hard. Also when dealing with very
  large repo, helm-projectile is far more faster than
  counsel-projectile. But maybe it is because I am using wrong regex
  engine, I am not sure.

These are just some most significant feelings I have after switched to
Ivy. I believe there are more along with my Ivy life...

>>>> I think the biggest change helm brings is that it uses buffer instead of
>>>> mini-buffer to display its results.
>>>
>>> How is that beneficial?  (I don't claim it isn't - I just don't know
>>> what are the pluses.)
>>
>> Here "change" is a neutral word.
>>
>> Some people like it, some people don't.
>>
>> Some people say that using an individual buffer may display more
>> information, such as file size, directory etc for buffer list.
>>
>> IMHO most information is not really needed (by me).
>>
>> So personally I could accept it, but I don't miss it after switching to
>> Ivy.
>
> I see.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- 
> Marcin Borkowski
> http://mbork.pl