Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!enea!tut!santra!s30780a From: s30780a@puukko.HUT.FI (Johan Myreen) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Yawn ! Not more Emacs discussion... Message-ID: <14623@santra.UUCP> Date: 16 Jul 88 17:26:18 GMT References: <4197@csvax.liv.ac.uk> Sender: news@santra.UUCP Reply-To: s30780a@puukko.UUCP (Johan Myreen) Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Lines: 43 In article <4197@csvax.liv.ac.uk> sqrkl@csvax.liv.ac.uk writes: >I think the designers of Emacs are the ones who are brain-damaged. >Leaving aside the fact that their editor is one big joke to those who >like using PROPER editors, XON-XOFF is now the de facto standard for >flow control and any terminal (or emulator) not supporting XON-XOFF >should NOT be used. So what is your definition of a 'PROPER editor'? One that does not use ^S and ^Q as command keys? And while we are talking about 'de facto standards': to me, and probably to a lot of other people, Emacs has become the de facto *standard editor* on all kinds of computers. Emacs happens to make use of control codes, that's what makes it modeless. I think it would be foolish to sacrifice two of the most easily typed control codes to something that can be handled in an other way, and should be hidden from the user anyway. Besides, using ^S to manually stop output from a program isn't very convenient at 9.6+ kbit/s. I find it much better to pipe it through a pager like 'more' or 'less'... > I make no guarantees about my terminal emulator being able to handle >output at 9600 baud without XON/XOFF because I have assumed that people >are intelligent to know that even a true VT100 can't keep up at that >sort of speed (esp. with smooth scrolling on !). A true VT100 isn't the most wonderful terminal in the world, you know. It just happens to be another 'de facto standard'. Why does a VT100 terminal emulator have to emulate even the deficiencies of a true VT100? In particular, why can't the emulators allocate buffers for incoming data that are large enough to hold the characters received while updating the screen. A few kilobytes would probably be enough for normal use; a screen editor does not put out more than that at a time (unless you are e.g. rapidly killing and yanking a large region a few dozen times.) Any terminal emulator that thinks "that's a tough one, I can't handle any more!" when it sees a clear-to-end-of-page escape sequence should NOT be used. > >Richard K. Lloyd, ****** This is a VAX 11/780 running VAX/VMS V4.5 ****** *This* is a MicroVAX II running 4.3 BSD UNIX. I guess you win by 0.2 :-) M-x insert-disclaimer