Pros of Doomemacs

• Faster startup time and overall performance
• Modular design with easy customization through modules
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of Doomemacs

• Steeper learning curve for Emacs beginners
• Less "vanilla" Emacs experience, more opinionated configuration
• Potential compatibility issues with some third-party packages

Code Comparison

Doomemacs

(doom! :input
       :completion
       :ui
       :editor
       :emacs)

emacs.d

(require 'init-utils)
(require 'init-site-lisp)
(require 'init-elpa)
(require 'init-exec-path)

Doomemacs uses a declarative approach with modules, while emacs.d employs a more traditional structure with separate initialization files.

Summary

Doomemacs offers a modern, performance-focused Emacs configuration with modular design, while emacs.d provides a more traditional and vanilla Emacs setup. Doomemacs may be better suited for users seeking a pre-configured, feature-rich environment, while emacs.d might appeal to those who prefer a more hands-on approach to customization.

Pros of Spacemacs

• More user-friendly with a comprehensive configuration system
• Extensive documentation and active community support
• Pre-configured layers for various programming languages and tools

Cons of Spacemacs

• Slower startup time due to its large codebase
• Steeper learning curve for Emacs purists
• May include unnecessary features for some users

Code Comparison

Spacemacs configuration example:

(setq-default
 dotspacemacs-configuration-layers
 '(
   (auto-completion :variables
                    auto-completion-enable-snippets-in-popup t)
   (git :variables
        git-magit-status-fullscreen t)
   (markdown :variables markdown-live-preview-engine 'vmd)
   ))

emacs.d configuration example:

(require-package 'auto-complete)
(require-package 'magit)
(require-package 'markdown-mode)

(add-hook 'after-init-hook 'global-auto-complete-mode)
(global-set-key (kbd "C-x g") 'magit-status)
(add-to-list 'auto-mode-alist '("\\.md\\'" . markdown-mode))

Both repositories aim to provide a comprehensive Emacs configuration, but Spacemacs offers a more structured and feature-rich approach with its layer system. emacs.d, on the other hand, provides a more traditional and lightweight configuration that may be easier for experienced Emacs users to customize.

Pros of Prelude

• More modular structure with separate configuration files for different features
• Includes a curated set of packages and configurations out-of-the-box
• Provides a consistent and opinionated setup across different systems

Cons of Prelude

• May include more packages than necessary for some users
• Less customized for individual preferences compared to emacs.d
• Steeper learning curve for users who want to modify the default configuration

Code Comparison

Prelude:

(prelude-require-packages '(avy
                            ace-window
                            crux
                            discover-my-major
                            diff-hl
                            easy-kill
                            expand-region
                            gist
                            git-timemachine
                            projectile
                            magit
                            move-text
                            operate-on-number
                            smartparens
                            undo-tree
                            zop-to-char))

emacs.d:

(require-package 'diminish)
(require-package 'scratch)
(require-package 'command-log-mode)
(require-package 'disable-mouse)
(require-package 'guide-key)

Both repositories aim to provide a comprehensive Emacs configuration, but they differ in their approach. Prelude offers a more structured and opinionated setup, while emacs.d provides a more flexible and customizable foundation. The code comparison shows that Prelude includes a larger set of pre-configured packages, while emacs.d takes a more minimalist approach, allowing users to add packages as needed.

Pros of .emacs.d

• More comprehensive and feature-rich configuration
• Better organized and modular structure
• Includes additional productivity tools and enhancements

Cons of .emacs.d

• Potentially slower startup time due to more extensive configuration
• May require more system resources
• Steeper learning curve for new users

Code Comparison

emacs.d:

(require 'init-utils)
(require 'init-site-lisp) ;; Must come before elpa, as it may provide package.el
(require 'init-elpa)      ;; Machinery for installing required packages
(require 'init-exec-path) ;; Set up $PATH

.emacs.d:

(require 'init-const)
(require 'init-custom)
(require 'init-funcs)
(require 'init-package)
(require 'init-base)

Both configurations use a modular approach, loading separate initialization files for different aspects of the setup. emacs.d focuses on utility functions, site-specific lisp, package management, and environment variables. .emacs.d emphasizes constants, custom settings, functions, package management, and base configuration.

The main difference lies in the organization and naming of the modules, with .emacs.d using a more descriptive naming convention. This may contribute to better readability and maintainability for some users.

Pros of straight.el

• Offers more granular control over package management
• Provides reproducible builds with lockfiles
• Supports multiple package sources and local packages

Cons of straight.el

• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Requires more manual configuration compared to emacs.d
• May have slower initial setup due to package cloning

Code Comparison

emacs.d:

(require 'package)
(add-to-list 'package-archives '("melpa" . "https://melpa.org/packages/"))
(package-initialize)
(unless package-archive-contents
  (package-refresh-contents))

straight.el:

(defvar bootstrap-version)
(let ((bootstrap-file
       (expand-file-name "straight/repos/straight.el/bootstrap.el" user-emacs-directory)))
  (unless (file-exists-p bootstrap-file)
    (with-current-buffer
        (url-retrieve-synchronously
         "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/raxod502/straight.el/develop/install.el"
         'silent 'inhibit-cookies)
      (goto-char (point-max))
      (eval-print-last-sexp)))
  (load bootstrap-file nil 'nomessage))

Pros of lsp-mode

• Focused specifically on Language Server Protocol (LSP) integration
• Supports a wide range of programming languages through LSP
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and improvements

Cons of lsp-mode

• Requires additional setup for each language server
• May have higher resource usage due to running language servers
• Less opinionated, requiring more user configuration

Code Comparison

lsp-mode configuration:

(use-package lsp-mode
  :hook ((python-mode . lsp)
         (rust-mode . lsp))
  :commands lsp)

(use-package lsp-ui :commands lsp-ui-mode)

emacs.d configuration:

(require 'init-elpa)
(require 'init-exec-path)
(require 'init-editing-utils)
(require 'init-themes)
(require 'init-gui-frames)

Summary

lsp-mode is a specialized package for LSP integration in Emacs, offering broad language support and frequent updates. However, it requires more setup and may consume more resources. emacs.d, on the other hand, provides a comprehensive Emacs configuration with a wider range of features beyond just LSP support, but may not offer the same depth of language-specific functionality as lsp-mode.