puni VS jinx

For working with delimiters, you might want to check out Smartparens or Puni. There are many other packages like these, but those are the two I know about.

I'm guessing the way forward here for navigation is to change Emacs' built-in sexp-navigation when treesitter is available? forward-sexp, backward-up-list, down-list, raise-sexp etc do a good job in lisp environments, and they can now work everywhere. Packages that build on these (like Puni will automatically gain treesitter-awareness.

I have never used lispy, but I have used puni for a while now, and I'm pretty satisfied with it. I am not sure that it's exactly what you're looking for since it takes a more limited approacg, but it has a lot of the same features: slurping, barfing, raising, splicing etc.

For any Lisp you want paredit or any other structural editing package (I switched to puni recently because it’s more customizable and works with non-Lisp languages too). The first three days will suck hard because it’ll feel like the tools get in your way, but once you’re comfortable with it it’ll be the best thing ever.

Afaik puni uses only forward-sexp for navigating and manipulating sexps. So if you implement a forward-sexp-function that uses treesit.el it should work without any changes.

jit-spell: Alternative to Flyspell which operates asynchronously and checks the entire screen (not just words you just typed). Similar to u/minad's jinx (which is in fact a fork of jit-spell); jinx runs the spell-checker synchronously inside Emacs via a C module, while jit-spell uses an asynchronous subprocess.

Just use jinx it's dope

Another recent example is my Jinx package, where people suggested that I should rather put the functionality into Ispell or Flyspell. Neither are good places to put the Jinx functionality as a mode. Obviously Jinx is a large enough and self-contained package providing a well-defined feature set. Furthermore its mode of operation is entirely different from both Ispell and Flyspell, so putting it there wouldn't result in much code reuse. It would look more like two packages cramped into one. Sometimes clean alternative implementations are justified.

Thank you! I tried to get it working, but unfortunately it isn't compatible with MacOS. https://github.com/minad/jinx/issues/82

One thing that had improved recently for writing is the appearance of several new spell-checking packages, the most recent and popular one being jinx. Grammar/style checking is still sub-optimal. Not sure if authors rely on such tools or that your Grammar knowledge is such that you don't need it and for really proof-reading you have an editor anyway.

Jinx is the new kid on the block for spell-checking, and it is the best!

I can't help you specifically, but have you looked at Jinx by the formidable Daniel Mendler? Jinx lets you use multiple spell-checking backends (hunspell included) with multiple dictionaries—even in the same file. So, for example, I have used German and English dictionaries simultaneously to edit a mixed-language file.

Wow, interesting that my response is getting down voted. It seems not enough that I give away my work for free. Nevertheless I appreciate support from the community, as other Emacs package developers. The support is actually helpful. To clarify, publishing my configuration would translate into quite a bit of work, requiring separation of private and public bits.

Just want to praise a package called jinx, it provides a spell checker for Emacs, which is really fast.