Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!ukma!nrl-cmf!ames!claris!peirce From: peirce@claris.UUCP (Michael Peirce) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: What's wrong with TPU ? Message-ID: <5603@claris.UUCP> Date: 26 Sep 88 17:04:44 GMT References: <2112@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> <2115@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk> <453@gt-ford.gtisqr.UUCP> Reply-To: peirce@claris.UUCP (Michael Peirce) Organization: Claris Corporation, Mountain View CA Lines: 21 In article <453@gt-ford.gtisqr.UUCP> sam@gtisqr.UUCP (Sam Felton) writes: >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: >> >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 only other editor that I've personally seen >that compares is emacs, and it is very large (code-size wize). > (Although this has NOTHING to do with Macs...) The reason TPU compares (arguably) well to EMACS might just be the fact that the same people who brought us TPU also worked on DEC's internal version on EMACS. (Only now are most of DEC's engineers slowly giving up EMACS in favor to TPU [Eve and especially LSE]). -- michael (XDECie) (I just wish the MPW Editor had 1/10 the programmability of EMACS or TPU!)