Interesting idea, but:

> Design once, generate production-ready code for your framework of choice. Switch targets without touching your design. Alpha notice: Code export is not functional yet. We're actively working on it — check back soon.

In other words, it isn't at all usable right now. You can't produce a TUI with it, not even a limited one.

You can still design the layout. That’s useful, but not nearly as useful as they are planning.

Why do you believe anything the site claims? It might all be hallucinations anyways, and others report not even being able to open the app.

The app certainly opened for me. I don’t know that I’d use it. Design and layout of an interface is useful apart from the implementation though.

I don't understand this at all. Why not just skip CI altogether if you're not interested in the results?

Firstly, the original comment was about UI rather than aesthetics. Secondly, as with everything else in Emacs, you can customise the appearance however you want. Those screenshots are from vanilla Emacs which is admittedly rather ugly. Most people heavily customise, or use an Emacs distro like Spacemacs (https://www.spacemacs.org/) or Doom (https://github.com/doomemacs/doomemacs?tab=readme-ov-file) which have more sensible default appearance configs.

I agree with you on multithreading. But for most Emacs users, the rich and highly customisable keyboard-driven UI (including packages like embark, which-key, transient, hydra, ivy/helm/vertico, etc.) is one of its strengths over traditional GUI IDEs. It doesn't need to be "state of the art" to be good, and there's a reason that Emacs has remained popular despite its age. Sure, it's not going to appeal to most VS Code users, but that isn't the point of Emacs.

Emacs isn't popular. It might've been in the 90s, but its star has faded now. It has niche appeal at best. Virtually everyone I interact with professionally views it as a dim memory best left in the past, or as something just inscrutably weird. Part of the reason why is "it's the UI, stupid". It needs a far better UX out of the box and by "better" I mean "more aligned with what literally every other program you are likely to use does for UX". (Just enabling cua-mode by default, and making the user toggle on "vanilla Emacs", would go far.) Most developers these days were brought up with Windows or Mac; they don't want to pretend to be using a PDP-11 or Lisp machine. One of the truths preached in the Gospel of Mac is that ALL programs need to be consistent with one another, and use the same visual look, menu hierarchy, and keybindings for corresponding commands.

> It needs a far better UX out of the box and by "better" I mean "more aligned with what literally every other program you are likely to use does for UX". (Just enabling cua-mode by default, and making the user toggle on "vanilla Emacs", would go far.)

> ...

> One of the truths preached in the Gospel of Mac is that ALL programs need to be consistent with one another, and use the same visual look, menu hierarchy, and keybindings for corresponding commands.

I started using Emacs on a Mac recently and was pleased to discover that it is, in fact, consistent with other programs.

- Cmd-C/X/V work as expected (copy/cut/paste from system clipboard)

- Cmd-Z undoes,

- Cmd-O brings up the open-file dialog, Cmd-T opens a new tab,

- Cmd-F invokes search and Cmd-L goes to line, and so on.

It uses the same global menu bar as other programs, and setting the font from the menu works. The only thing that didn't work is using Cmd-Shift-? to search through menu bar options. This is GNU's official MacOS build, not the custom-built emacs-mac or emacs-plus packages.

Last year I helped a non-programmer get started with Emacs (for the first time) on a Mac. After a couple of weeks their only remarks were that the customize interface looks a little dated and the config/custom file has a weird format. They never brought up the keybindings or other UI as an issue. Now I understand why -- Emacs is a reasonably good citizen on MacOS.

Just to add to your testimony, Karthik:

On macOS some of the Emacs keybindings also work system-wide. You can e.g. use C-a/e, C-k, and C-n/p/f/b in every macOS text field, like e.g. in browser text fields. This is one of the main macOS features I miss on GNU/Linux. (Actually, that subset of Emacs keybindings even works on iPad with an external keyboard.)

Aside from keybindings, there are also some packages that provide deeper integration with macOS. For example, org-mac-link can save Org-mode links to currently open emails in Mail.app. And the built-in `C-x m` can author emails that are then sent to Mail.app for further processing, if you’re not able to use mu4e and similar (e.g. strict Exchange email servers).

It's popular in the sense that there's still a large community which actively uses it, develops packages for it, writes about it, etc. I didn't mean to imply that it's popular in the sense that it has widespread or mass adoption.

I think the point you're missing is that Emacs just isn't meant to appeal to people who want a mouse/visual based UI. More traditional editors are "better" for those types of people, but that doesn't make them "better" in any kind of absolute sense like you are implying. There are plenty of people for whom a traditional editor is far worse than Emacs. "Better" is subjective.

It's Mac-only. That's a pretty serious limitation for a modern Git tool.

> Where are these mythical people who aren’t concerned with both?

They're called politicians.

What we need is a way for the OS to trick banking apps into thinking they are running on the platform they expect.

You cannot, the OS does not have that level of access. Attestation is anchored in a (typically) non-replaceable bootloader and trusted execution environment, both of which the OS does not have access to. A remote server can verify that the attestation chain is signed by a hardware-backed key and contains the verified boot status and verification key. If you would change this information, it would be detected by the remote server, since the signature would not be valid anymore.

Is the UI really that important though? I assume most people use internet/app banking mainly to do two things: make payments, and look at transactions. I also assume most people don't do these things very often. Sure, a good UI is nice to have, but it isn't going to affect my life much if it's missing.

That's fine when you're lucky enough to be able to avoid a banking app, but for many banks its essentially compulsory. I can't login to internet banking without entering a 2FA code from the app. I'm even forced to have my Android settings a certain way, otherwise the app detects that my phone is "insecure" and refuses to run.

> for many banks its essentially compulsory.

I would look for a new bank.

The real solution is to combine this with a self-hosted music collection and streaming software.