Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!uw-warp!gtisqr!sam From: sam@gtisqr.UUCP (Sam Felton) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: What's wrong with TPU ? Summary: soo true... Message-ID: <453@gt-ford.gtisqr.UUCP> Date: 22 Sep 88 18:37:32 GMT References: <2112@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> <2115@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> Organization: Global Tech, Mukilteo, WA Lines: 21 In article <2115@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk>, rkl@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk writes: > In article <2112@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk>, phil@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk writes: > > Oops - my previous message didn't include my signature. Give me EDT in > > preference to TPU any day (that was Vax talk by the way..) > > Boing ! I disagree ! EDT is s---l---o---w and doesn't inform you if any > changes have been made if you type quit at the * prompt. Give ME TPU (TED > that is) any day over EDT. Agreed! The TPU facility is _definitely_ a major improvement over EDT. It allows you to virtually write your own editor, or add extensions with ease. The pattern-matching routines are fast, flexible, and easy to use. Best of all, it can handle almost any file organization that you can create with RMS -- a definite plus. The only other editor that I've personally seen that compares is emacs, and it is very large (code-size wize). I'll NEVER go back to EDT. --SAM--