sandra@utah-cs.UUCP (Sandra J Loosemore) (09/29/87)
Just a reminder that there are several editors for the ST which are all confusingly called "microemacs". There is Dave Conroy's original version, the one that calls itself version 3.8 (or is it 3.9 now?), and one which used to be called MicroGnuEmacs, and is now called MG. There is another one which comes (or used to come) with the ST developer's kit, which was apparently an early version of Mince, which is sold as a commercial product. There are also other Emacs variants, such as Jove, that do not (as far as I know) run on the ST. So which is best? I'm currently the support person for the ST version of MG, so I'm most familiar with that. It's based on Dave Conroy's version, and is generally smaller and less featurized than the 3.8 "microemacs". The key bindings and function names are more compatible with GNU. I've heard reports that some of the earlier versions of 3.X were very buggy, while MG seems to be very robust. Incidentally, Richard Stallman, the inventor of the original Emacs, has said publicly that none of these editors are "real" Emacs, and should not be called Emacs. MG was renamed in deference to his request. -Sandra Loosemore sandra@cs.utah.edu, sandra@utah-cs.uucp
trb@stag.UUCP (09/30/87)
The best version of uEmacs for the ST that I have seen so far is the
version that was presented at the local ST developers' meeting last
Friday. If I remember right, this is the version that was first
modified by Moshe, then by Dale Schumacher, and more recently has been
re-worked by both Dale Schumacher and John Stanley. This version uses
Dales' DLIBS (a newer version than I posted about 3 months ago) and is
quite fast, has the ability to 'clone' itself so you don't need any
configuration files, and has a very nice shell interface (which was
also written by Dale and John...some nice features like Ksh has). More
on this when they get ready to post it to the world.
-Todd Burkey
trb@stag.UUCP
For reference to the following message, see my posting in
comp.editors:
P.S. In response to the numerous responses to my comments on the
features of my next 'weekend' project (a programmers' editor), I would
like to thank everyone for the ideas. Yes, even the hate mail from
emacs users was useful (it is strange how everyone gets so worked up
on the modeless or not issue, since that is such a trivial thing when
you are actually editting a file...maybe it is just the poor typers
who hate two mode editors or something-i.e. always having to hit ESC
to move up a line and change something :-) ). In the two weekends I
have played around writing the editor so far, I have gotten all the
screen manipulations (paging, scrolling, skip ahead, information
popups), buffer handling (file readin, toggling between two buffers,
cycling through buffers), and finalized the internal structures (that
was one whole weekend because I decided to go to something which I
think is similiar to the way emacs is structured...yes, I am still
avoiding the temptation to look at the emacs source code.) To the
flamers on the net, all I can say is that 1) right now I am using vi
to edit this file on my Unix box...it is completely usable, but very
slow at times (i.e. I was editting a 800K file the other day and made
the mistake of telling it to do a global delete of something that
caused about 600K of the file to go away...took 6 minutes to finish
and 3 minutes to undo), and 2) I used the real EMACS for several years
and it is neat, but big, clumsy at times, and slow...and I use uEmacs
for all my program editting on my ST (it too is nice, but I don't like
pressing two keys to do one thing and I don't like the way buffers are
handled and the way you can't shift the screen around on the page...)
Sorry for the long PS, but I like getting all the informational
messages from emacs users :-). Any comments from the ST community out
there (since this editor will be running on the ST first?)nwd@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (10/01/87)
In article <5016@utah-cs.UUCP> sandra@utah-cs.UUCP (Sandra J Loosemore) writes: >Just a reminder that there are several editors for the ST which are all >confusingly called "microemacs". There is Dave Conroy's original >version, the one that calls itself version 3.8 (or is it 3.9 now?), and >one which used to be called MicroGnuEmacs, and is now called MG. >So which is best? I'm currently the support person for the ST version >of MG, so I'm most familiar with that. It's based on Dave Conroy's >version, and is generally smaller and less featurized than the 3.8 >"microemacs". The key bindings and function names are more compatible >with GNU. I've heard reports that some of the earlier versions of 3.X >were very buggy, while MG seems to be very robust. > >-Sandra Loosemore >sandra@cs.utah.edu, sandra@utah-cs.uucp Greetings, I don't want to turn this into a defensive note... but if I don't speek up for this, no one will. I started working with Dave Conroy's emacs as well (thanx dave!) and have been steadily working on MicroEMACS 3.x (now 3.9) about 20 hours a week for two years. The releases I have made have generally been in good shape, and have gotten a good reception. Some other people have released modified versions that have not always been in as good shape. The earlier versions of MicroEMACS did not have as many features as the current, or as complete a command language, but they have always been fairly solid. The current versions .... MicroEMACS 3.9 and MicroSPELL 1.0 are availible on my BBS system and version 3.9a is likely to appear on USENET in the near future (better ST support). MG is a very good program for people whom are used to using GNU emacs on mainframes and wish to have something that works the same way on their PC. Sandra and many others have done a good job of emulating the basic commands and functionality of GNU. MicroEMACS is more for people who either work mainly on the micro, or on a number of different machines. I have concentrated on portability and the ability to customize the editor through a comprehensive command language. Daniel Lawrence (317) 742-5153 UUCP: {ihnp4!pur-ee!}j.cc.purdue.edu!nwd ARPA: nwd@j.cc.purdue.edu FIDO: 201/2 The Programmer's Room (317) 742-5533
braner@batcomputer.UUCP (10/02/87)
[Sandra Loosemore describes many versions of microEMACS...] ... and then there's my version of microEMACS, adapted from the original by Dave Conroy, with faster search, built-in help, many new commands (e.g., paragraph (re)formatting, search for complementing bracket), _much_ faster disk I/O, and support for the ST function keys. It is only 43K. Nothing fancy (no reassignment of keys except for recompilation), but real convenient. Now go ahead and use whatever you like (I don't make money on it anyway...). My version is available through the "SnailMail" distribution scheme and also through Antic's Catalog (the PD section), including source code (in C, about 175K, has been compiled also on UNIX). An enhanced version (with mouse support, etc.) has been written by Dale Schumacher. - Moshe Braner PS: Still seeking info on connecting an IBM-style 5" drive to the ST.
omsi@reed.UUCP (10/03/87)
In article <2534@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> braner@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (braner) writes: >[something irrelevant to the PS] > >- Moshe Braner > >PS: Still seeking info on connecting an IBM-style 5" drive to the ST. Have you heard of the "I.B.Drive"? 40 or 80 track capability to read and write 5.25" IBM-style disks. Connects right to the SCSI port and looks like another standard drive. Put this together with PC-DITTO and get a real IBM clone. Info: call IB Computers here in Puddletown (I mean Portland), Oregon (503)297-8425 9-6 pacific time (except sunday). Or, call their BBS at (503)292-1321 (24 hours) and order one electronically. Note: I am not affiliated with IB computers. I just shop there a lot. -- Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)626-6907 quality software, documentation, and training at affordable rates