[Chicken-users] Re: any Windows Emacs haters here?

[Reed Sheridan]

> From: "Brandon J. Van Every" <address@hidden>
> Reed Sheridan wrote:
> >
> > Modifying the internals of some other IDE to avoid configuring your
> > .emacs isn't going to save you any grief.  Quite the opposite.  You
> > could probably figure out how to get Emacs to indent your code the way
> > you want in a day, at worst.
>
> But that's what's ridiculous about XEmacs.  It should be doing that
> correctly out of the box.  I don't mean it doesn't indent the way I
> want.  I mean it doesn't indent at all.  Throwing "a day" at things is
> the whole mentality of Emacs that I think sucks.  It's forever broken,
> there's always some new bit of the docs you've gotta futz with.  It's
> just a big bloated ancient application with a lot of hair.

You use C-j if you want to indent by default in emacs.  You can make
return behave the same way by putting this in your .emacs:
(global-set-key "\r" 'newline-and-indent).

Your point is taken about the silly, inconvenient way that emacs works
out of the box.  But you can just look at other people's .emacs and
quickly find the common customizations that most people would want.

http://www.dotfiles.com/index.php?app_id=6

Once you get the common things working, which isn't too bad if you
slurp customizations from other people, you can choose how much time
you want to spend futzing with docs.  If you use Emacs like it was
Microsoft Notepad, you'll never look at another doc.  If you become an
elisp guru, you could spend your whole life messing with emacs.

> I've discovered Scintilla / SciTE.

Everything you've mentioned wanting here (support for C++, first-class
support for Scheme, and at least some support for CMake) are already
available for Emacs.  I would be amazed if hacking 1 or 2 of those
into  some other editor didn't take a hell of a lot longer than
configuring Emacs.

Sorry for the OT blathering,

Reed Sheridan