Re: [External] : Re: Default custom file was: Re: Propose to add setup-wizard.el to ELPA

[Corwin Brust <corwin@bru.st>]

Hi developers!

On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 8:47 AM xenodasein--- via Emacs development
discussions. <emacs-devel@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Jan 8, 2022, 17:32 by tomas@tuxteam.de:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 02:44:04PM +0100, xenodasein--- via Emacs development discussions. wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> There is something preventing custom from being improved by leaving the
> >> default value of a single option intact, whether you get it or not.
> >>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Sorry, this is (again) borderline arrogant. There are many of us who
> > don't "get it". I don't think this is the way to further a discussion.
> > Please accept that others might be right, as you expect others to accept
> > that you might be right.
> >
> > Cheers
> > --
> > t
> >
>
> Yes. That is the point.  I'm trying to show what this answers to
> does the exact same thing, and it must stop.

I would very much prefer to be able to use a single file to contain my
hand-coded configurations as well as to save customizations.

I found this a very comfortable way to build an emacs configuration
without understanding elisp over decades.

During the last couple of years I have learned more elisp (yay, fun!)
and I don't find any frustration having to set up my custom-file
explicitly, now that this is something I prefer doing.

During the "middle years", I knew enough to configure a fresh emacs by
retyping a minimum set of elisp into a .emacs file to get myself
started from a fresh install.  (I didn't really understand how this
code I was typing worked, I just knew it made emacs easier for me to
use.)   Once my .emacs was created on the newly setup system I would
use customize to amend the configuration as I used the editor.    From
that point, I would migrate my configuration from machine to machine
until I somehow lost the .emacs file, at which point the process would
start over.

Placing customized output into the .emacs file meant I had only one
file to keep track, trying to keep my 'live configuration settings"
going.

I didn't find the mixture of hand and machine authored code in my
configuration file unexpected.   In fact, I consider that most
programs with a "control panel" seem to work this way:   if I manually
edit the rc files that work.  If I use the GUI the program updates my
rc files for me.   In this light, I see the present approach
(supporting a single .emacs file with all config/customizations in) as
rather more elegant and showcasing Emacs' expert manipulation of my
files.

Emacs is one of the only programs I trust to edit files for me

In any case, I would discourage efforts to complicate the minimum set
of user-space files required to effect a combination of configuration
and customizations.   I hope that additional understanding of Emacs
would not be required to reenable this behavior if my perspective
isn't common among emacs users.

Finally, it's unclear to me where the level of zeal toward changing
the current behavior is coming from.  I can understand that people may
well not share my view.   I don't understand the sense of urgency and
supercilious tone.   Perhaps I can ask those who strongly disagree
with my perspective to also share personal stories of how their
proposed changes would have improved their own use of Emacs over the
years.

TIA