Thanks for the link to the BASIC article - I was aware Djikstra wasn't talking about Microsoft BASIC or BBC BASIC, but that gave me a lot of context I wasn't aware I was missing. (Even going back to the days of Usenet, 95% of programming language arguments are completely pointless because everyone is talking past each other due to issues like this.)
I've seen that 'Emacs From Scratch' post shared on several sites, which surprised me - it's very opinionated without actually explaining anything. Why use straight.el, for example?
The "Emacs from Scratch" post helps a little in showing how to reuse modern components in the configuration: before adopting Doom Emacs last year, my `.emacs.d` was a mess of copy/pasted stuff from the Internet that had survived for many years and didn't integrate with modern ways of doing things. Also, in my case, many of the initial suggestions and solutions (disabling UI elements, preventing "flicker" during startup, etc.) align very well with what I want.
But yeah, I've seen this same criticism elsewhere: the author chooses specific components without explaining why nor looking at the alternatives, and doesn't try to use the modern built-in components in Emacs that achieve the same thing as those extensions.
What I *sense* is happening is that the author is trying to "clone" the Doom Emacs behavior from scratch, and thus adopting many of the decisions made in that configuration.
Thanks for the link to the BASIC article - I was aware Djikstra wasn't talking about Microsoft BASIC or BBC BASIC, but that gave me a lot of context I wasn't aware I was missing. (Even going back to the days of Usenet, 95% of programming language arguments are completely pointless because everyone is talking past each other due to issues like this.)
I've seen that 'Emacs From Scratch' post shared on several sites, which surprised me - it's very opinionated without actually explaining anything. Why use straight.el, for example?
The "Emacs from Scratch" post helps a little in showing how to reuse modern components in the configuration: before adopting Doom Emacs last year, my `.emacs.d` was a mess of copy/pasted stuff from the Internet that had survived for many years and didn't integrate with modern ways of doing things. Also, in my case, many of the initial suggestions and solutions (disabling UI elements, preventing "flicker" during startup, etc.) align very well with what I want.
But yeah, I've seen this same criticism elsewhere: the author chooses specific components without explaining why nor looking at the alternatives, and doesn't try to use the modern built-in components in Emacs that achieve the same thing as those extensions.
What I *sense* is happening is that the author is trying to "clone" the Doom Emacs behavior from scratch, and thus adopting many of the decisions made in that configuration.