Ask HN: Why doesn't emacs look pretty
Before downmodding me, please understand this is a serious question. I have been a long time emacs user, and probably will stay like that for long time to come. What is it that makes modern editors like Sublime and Atom look so nice compared to Emacs? The fonts, UI toolkit or just general bad design in Emacs? Whenever I look at some other editor, I am deeply dissatisfied with it when compared to Emacs. So, why can't I have the best of both worlds. An editor that looks modern but is a Emacs at heart?
10 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 38.1 ms ] threadAlso look at some alternative emacs like aquamacs.
So here's my question again. Which toolkit does it use, what makes it look like it is built for Windows 3.1? Does anybody know?
For what it's worth, I just opened ST for comparison and it looks nearly identical, fonts render the same between them. I believe ST and Atom have some UI elements that aren't integrated into Emacs out-of-the-box like tabs and mini-maps; is this what you are referring to?
No.
> "look so nice" since that is entirely subjective
Majority of people who aren't familiar with emacs would find it ugly. You can do it now. Show it to a couple of people who don't know sublime or emacs, and ask them to compare those.
Until then: use Emacs in terminal. That's the way it was meant to be used originally, and it still looks best that way ;-)
Yeah, may be you are right. I will try it.