 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Also, you can use it without having to "install" anything. Just
> download, unzip, and go. (Well... spend 3 days customising and *then* go.)
Yep, Notepad2 is the same way. Like I said.. very lightweight...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r wrote:
>
> Don't worry. I won't evangelize, but the word 'once' is clearly the problem, as
> in, "I tried running once, but I didn't win, so I gave up."
>
Once was enough :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Extensible/Programmable
>
> Well, not so much. You can reprogram the syntax hilighting to handle
> some unknown language if it matches a known one closely enough. And you
Eh? Why does it have to match a known one close enough?
Don't knock the Lisp interpretor aspect. A lot of cool apps have been
written for Emacs, and they're designed to interoperate well. I've just
been reading the gnus manual (runs in emacs), and was somewhat blown
away by it. I've been using mutt all these years and am tired of its
lack in certain features. It's easier to write Lisp rules to do what I
need than to go through C/C++ source code and recompile.
But I can't answer your question thoroughly, as I'm not yet a heavy
emacs user.
--
What do fish say when they hit a concrete wall? Dam!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Extensible/Programmable
>> Well, not so much. You can reprogram the syntax hilighting to handle
>> some unknown language if it matches a known one closely enough. And you
>
> Eh? Why does it have to match a known one close enough?
I'm talking about SciTE, not Emacs. SciTE can hilight any language that
matches a supported one closely enough. Emacs, presumably, can hilight
absolutely anything.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My God... The Windows native port is a 37 MB download! O_O
*dies*
I thought SciTE was bad for taking almost 2 MB, but 37 MB for a mere
text editor?
But of course, a cursory inspection of the online Emacs tutorial quickly
reveals that Emacs is not, in fact, a text editor. It's a replacement
operating system. (But one which is none the less only compatible with
Unix.)
Not content with merely being a text editor, it also tries to be a
newsreader, web browser, file manager, calendar, and even a Tetris
clone. Unfortunately, from the screenshots I've seen, it does none of
these things very well.
(People may complain that SciTE is primitive, but at least it can manage
ANTIALIASED TEXT. :-P Emacs just looks like an ancient console app
grafted to look superficially like a modern program...)
Does anybody know what the hell "C-u 10 C-f" is actually supposed to
mean? What the heck is a "meta key"? Why are cut and past called kill
and yank? The list of questions goes on and on.
Having used FractInt, I know that a text interface *can* be quite
efficient. But only after decades of use. FractInt, of course, tells you
at almost every step what keys are available. Emacs does not.
In spite of the hiddeous UI and cryptic controls, I might almost have
tried Emacs if it wasn't for the huge size of the download. Clearly I'm
going to have to wait until I get home to try it out - if I bother at all...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I thought SciTE was bad for taking almost 2 MB, but 37 MB for a mere
> text editor?
http://www.informatimago.com/linux/emacs-on-user-mode-linux.html
> Having used FractInt, I know that a text interface *can* be quite
> efficient. But only after decades of use. FractInt, of course, tells you
> at almost every step what keys are available. Emacs does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve
(Not that I disagree with you, only that you shouldn't judge too prematurely.)
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I thought SciTE was bad for taking almost 2 MB, but 37 MB for a mere
>> text editor?
>
> http://www.informatimago.com/linux/emacs-on-user-mode-linux.html
Ah yes. If you can think of something crazy, somebody on the Internt
will have done it. ;-)
>> Having used FractInt, I know that a text interface *can* be quite
>> efficient. But only after decades of use. FractInt, of course, tells you
>> at almost every step what keys are available. Emacs does not.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve
>
> (Not that I disagree with you, only that you shouldn't judge too prematurely.)
Well, it does seem to have a few nice ideas. Stuff like marking
locations in the text so you can return to them, inactivating parts of
the document you don't want to work on right now, having a delete
command that cuts rather than deleting, and multiple paste buffers.
The trouble is, the UI looks horrid, and the program is too complicated
to use.
But hey, lots of people claim it's the most powerful editor ever
written, and I'm just trying to understand why. So far I haven't seen
anything really revolutionary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Don't worry. I won't evangelize, but the word 'once' is clearly the
> problem, as
> in, "I tried running once, but I didn't win, so I gave up."
Why bother when there are easier programs to learn? Get a proper
Windows-based text editor that follows the MS style guidelines (ie not one
that has been "ported" from Linux) and all menus and keyboard shortcuts will
be totally familiar and require no learning at all to get started.
Really, I wish MS would ban software that doesn't at least use the standard
font, menus, toolbars, dialogs etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Don't worry. I won't evangelize, but the word 'once' is clearly the
>> problem, as
>> in, "I tried running once, but I didn't win, so I gave up."
>
> Why bother when there are easier programs to learn? Get a proper
> Windows-based text editor that follows the MS style guidelines (ie not
> one that has been "ported" from Linux) and all menus and keyboard
> shortcuts will be totally familiar and require no learning at all to get
> started.
>
> Really, I wish MS would ban software that doesn't at least use the
> standard font, menus, toolbars, dialogs etc.
On the other hand, if you've been using Emacs for centuries, having it
suddenly work all differently just becuase it's on Windows is likely to
be mighty frustrating.
The really Fun Stuff is things like ported Linux programs that assume
that your shell is named /bin/sh and so on. (The Emacs FAQ says that if
you try to open a shell using Emacs on Windows, it bombs for this very
reason.) Really, Windows is very, *very* different to Unix, and just
recompiling the source code is insufficient to fix that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Really, I wish MS would ban software that doesn't at least use the standard
> font, menus, toolbars, dialogs etc.
So in your opinion people who have been using emacs in a unix system
for 20 years have no right to use the same software in the exact same
way in Windows?
Btw, saying "I tried emacs once and gave up" is exactly as stupid as
saying "I tried povray once and gave up".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
