… and that’s OK.

The Start of a Journey

You also might have gone through a phase of extensive search for the ULTIMATE VERY BESTEST TOOL for your first / next / hypothetical programming project.

To only find yourself at the middle of a battlefield.

Solutions are enumerated and compared. Everywhere you look, everybody seems to argue there is only one truth but not consensus is in sight.

You feel like you cannot proceed further until the conflict is resolved.

As far away as you look Emacs seems to be mentioned and compared against other “editors”.

But I dare say it’s unfair and reductive to consider Emacs as such.

The misconception

You’ll see it everywhere. This statement.

Emacs is an [extensible|free|customizable|bloated] text editor.

On blog posts, forums, Linux package descriptions, Wikipedia, emacs.sexy and even on the official site.

But the latter quickly rectifies with:

At its core is an interpreter for Emacs Lisp, a dialect of the Lisp programming language with extensions to support text editing.

Yeah, that seems more correct. But it resumes the implementation and not the function.

Everybody knows this Vim hooligan proverb:

Emacs is a great operating system, lacking only a decent editor.

And even though it’s humoristic (thus by design slightly incorrect) I’m more OK with this definition than with the “text editor” one.

The whys & hows

I guess that the main reason why people state that Emacs is (primarily) a text editor is to make it easier to grasp.

In fact it was not conceived as a text editor with extensibility as a feature.

Instead, Emacs was conceived as an extensible environment with text editing as a feature.

Even if this was originally a means to an end, this important design decision has allowed Emacs to evolve into something broader.

Proposal for a definition

Let’s attempt to define Emacs’ essence:

Emacs is a generic user-centric text manipulation environment.

“Wow, that looks like the definition of a text editor!”

OK, let’s explain this gibberish.

User-centric means Emacs is built around user interactions. It needs user input (commands) to perform any actions and the results of those actions are presented to the user (via side-effects).

Even something as simple as moving the cursor is modelized as a command side-effecting the operation.

Please also note that by text we target any character string, not necessarily “human-understandable words”. A more explicit term would be textual data.

User-driven actions consist of and are built upon the manipulation of said textual data.

Manipulation is a very broad term, and that’s because Emacs is very broad in its capabilities.

Indeed, it relies on generic APIs to interact with text. This abstraction allows it to interact with anything that “speaks” textual data (files, HTTP APIs, databases…).

In other words:

Emacs is a generic Man-Machine Interface for anything text.

"Wow, that still looks like the definition of an editor!"

Yes, but that’s also the the definition of a task planner, file browser, terminal emulator, email client, diffing tool, remote server access tool (SSH, FTP…), git frontend, HTTP client / server…

And Emacs is all of that. Not because it’s a bloated editor, but because it’s a generic tool for everything text-related, including editing.

A bit of nuance

This is not a glorification of Emacs.

Emacs also has it quirks that sometimes makes it painful to work with.

Some APIs are showing their age (in their design and naming conventions) and programming in elisp can genuinely feel like retro-computing.

Dynamic binding is user-friendly, but the lack of parallel threading is painful when the interface freezes.

Our expectation of what an editor should be has evolved quite a bit over time (from text editor, to code editor to programming environment).

Emacs has managed to stay competitive thanks to its native adaptability.

With no expertise, I assume that newer kids (such as Sublime, VSCode…) got designed from the ground with levels of abstractions that make them closer to Emacs in design than older traditional text editors.

The ability to override and extend core functionalities (“they told me i could be anything”) is maybe the only thing that keeps making Emacs a different beast, but is a nightmare from a security and stability standpoint.

Closing thoughts

Emacs is my main MMI for textual data.

I’ve invested countless hours tailoring it to my needs but have saved oh-so-many more reducing otherwise repetitive tasks to a minimal amount of keystrokes performed at the speed of thought.

It has terrible defaults.

Other tools can be seen as blades that gets polished through configuration and plugins.

For Emacs a better analogy would be a rough piece of steel you’d have to extract from a stone, forge and tailor to your exact needs.

You’d have to learn its lingo and idiosyncrasies. You’d have to learn elisp. You will certainly find yourself more efficient using a collection of other tools.

But at the end of the journey you may end up with your very own Excalibur.

And this is, I believe, how Emacs should get advertised instead of as being only an “editor”.

Notes

Tagged #emacs.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.