If you want an example of an actually lightweight modern desktop editor to take inspiration from, try zed.dev
Zed is written in Rust, insanely fast, consumes virtually no resources, has an Emacs input mode (which I use exclusively) and despite not having the greatest support for Emacs LISP (only via limited third party extension, its singular flaw) has replaced emacs-ng as my daily driver.
Just to be clear: you say by ‘dropping’ lisp you’re keeping it lightweight but it’s based on electron? So what does ‘lightweight’ mean in your opinion?
Probably none. Still I’m curious what is the authors understanding. Whether he actually thinks it is a lightweight solution or whether that’s kind of advertising phrase, like ‘blazingly fast’
The motivation/justification from the author why they believe removing lisp but adding Electron somehow sums up to being "lightweight"?
Maybe the author thought of the UX/baggage/legacy or something else when they thought about "lightweight", rather than how much memory/cpu cycles something is using? Not sure, but maybe there is a more charitable reading of it out there.
What I need is an emacs with more lisp and less javascript.
If you want a really lean emacs-like editor, there is always mg and microemacs.
Edit: not trying to be a dick or a gatekeeper. This is HN, all ideas should be welcome including the one that dont make sense to some people. And always interesting to see contributions from Japan.
lisp-free emacs to me is like tomato-free ketchup? I mean, the main reason to use an editor with such arcane keybindings is the way you can live-edit the running editor?
So for me personally there's no demand. But still, if it scratches your personal itch, there are most probably others who would like that itch scratched. It might also because I rarely have to use windows these days and in linux there's not much 'setup' in using normal lispy emacs.
Also, for me , electron based editors have too much input latency.
Light weight has become a marketing term that targets software developers who have gotten sick of bloat and want their software to run fast and take less resources. It used to mean a trade-off between feature rich and speed. It's been so over-used now that i automatically ignore it unless there's demonstrated reason(s) for it being called light weight.
With respect, you should learn Lisp - it will allow you to turn Emacs into whatever you want. In my opinion just keeping the Emacs keybindings but dropping all the other advantages of Emacs is missing the point entirely, and using Electron instead is just - as the saying goes - "adding insult to injury".
Zed is written in Rust, insanely fast, consumes virtually no resources, has an Emacs input mode (which I use exclusively) and despite not having the greatest support for Emacs LISP (only via limited third party extension, its singular flaw) has replaced emacs-ng as my daily driver.
Maybe the author thought of the UX/baggage/legacy or something else when they thought about "lightweight", rather than how much memory/cpu cycles something is using? Not sure, but maybe there is a more charitable reading of it out there.
If you want a really lean emacs-like editor, there is always mg and microemacs.
Edit: not trying to be a dick or a gatekeeper. This is HN, all ideas should be welcome including the one that dont make sense to some people. And always interesting to see contributions from Japan.
So for me personally there's no demand. But still, if it scratches your personal itch, there are most probably others who would like that itch scratched. It might also because I rarely have to use windows these days and in linux there's not much 'setup' in using normal lispy emacs.
Also, for me , electron based editors have too much input latency.
- Lightweight x Electron
Contradictions. Writing ones own editor is a bit of a rite of passage though. So, on that front, Congratulations!
Oh well.
As an aside. What were the CJK IME issues you resolved? Was it related to win32 emacs IME issues?