Talk:Emacs/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
About the definition of "Emacs" / the credibility of sources.
The first paragraph in this article refers to one person's work which is quoted in the references:
- For an editor to be called “emacs” the main requirement is that it be fully extensible with a real programming language, not just a macro language.
Based upon this claim, the article states that Emacsen are "characterized by their extensibility". If this is taken seriously, both Acme (extensible with all programming languages which can write text into files over the 9P protocol) and Vim (can be compiled with various programming languages like Perl, Python and Racket) are Emacsen. I'm sure that this source should probably not be used to define what an Emacs is. Tuxman (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I understand your point: not all extensible editors can be called Emacs. But "characterized by their extensibility" doesn't quite say that. Saying that Rolls-Royces are characterized by their comfort doesn't say that all comfortable cars are Rolls-Royces. --Macrakis (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Doom Emacs / Spacemacs / Other Popular Configs
Should some mention be made of Doom Emacs / Spacemacs and other popular "distros" of Emacs be included? They seem to have gotten popular enough to be worth mentioning to me. If there are no objections within the next few week I might create a section describing Doom / Spacemacs / Prelude. Amolvaidya06 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)