Doom Emacs
9 likes
Doom is a configuration framework for GNU Emacs tailored for Emacs bankruptcy veterans who want less framework in their frameworks and the performance of a hand rolled config (or better). It can be a foundation for your own config or a resource for Emacs enthusiasts to learn...
Features
Doom Emacs News & Activities
Highlights All activities
Recent activities
- siblas liked Doom Emacs
- Paul added Doom Emacs as alternative to IDEmacs
Doom Emacs information
Featured in Lists
Open-Source Slopware
A list of open-source software containing slop (LLM generated) code or endorses the usage of LLMs in other ways.
This list contains software that obviously accepts irresponsible coding practices or promotes LLM usage. I found these applications while searching for alternatives to previously used software that turned out to contain code generated by slop-machines.
Each of added applications have at least one link that points to the verifiable proof.
This list by no means is meant to cover all the software that contains code by not-so-intelligent tools and people using them but to serve as a reminder to myself about what I have already checked.
Why having LLM generated code (and using generative tools in general) is bad?
Ethical reasons — such as illegally retrieved training material, underpaid workers that prepare the training data.
Impact on environment — increased fossil fuel usage to supply the needed electricity power, water usage in water scarce regions. This somewhat overlaps with the above.
Social impact – noise pollution in neighbourhoods near AI data centres, air pollution from diesel- or gas-powered turbines (also overlaps with the above), resource consumption by data centres drastically increases utility prices.
Impact on brain and thinking, reasoning — by offloading thinking and decision making to machines people are shooting in their foot (more like in their head) as this leads to brain rot. Less intelligent people are easier to control.
Even legal issues (especially in open-source software as it cannot be guaranteed that the “generated” code is not really just re-used, thus unknowingly violating the source license).
Inevitable enshittification — every software product from big technology eventually gets enshittified to maximize revenue. For users this could mean hidden or plain ads, biased opinions/information, privacy violations, increased prices for LLM based tools.
Burden on open-source software maintenance — LLM tools provide easier access to code contributions which often shifts the responsibility of checking code quality from developers to maintainers and reviewers. Digging through walls of merge request text and code generated by slop-machines takes valuable time that otherwise could be spent more meaningfully by fixing bugs and working on new features.
I will try to add links that back up the claims above, but it may take a while.
Of course, I see how and where generative tools could be helpful and sometimes I feel tempted to find an acceptable way to use them, but for now the direct and indirect costs far too much outweigh gains.
This list has its positive counterpart: Slop-Free (Supposedly) Open-Source Software (not quite complete yet).
Also take a look at and give thumbs up to AI Slopfree Software Catalog which contains software dedicated against usage of LLMs.
Also, here is a list of some labels that can be added / voted for so they would eventually appear on application pages:
Slopware;
Slop (LLM) Code;
Slop-Source Software;
Open-Source Slopware;
Contains Slop (LLM Generated) Code.
Linux Apps for Writers
A list with 62 apps by xlin without a description.
Recently Discovered
peaked my interest
Comments and Reviews
The most performance-wise optimized Emacs distribution.
Its abstraction is close to Spacemacs (and pretty much the same thing for an end user), in that Doom Emacs provides similar functionality through "modules" (instead of "layers"), which brings together packages and configurations for specific features, e.g. modules for programming languages as C, C++, Clojure, etc. Also, just as Spacemacs, it's possible to install packages individually and then tweak them as you like. However, instead of a single file (.spacemacs), Doom Emacs provides those configurations in 4 files for the user to edit: init (modules), packages (individual Emacs packages), config (to tweak your Emacs stuff), custom (miscellaneous).
Another major difference is that Doom Emacs is optimized for performance. So it's a lot faster than Spacemacs. On the other hand, Doom loses very much to Spacemacs in functionality, as it has way less modules than the latter has layers. Also, Doom is frustrating in comparison to Spacemacs because, just as advertised, some of the defaults (or should I say the maintener's twisted defaults) are too much opinionated and is not as sane, e.g. the latter has a way better and saner session management through "Layouts" than Doom has with "workspaces"; Doom use of popup.el is also frustrating for some buffers like the info buffer. So while you gain in performance, you lose in functionality.
Doom Emacs wins in having an active leader though, while Spacemacs is essentially in a state of Anarchy (good or bad, it's up to you). The community of Doom is more helpful: it's very active and supportive on Discord.
[Edited by Lunatica, December 05]