emacs

[Wendell Cochran atrypa@xxxxxxxx]

=================================
Bob Zimmerman 
  
At 12:01 AM 6/25/01 EDT, Carl wrote:
On that note: Anyone here know Emacs well enough to make a
>thoroughgoing comparison with Xy? I, for one, would be interested.

Let me second this. I've read a little about Emacs, and it struck me as
it
might resember Xywrite in many ways. I'd love to hear details from
someone
about how it works as a word processor.
===================================


emacs isn't a word processor but a program editor -- and a mail agent, a
compliler, a composer, a text formatter _ad inf_ . . It includes an
entire LISP system, too.

One icon for emacs running under window managers is an overflowing
kitchen sink.

Commands in emacs run to the baroque, so much so that one expansion of
the name is Escape Meta Alt Control Shift. (Fact: Editing MACroS.)

I don't oppose emacs: it's only that emacs doesn't suit my purposes. I
use vi, which is ONLY an editor -- formatting, pre-print processing,
etc. call for other utilities. That's the way in Unix, where each
program does only one thing but does it well. Emacs is an anomaly, all
the more so because it was written by Richard Stallman, an ultimate
advocate of program practicality.

I'd better add that vi vs emacs is a religious war. Don't ask me why.
It's not apples vs oranges -- it's as pointless as a Granny Smith vs
vineyards. Maybe what I take to be continuing flamewar amongst hackers
is only recreation.

For more on emacs (or vi), ask Google.

Wendell