twb@hoqam.UUCP (BEATTIE) (12/13/85)
> > It's amazing that ATT wants $900 for source to their EMACS when UniPress > only wants $995 for source to their far superior version of Gosling's. What are the differences between Gosling and Montgomery EMACS? What is so superior about Gosling's EMACS? Tom. ~!{ihnp4|hou2g|allegra|mhuxh}!hoqam!twb
pdg@ihdev.UUCP (P. D. Guthrie) (12/14/85)
In article <204@hoqam.UUCP> twb@hoqam.UUCP (BEATTIE) writes: >> >> It's amazing that ATT wants $900 for source to their EMACS when UniPress >> only wants $995 for source to their far superior version of Gosling's. > >What are the differences between Gosling and Montgomery EMACS? >What is so superior about Gosling's EMACS? >Tom. >~!{ihnp4|hou2g|allegra|mhuxh}!hoqam!twb I don't know if you would call `too slow to run' `superior'? I have tried to use Gosling EMACS and just plain found it sluggish. It also has many more flow-control problems than Montgomery EMACS, and other problems too. I have worked at two places where Gosling's emacs is used, and both times I opted for another editor (vi and Montgomery EMACS). Montgomery EMACS is simple to use, very expandable (as is Goslings) and I believe a superior editing machine. Opposing comments are encouraged. But give me TECO-EMACS any time!!! (I haven't seen GNU yet though) -- ******* 1,1 < It's ten o'clock. Do *you* know where your C compiler is? > My VAX can beat up your VAX! Paul Guthrie ihnp4!ihdev!pdg
jma@duke.UUCP (Jon M. Allingham) (12/17/85)
> ... >What are the differences between Gosling and Montgomery EMACS? >What is so superior about Gosling's EMACS? >Tom. > Montgomery EMACS is a LOT faster than GNU Emacs and I hear it is a faster than Gosling's EMACS. It is somewhat simpler (ie better in my opinion) then GNU EMACS. Jon Allingham, AT&T Bell Laboratories - OYOC at Duke University