PythonNut
commented
8 years ago Hi @priyadarshan thanks for taking the time to ask me this.
Yes, I've definitely considered it. I usually dislike libraries that abstract what's happening behind the scenes. This is because I feel that I have lost a measure of control. Of course, there are exceptions: for example, I'd never approach cross-browser JavaScript without something like jQuery. use-package may very well be a package that helps more than it harms. However,
In general, I do some things that I haven't seen done with use-package.
iciclesrequires arbitrarily complex code to ensure that it doesn't drive me insane. Several other packages require non-trivial loading as well.- I also like to defer the installation of packages (e.g.
json-mode) until they're actually needed. - See the deferred
org-babelbackends for more package-related gymnastics. - I'm sure there's other stuff, which I've forgotten.
In sum, I'm pretty happy with the system I have now, so my motivation for moving to use-package is not very high. In addition, I'm sure that porting to use-package would be a lot of work, as I would have to reimplement a lot of my current systems in terms of use-package's abstractions. I haven't seen any functionality in use-package that I wasn't able to implement myself, AFAIK.
Of course, I could use use-package only for specific packages, but I believe that that defeats the purpose.
priyadarshan
Thank you for sharing your emacs-conifg, I am learning many neat things from it.
In regards to startup performance, I like the idea of not adding a dependancy to optimise loading performance, and I was wondering if you had cosidered use-package or other similar tools?
Thanks!