> I've wanted an excuse to try out emacs in the first place[...]
This isn't the excuse - just try Emacs! I've gone through periods where I really wanted to level-up my $EDITOR-fu, and just jumping in is what I did. Compared to so many other decisions, this is such a low-barrier, low-cost decision, there's no reason to not just do it. If it's stalling your development speed, jump back to vi or VSCode, or whatever. Don't want to stick with Emacs? Uninstall and forget it was ever there.
For my editor explorations (vi, emacs, ex), I was strict with myself and used $EDITOR exclusively for 4 or 8 weeks (I forget which) - which sometimes just turned into years.
I'm not deep into Emacs culture these days, but I'm hard-pressed to understand why one wouldn't just go canonical GNU Emacs rather than some fresh "revolutionary" Emacs - you'll have your mind blown regardless, without the potential bugs and lack-of-history/community which come with some new-hotness interpretation of a standard that is already fit-for-purpose.
I disagree somewhat. It helps to have some kind of exciting, exotic, whimsical, or challenging context to try it out in. Like how they say you learn a technology best with a project. "Just" trying it out can be a flavorless and easily dropped experience. But I agree with the other poster that this is not a great project for learning Emacs as it currently exists.
There's the Installing Linux on a dead badger HOWTO, but NetBSD actually runs everywhere for realsies. It's also lovely to work with and has the nicest man pages imho.
> Default partitioning: /root goes in the spinal cord and brain stem, /swap and /soul go on the left hemisphere of the brain, and /usr, /var, and /home go on the right. If you're working with a badger with damage to one of those areas, you can repartition one or the other brain hemisphere, but as noted in Step 2, using a brain-damaged badger is not recommended and may interfere with successful installation.
Setting a swarm of agents loose for hours to look for software vulnerabilities is far more compute-expensive than fuzzing. The industry has never thrown this kind of compute resources at pure fuzzing, in part because you can't get much VC money for that.
You also quickly get into diminishing returns with fuzzing. Generally a bug is either going to be found relatively quickly with a given fuzzing approach or it's going to be nearly impossible to find. You're usually better coming up with more intelligent fuzzing approaches than you are just dumping compute into it.
This sounds like a swarm of agents with particular prompting that happens to guide the LLMs toward doing a lot of fuzzing, so it's not either/or; you're getting all the compute requirements of both.
Fuzzing or having the LLM sort through where might be most useful to fuzz & sorting the results? Neither seem particularly compute intensive to me, fuzzing is a pretty standard step and having the LLM read through to find the most interesting areas to fuzz sounds a lot more efficient than leaving the whole task to the LLM.
This isn't the excuse - just try Emacs! I've gone through periods where I really wanted to level-up my $EDITOR-fu, and just jumping in is what I did. Compared to so many other decisions, this is such a low-barrier, low-cost decision, there's no reason to not just do it. If it's stalling your development speed, jump back to vi or VSCode, or whatever. Don't want to stick with Emacs? Uninstall and forget it was ever there.
For my editor explorations (vi, emacs, ex), I was strict with myself and used $EDITOR exclusively for 4 or 8 weeks (I forget which) - which sometimes just turned into years.
I'm not deep into Emacs culture these days, but I'm hard-pressed to understand why one wouldn't just go canonical GNU Emacs rather than some fresh "revolutionary" Emacs - you'll have your mind blown regardless, without the potential bugs and lack-of-history/community which come with some new-hotness interpretation of a standard that is already fit-for-purpose.
reply