Re: Emacs Modular Configuration: the preferable way.

[Arthur Miller]

Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 6:06 PM Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 2:40 PM Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> * Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> [2021-06-21 04:51]:
>> >> > Dear all,
>> >> >
>> >> > I noticed the following instructions/tools for Emacs modular 
>> >> > configuration:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/DotEmacsModular
>> >> > https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/DotEmacsStructuring
>> >> > https://github.com/emacs-jp/init-loader
>> >> >
>> >> > There are so many ways to do this. What's the preferable way?
>> >>
>> >> Whatever you wish and want. You can feel if you need multiple files or
>> >> not. Solutions are very individuals.
>> >
>> > For now, my demand is as follows:
>> >
>> > 1. Use straight and use-package as the package manager.
>>
>> Why? Some special reason?
>
> For working/dealing with all packages, regardless that they are hosted
> by Emacs package repos or not. Straight works with git perfectly, and

Which opens for a vulnerability which was discussed on emacs-help some
few months ago. Of course it is  your personal choice what you will
download and use, but I would be very careful to just download stuff
from git without looking at it first.

>> Why? Just for sake of calling it or you have some better reason?
>
> Same as above.

I get that "granularity" you speak above without need for 3k+ lines of
code :).

>>
>> > 3. Better granular control based on different major mode, popular
>> > programming languages.
>> >
>>
>> You don't need straight, nor any special package for this, it is how
>> you structure your code. Check here, granularity is per package (mostly):
>>
>> https://github.com/amno1/.emacs.d/blob/main/init.org
>>
>> Nothing external required, just built-in stuff that comes out of the
>> box. Package.el is used to fetch packages from elpa/melpa and few
>> simple macros to save some typing, not even use-package needed and I
>> think it is pretty structured init file. I can even configure
>> early-init.el as it was a hook, which lets me structure entire init
>> process in one place.
>
> From my experience, package.el's package fetch mechanism/speed is
> fragile and very poor by comparison
> with straight.

Really? Does straight.el implemnt it's own network stack? I thought it
uses Emacs facilities, same as package.el. Do you have any numbers to
back up your opinion?

Since you are so experienced and already have made your mind I don't see
the point of even asking. Especially since author of package.el have
already done all the "thinking" for you, at least as he puts it on the
project page:

"straight.el frees you from needing to think about package management,
since I already did all the thinking to figure how best to design
everything."

:D I just have no comments on that one.