Magit for aquamacs pdf#

Case in point: git(this thread!), ag/ack, and so forth. Likewise, there is immense utility in a scriptable, user-programmable working environment, especially for developer's tools.Īlso note that Emacs and vim often comply with the oft-cited first bullet point (there's more than one!) of 'the Unix philosophy' by reusing powerful yet single-purpose external tools under the hood. w/ Emacs' and vim's text manipulation support). To throw out just a few small examples, such experiences done well may reduce context switching and/or build on the user's deep skills in the integrated environment (esp. There is both utility and architectural value to be found in integrated user experiences. It doesn't, because 'the Unix philosophy', in the meaning implied by your question, is oversimplified nonsense. So Emacs provides both a better way to work with other standalone programs, and, via the emacsclient/server model, a better way for standalone programs to work with Elisp code.

With auth-source, all the credentials I need to access remote machines are in one GPG encrypted file, and Emacs takes care of handling communications with GPG, gpg-agent, and pinentry. The Maildir is synchronized to multiple MDAs by OfflineIMAP, a command line program, which I set up to retrieve the IMAP passwords from an encrypted file using auth-source.el by execing emacsclient. To provide an example, I use mu4e as an email client and reader, which uses a separate process running mu to operate on a Maildir. 'Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' is the reason why Unix utilities do not integrate well. Emacs is much better at 'Writ programs to work together' - Emacs extensions usually work with each other without any extra effort, and deep integration is easy to achieve. A lot of the time 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well' really means 'I don't understand the difference between a procedure and a program.' It is much easier to write procedures than it is to write programs, and it is often easier to turn a procedure into a program than vice-versa ( emacsclient does the former especially well).

Emacs falls down with images and navigating modern webpages though (haha modern anything written in my lifetime), so I use a browser like everyone else. Eg, at the moment I'm writing a comment for a website - if I only viewed sites like Hacker News (mostly text reading and editing) then I would 100% end up doing it from emacs. The secret is that many tasks involve 60% editing text and it then starts to make sense to implement the 40% in an environment where your heavily customised keyboard shortcuts all work. I must admit, the advantages aren't really there for me on this one, I prefer stand alone viewers.

Magit for aquamacs pdf#

Has me stumped, although sometimes when I write documents that are going to be emailed as a pdf I'll use emacs and it makes a lot of sense to preview in place as I go. I can see a lot of utility in a stand-alone calendar program if the workflow you want isn't based on text, though. If this is your workflow, again it makes more sense to implement from a text editor (because the 'calendar' is really a parsed text file and maintaining the text file is what the user works on). This one is pretty workflow sensitive, but Org Mode encourages a very holistic approach of writing everything related to a project in one file, then parsing the file for dates and creating a calendar. Especially for mostly-text emails or emails discussing, say, code. From this perspective, a text editor implementing email makes a lot more sense than an email client implementing text editing. One view of email is really reading and composing lightly formatted text with a 'send' option.