Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Hans BKK]

I'm looking feedback on these from those (perhaps few?) that have actually become somewhat familiar with both. Since EmacsWiki has so much information on Icicles (thanks Drew!) there isn't any need to give an overview/run-through on that package, but I haven't seen so much on Helm, just a lot of side-mentions on how fantastic it is from people whose opinion would seem to carry a lot of weight.

For example, does Helm actually help you learn how to use regexp?

Has anyone tried running both together? or is the overlap so great they interfere with each other as with icicles and ido?

My current context is facilitating exploring the "self-documentation" aspect of emacs, searching/browsing/jumping between info docs and other sources of help docs and the relevant source code.

I also plan to use emacs straight off for org-mode, shell usage and files management. Actual coding myself will come later, but is of course very relevant. Mostly web dev to start, but I want to get to know Python to start with and then Haskell, and plan to use pandoc to convert language/framework-specific docs to gnu info wherever possible, and to try to make my own code self-documenting as with elisp.

Does Helm have any support for creating info "books" as does icicles?

Drew, do you happen to know if your "Help Plus" libs are compatible/helpful with Helm's approach?


It's also possible I'll be learning emacs editing in evil mode, except in modes where there are still conflicts (apparently few these days), so feedback on that aspect is also welcome, apparently Helm's fine there.

I've stuck with del.icio.us since beta, over 20K bookmarks there, so Helm's support there as a platform for creating a DAG tree from that (self-documenting brain activity) is a tempting little project:
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs-en/helm-delicious.el

RE: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Drew Adams]

> Drew, do you happen to know if your "Help Plus" libs are
> compatible/helpful with Helm's approach?

Dunno.  I haven't heard that they are not, however.  It's easy enough
to try, and see.

--

I will however, unsolicited, echo something that some others have
hinted at, in hopes it can help you.  Yes, we do all learn somewhat
differently.  Nevertheless, here is my suggestion, FWIW:

You might want to start with vanilla Emacs (`emacs -Q'), and add
goodies that you want to experiment with one at a time, getting a bit
used to each step of the process.  IOW, give each goodie and yourself
a chance to get to know each other.  Make friends, even if you decide
later that you are not so interested in this or that.

And that includes getting to know stark-naked Emacs (-Q), at the
outset.  It's a beautiful thing, after all, even if it loudly invites
us all to fiddle with it (that's what it's for!), and even though we
all enjoy doing that so much.

Regardless of whether this convinces you to give each piece a
friendly chance, the same advice will help you learn, I think.
I also think it might make your learning more enjoyable.

Throwing a a shipload of stuff into a humongous sack, shaking it
vigorously, and then trying to figure out how things work in some
corner of it, or what might have gone wrong here or there, is
generally not a great recipe for either testing (QA) or learning.
Been there; done that - we all have.  But a reminder shouldn't hurt.

IOW, I'd suggest taking relatively small bites, chewing well,
pausing for some sips of good wine, and digesting in comfort under
a sympathetic shade tree, in delicious reverie from what you have 
ingested.  And in time going back for more...

It's not a race.

It's a banquet, or a smorgasbord.  And there is no shortage of fine
food and drink, and sweet music.

And even if it were a race, here's a lesson I learned at a birthday
party when I was maybe 7 yrs old (back when everyone counted using
roman numerals): Each kid had to eat a half dozen soda crackers,
with nothing to drink.  The first one to whistle after that won a
prize.

Naturally, we all stuffed as many crackers into our mouths as
possible as quickly as possible, chomped away furiously, etc.
Except for one kid, who took only ever-so-tiny nibbles, swallowing
each before taking another.  Way ahead of the rest of us -
no contest.

We are not crocodiles.  We can chew.  Enjoy the privilege.

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Hans BKK]

Thanks for that Drew. However I'm not sure what may have given the impression I intended to do that 'shaking up the big sack thing'.

It's true I don't intend to use most of the OOB keybindings, but definitely plan to select/create a set that won't interfere with my initial learning curve nor get in the way of making the most of the vanilla features.

If anything I'm 'too much' of a stickler for the "understand each tool set thoroughly" approach, but that IS how I 'have fun'.

To me, being able to follow the trail back to the docs and source is key, and the narrowing/completion aides (to be?) discussed here a part of that.

It seems clear that ido/flex, helm and icicles offer a lot more than the vanilla tab-completion, so in that case I don't see any practical benefit nor foregone pleasures in sticking with the latter past some initial testing and exploring.

If you happen to have time and/or feel like it at any point, I'd greatly appreciate your addressing my question - I hope you won't feel 'shy' about highlighting Icicles' features - particularly in the context of my use-case - where they overlap vis-a-vis the alternatives since I am genuinely soliciting that information no one can accuse you of over-self-promotion in the maillist.

But again, comparative feedback from happy Helm users would be most welcome, since there isn't nearly as much information on that topic available online, particularly in 'the' wiki.

RE: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Drew Adams]

> If you happen to have time and/or feel like it at any point, I'd greatly
> appreciate your addressing my question - I hope you won't feel 'shy' about
> highlighting Icicles' features - particularly in the context of my use-case
> - where they overlap vis-a-vis the alternatives since I am genuinely
> soliciting that information no one can accuse you of over-self-promotion in
> the maillist.

I can't speak to that; sorry.  I'm sure there are others who have used
or who use various libraries that enhance completion, either one at a
time or together, and who can speak to that question.

In any case, you will no doubt want to try things for yourself, as well,
in your own way.  People use Emacs differently, learn things differently,
have different needs, and have different preferences.

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1122 bytes --]

() Hans BKK <hansbkk@gmail.com>
() Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:51:23 -0700 (PDT)

   I'm not sure what may have given the impression
   I intended to do that 'shaking up the big sack thing'

Well, here is one fragment that gives that impression:

   It's true I don't intend to DO, but definitely plan
   to select/create STUFF that won't interfere [...]

the key word being "won't" ≡ "will not".  The gist is that you choose to
partition your interaction w/ Emacs into two temporal phases.  Setting
up the latter phase while still in the former is the "shaking up" part.
The "sack" part is because you represent yourself as outside, even now,
and seem to enjoy selectively-binding (yuk yuk) the membrane.  The "big"
part is because Emacs is a multiverse ameoba, more oozing than snoozing.

(NB: This is not a criticism, just mawkish pining for a.r.emacs -- feel
free to ignore.)

-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Emanuel Berg]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> People use Emacs differently, learn things
> differently, have different needs, and have different
> preferences.

Absolutely - people and situations are unique. But
people and situations are also too a much higher degree
*the same*. Hockey teams today would obliterate the
starts of the 50s, and this is because they have a
tenfolded dose of training, and training that is much
better, not due to God-given talent or smarts, but due
to the collective experience from hockey clubs all
around the world of what works - and note, what works
*in general*.

On the other hand, you should never be afraid to try
new things, to experiment. It is just that is a long
and painful and slow road, and it is easy to get
disheartened and simply quit somewhere along the
way. But with time and determination, that works as
well.

I guess what works in general (paragraph 1) is
indispensable for the common, basic (and very
important) stuff; at a somewhat higher level (or in
stages) you might want to do paragraph 2 and get
individualistic (in a positive sense) and creative
about it.

Put it this way: I'm sure young Timudjin killed
countless of foes on the steppe, foes that were unique,
and in situations that were unique. But the method was
always the same: with a bow, from the horseback. And
why did the method work? Because of skills, acquired
at home, training with his brothers, and on the
battlefield, taking on bigger and bigger opponents.

Emacs is neither hockey or ancient Mongolia, but other
than that, it is the same things at work.

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Hans BKK]

Perhaps just I'm not used to the modes of discourse here, but @Thien-Thi I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.

And @Emanuel's reference to Timudjin - I take it that's a fictional character? Also hard to decipher the meaningful from the allegory.

Maybe it's just me, but I must say I'm surprised.

Rather than further long commentaries on my personal choice of how I approach getting to know which aspects of Emacs in what order, I'd really appreciate any direct response addressing my OP, even if just short and pithy comments.

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Emanuel Berg]

Hans BKK <hansbkk@gmail.com> writes:

> And @Emanuel's reference to Timudjin - I take it that's
> a fictional character?

"@Hans": If you Googled the name, perhaps you didn't
get any results because I see the preferred spelling is
"Temujin". Anyway he is not fictional: he is the
young Genghis Khan.

> Also hard to decipher the meaningful from the
> allegory.

Well, if you read a book and don't understand it, it is
not always the book that deserves blame.

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Emanuel Berg]

Hans BKK <hansbkk@gmail.com> writes:

> And @Emanuel's reference to Timudjin - I take it that's
> a fictional character? Also hard to decipher the
> meaningful from the allegory.

OK, I'll make this more simple:

When you wrote the above paragraph, what program did
you use?

And when you sent the mail (or post), again, what
program did you use?

That simple.

If you are using Emacs, in a way you are doing the
right thing, but actually everything will be clear in
time, so you can just relax :)

If you are not using Emacs, and instead are using Vim
and Thunderbird or something like that - you should
either 1) stop doing that, or 2) join
newsgroups/listbots for *those* applications - what's
the purpose theorizing about an application you don't
even use?

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Michael Heerdegen]

Hi Hans,

> But again, comparative feedback from happy Helm users would be most
> welcome, since there isn't nearly as much information on that topic
> available online, particularly in 'the' wiki.

I would not recommend to try to run Icicles and Helm in parallel.  I
would recommend to try them both, and decide for one of them.

Helm and Icicles are both great packages for completion.  The major
features are astonishingly similar.  None is a superset of the other,
and for both, there are different cool extensions.

Generally, Helm is a bit simpler and more straightforward, Icicles is a
bit more general and comes with a a bit more flexible concept.  In daily
usage, I would say that you are a bit faster with Helm, but you can do a
bit more stuff with Icicles.  I can't say if I would recommend any of
the packages for an Emacs newbie.

One mayor design difference is that Icicles does support multi-line
candidates, Helm does not.  Icicles uses recursive Minibuffers in
several ways, Helm does not.  OTOH, Helm completion is often faster than
doing something similar in Helm.

BTW, AFAIK there is no counterpart in Helm for the Icicles' info stuff.


HTH,

Michael.

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Hans BKK]

@Michael Heerdegen

Thanks so much for that straightforward feedback.

Purely functional speed in daily use isn't so important to me at the moment, nor difficulty in figuring out the package itself.

However info-mode does seem critical in my approach to learning, so perhaps icicles is the first one to get familiar with.

Your comment that you don't recommend either for emacs noobs - is that because it will stop me learning the stock vanilla ways of completion or simply because of the difficulties inherent in getting to know these complex packages?

Or something else perhaps more relevant to my situation?

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Le Wang]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Michael Heerdegen
<michael_heerdegen@web.de> wrote:
> One mayor design difference is that Icicles does support multi-line
> candidates, Helm does not.

I'm not sure what this means.  `helm-show-kill-ring` allows me to
choose a multi-line candidate.

-- 
Le

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Michael Heerdegen]

Hans BKK <hansbkk@gmail.com> writes:

> Your comment that you don't recommend either for emacs noobs - is that
> because it will stop me learning the stock vanilla ways of completion
> or simply because of the difficulties inherent in getting to know
> these complex packages?

I did not want to dissuade from starting with Helm or Icicles, I just
don't know if it's a good idea.  Depends on your way of learning,
probably.  Icicles and Helm are quite complex and offer substitutes for
diverse tools in Emacs.  Learning Emacs that way may let you miss some
basic stuff and features of vanilla Emacs.

I don't want to discourage you from starting with Helm or Icicles.  If
you think it'll work for you, then just try it.  If you are getting
confused, you can still put Helm or Icicles back for a later moment.  In
any case, reading the manual (C-h r) is a must.


Regards,

Michael.

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Michael Heerdegen]

Le Wang <l26wang@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Michael Heerdegen
> <michael_heerdegen@web.de> wrote:
> > One mayor design difference is that Icicles does support multi-line
> > candidates, Helm does not.
>
> I'm not sure what this means.  `helm-show-kill-ring` allows me to
> choose a multi-line candidate.

Indeed, you're right!  There is a multiline source attribute you can
specify, and it is used in a few other sources.  Thanks for the
correction.


Regards,

Michael.

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Hans BKK]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 9:52:42 AM UTC-4, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
>> Your comment that you don't recommend either for emacs noobs - is that because it will stop me learning the stock vanilla ways of completion or simply because of the difficulties inherent in getting to know these complex packages? 

> I did not want to dissuade from starting with Helm or Icicles, I just 
don't know if it's a good idea.  Depends on your way of learning, 
probably.  Icicles and Helm are quite complex and offer substitutes for 
diverse tools in Emacs.  Learning Emacs that way may let you miss some 
basic stuff and features of vanilla Emacs. 


Thanks for clarifying. In another post

http://groups.google.com/forum/?pli=1#!topic/gnu.emacs.help/czMrv9Zquks

I've outlined how I plan to avoid that potential problem; I'll keep a "vanilla" instance open for comparison to the effects of other packages I'm checking out, and for now I plan to only use Icicles or Helm in the emacs instance 

"used for exploring source-code, docs, creating my own self-doc-set, etc"

As a side note, if anyone knows of significant issues running Evil in conjunction with either Helm or Icicles, I'd appreciate a heads-up on that aspect as well.

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Hans BKK]

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 6:58:39 PM UTC-4, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> OK, I'll make this more simple: 

> When you wrote the above paragraph, what program did 
you use? 

> And when you sent the mail (or post), again, what 
program did you use? 

> That simple. 

> If you are using Emacs, in a way you are doing the right thing, but actually everything will be clear in time, so you can just relax :) 

> If you are not using Emacs, and instead are using Vim and Thunderbird or something like that - you should either 1) stop doing that, or 2) join newsgroups/listbots for *those* applications - what's the purpose theorizing about an application you don't even use? 

-------------

I may very well end up using emacs for dozens of different functions without ever using it for email or usenet.

You're really telling newbies they have to start straight off using emacs for everything it's capable of doing before they've learned anything about the environment itself via their own approach?

Re: Helm (and?) or Icicles (possibly using Evil)

[Emanuel Berg]

> I may very well end up using emacs for dozens of
> different functions without ever using it for email
> or usenet.

Yes, but why?

> You're really telling newbies they have to start
> straight off using emacs for everything it's capable
> of doing before they've learned anything about the
> environment itself via their own approach?

I'm not telling anyone they *have* to do anything, I'm
telling them it *makes sense*.

Do simple, routine stuff first, then gradually refine,
gradually advance. It is a general method that works in
all walks of life, for all types of activity.

Wax on, wax off. Take on the grandmaster day one, you
get killed!

-- 
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573