Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!castor.usc.edu!blarson From: blarson@castor.usc.edu (Bob Larson) Newsgroups: comp.emacs Subject: Re: MicroEMACS and GNU (was standout bugs) Message-ID: <3614@oberon.USC.EDU> Date: Fri, 24-Jul-87 21:30:23 EDT Article-I.D.: oberon.3614 Posted: Fri Jul 24 21:30:23 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 17:18:44 EDT References: <384@rebel.UUCP> <3574@oberon.USC.EDU> <838@rebel.UUCP> Sender: nobody@oberon.USC.EDU Reply-To: blarson@castor.usc.edu (Bob Larson) Distribution: world Organization: USC AIS, Los Angeles Lines: 78 Keywords: MicroEMACS In article <838@rebel.UUCP> george@rebel.UUCP (George M. Sipe) writes: >In article <3574@oberon.USC.EDU> blarson@castor.usc.edu (Bob Larson) writes: >>Are you unaware of MicroGnuEmacs (mg)? >I am aware of it. In fact, it has been up and running since it was >publicly available on the two Unix machines I use. I even liked it. O.k., I just wanted to be sure you were not doing duplicate effort out of ignorance. >However, when it became necessary for me to use PCs (of the IBM >variety) I was surprised to learn that it did not support them. >Undaunted, I began doing the port myself (using MSC 4.0). It became >clear that a significant amount of work (or at least more than I was >interested in doing) would be required so I mailed an inquiry to each >author identified in the documentation to see if the port had already >been done. It had not, although interest was expressed in having PC >support (at least in the only reply I received). What did you determine was needed besides the (fairly minor) changes documented in systty.mod to the v30 msdos support? >This caused me to look for an alternative. What I found was >MicroEMACS. Compared to MicroGnuEmacs, it runs on a wider variety of >systems including the PC (also including varied monitor support), HAS >more features INCLUDING an extension language (I don't consider the >lack of one a feature), IS actively supported, with bug fixes and new >features (with an emphasis on compile-time selection in order to allow >for extra small executables - although with everything included, it is >still small and fast). I guess you have a different definition of "wider variety" than I do. Last I knew, Laurences microemacs didn't support either os9/68k (other than a commercially available port of 3.6) or primos. Mg 1b includes support of 9 operating systems. Mg is also activly supported. Mg is small and fast. An ms-dos port is now being done. New features are being added to mg. More portions of mg are being made compile-time deselectable so it can run on smaller systems. Don't let the fact that we don't give public distribution to our test versions fool you. I don't consider the fact that Dan Laurence releases his microemacs without testing it on every system "supported" a feature. (I don't consider the lack of an extention language a feature either -- I mentioned it mainly because Richard Stallman made a complaint about the name of MicroGnuEmacs -- It is not associated with the GNU project and is not (by his definition) a "true" emacs.) >Keep in mind that actively supported (read enhanced) software >frequently carries an on-going bug control effort as the price tag. >This is not unusual or unreasonable (refer to GNU Emacs, for example). (GNU activly labels their not-completely tested "beta" versions as such, even if they don't restrict redistribution of them. I still think they have too many versions floating around.) >You should express your views here directly to Daniel M. Lawrence. I >just use the thing. Perhaps you would be willing to be a beta site. Dan Lawrence (appologies for getting his name wrong in my previous message) knows not everyone agrees with him. His attitude, when he was on the microemacs mailing list, was (paraphrased, I didn't save the messages) "I'm going to do things my way, if you don't like it do your own version." >In my opinion (you are entitled to yours), MicroEMACS a better editor. I agree that you are intitled to your opinion. Mg suits my needs better. (I do occasionaly add features, which should be in mg2a.) I don't think keybindings and function names are the only issues in compatability. I've got trouble going between different versions of emacs mainly because of other diffences: which characters ^T twiddles, what can be done one prompt input, etc. Bob Larson Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu Uucp: {sdcrdcf,seismo!cit-vax}!oberon!castor!blarson "How well do we use our freedom to choose the illusions we create?" -- Timbuk3