ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (07/05/88)
>In article <8196@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >|I actually do use "vi" on my Sun, until I get "sam" running. (The >|SunTools text editor is a joke.) .... >Actually, I use textedit a lot. It has several things going for it. >The bigest one is: >(SunOS 4.0): >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 32768 Apr 9 04:49 /usr/bin/textedit >(SunOS 3.4.2): >-rwxr-xr-x 3 barnett 991232 Feb 29 11:48 /usr/local/bin/emacs >-rwxrwxr-x 1 barnett 581632 Aug 31 1987 /usr/local/bin/emacstool >Yes, size. emacs+emacstool (SUnOS 3.4) is 48 TIMES larger than >textedit (SunOS 4.0). (yes, emacstool will shrink under 4.0. No, don't >have the numbers yet). Why cloud the issue by posting meaningless numbers? Those windowing libraries still might get loaded under 4.0, but chances are they're already loaded if you're using the window system. In SunOS 3.5 (more-or-less, some binaries are as old as 3.0) TEXTEDIT -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 753664 Nov 10 1987 /usr/bin/textedit* text data bss dec hex 704512 32768 24860 762140 ba11c GNU EMACS -rwxr-xr-x 1 9902 835584 Dec 15 1987 /usr/wpe/bin/gemacs* text data bss dec hex 516096 237568 0 753664 b8000 Unix EMACS (written here by Gosling, licensed to Unipress now I suppose) [2 installations] -rwxr-xr-x 1 cmu 425984 Dec 23 1986 /usr/cs/bin/emacs* text data bss dec hex 319488 16384 104800 440672 6b960 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 245760 Jun 19 17:47 /usr/cs/bin/emacs* text data bss dec hex 196608 8192 107888 312688 4c570 So, it really depends on what tradeoffs you're willing to make to accomdate your preferences. Also depends on what other people on your system are using, since the text segment can be shared on many systems, reducing swapping and paging. Since these paramters vary wildly from person to person and system to system, why should anyone expect anyone else to agree? Nobody wins OS/Processor/Editor wars anymore. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK} Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA
barnett@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) (07/05/88)
In article <2157@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) writes: |Why cloud the issue by posting meaningless numbers? I am not clouding an issue. The numbers are far from meaningless. If you read my article, I said I was using a Sun 3/50 which is limited to 4 megabytes. Period. I am the only one using it. Period. I watch the page fault meter all the time. :-( |Those windowing libraries still might get loaded under 4.0, but |chances are they're already loaded if you're using the window |system. I realize that emacstool will get smaller with 4.0. But Emacs is STILL BIG, even without the windowing software compiled into it. If you assume the Operating system and windowing software takes up 2 Megs, an editor that takes up 35% of your available memory can cause problems. Try compiling a large system (like X windows) inside of emacstool & emacs on a 4 Meg Sun. Pick any release of the operating system you like. |Since these paramters vary wildly from person to person and system to |system, why should anyone expect anyone else to agree? Nobody wins |OS/Processor/Editor wars anymore. Can't people read anymore? I am not trying to win any war. I LOVE emacs. I just wish I had a workstation that wouldn't crumble under the load. -- Bruce G. Barnett <barnett@ge-crd.ARPA> <barnett@steinmetz.UUCP> uunet!steinmetz!barnett
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (07/05/88)
In article <4750@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com> barnett@steinmetz.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) writes: >If you assume the Operating system and windowing software takes up 2 Megs, >an editor that takes up 35% of your available memory can cause problems. For comparison, on a Sun-3 running SunOS 3.5, the host part of "sam" is text data bss total 57344 + 8192 + 25504 = 91040 and the interactive front end using SunTools is 614400 + 16384 + 23828 = 654612 This must be mostly Sun graphics libraries, since the corresponding 5620 DMD interactive front end is 28832 + 1388 + 4692 = 34912 Presumably on SunOS 4.0 most of the front end would be shared libraries, so that somewhere around 128K bytes total would be used by "sam". (This excludes storage that is dynamically allocated during execution.) The native Sun version of "sam" runs like a bat out of heck, since the host/terminal process interface bottleneck is much faster than when running over a 9600bps link. By comparison, "vi" is 131072 + 8192 + 128360 = 267624 and is not nearly so spiffy. The 4.3BSD version of JOVE, an EMACS subset that BRL gurus much prefer to "vi", is 106496 + 24576 + 83848 = 214920 which as you will notice is smaller than "vi". So EMACS lovers need not suffer too much on Suns.
gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (G. Paul Houtz ) (07/13/88)
sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes: >In article <Jul.8.17.00.31.1988.19561@topaz.rutgers.edu>, ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >> >> Teach students "ed," that way they learn what regular expressions >> are. My wife . . . >Yeah, and why are students using video terminals? My wife and quite >a few people I know don't know why delete is 0177 (ascii). If Touche Michael. I first learned text editing on an IBM 029 keypunch machine, and that is why I liked programming in assembler (fewer key strokes per card). I wouldn't go back to it now for all the tea in China. I am new to UNIX and I learned regular expressions, not by using ed, but because I had a JOB TO DO that REQUIRED them. They are not really that hard to learn for most tasks. No job worth having is going to be denied to a student simply because they don't know VI or ED or regular expressions or EMACS. -gph
gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (O. W. Holmes) (07/15/88)
g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) writes: >One of the nicest editors I have used is IBM's xedit (given the constraint >of working on big blue iron.) I've even heard hard core emacs fans admit . . . >course). I.e. you edit the screen using terminal hardware and send the >entire screen to the CPU. This is not as good as having a work station, >and much better than editors which make the CPU do all of the work. -- Along a similar vein, there is an editor on HP3000 systems called QEDIT, which is one of the very best editors I have ever used. It also uses screen(block transfer) mode, which is a GREAT relief to the CPU (reducing CPU interrupts by hundreds of key strokes). However, these editors require Block Mode terminals, and they are not able to move the cursor based upon what is on the screen. The future likely lies in using a PC workstation, removing all possible keystroke interrupt overhead from the mainframe cpu, and allowing bit-mapped graphics for token-represented object oriented editing/development (how's that for a sentence?). - gph
gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz ) (07/16/88)
In article <59699@sun.uucp>, guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: > Can we please choke off the debate now? >Guy Harris, Chris Torek and several others have pointed out the >futility of this religious war of editors. Guy has made several Maybe I am out of line here, but all of us are not guru's who have been working on UNIX for the last 40 years. I personally am really enjoying this debate! I am using VI, and am considering going to EMACS, and am getting all kinds of nifty ideas out of the postings on this subject. I also enjoy the stimulation of the different points of view. So, I don't think it's futile at all. The only time it is a downer is when some off-the-wall knucklehead derides someone else's point of view for no good reason, but that doesn't happen very often. Generally, people make there points, and back them up with reasoning or examples (which I ALWAYS TRY OUT) and a lot is to be learned. Finally, if you don't like the discussion just <shift-L>. However, I may be in the minority. If so, I accept your flames willingly..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- G. Paul Houtz Technology Access Center Hewlett Packard gph%hpsemc@hplabs.HP.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rrr@naucse.UUCP (Bob Rose ) (07/18/88)
> > Can we please choke off the debate now? > > [the futility of this religious war of editors ] > I personally am really enjoying this debate! > Finally, if you don't like the discussion just <shift-L>. <shift-L> That is interesting. Which news reader are you using? Which news reader is the best, which has the most features? 8*)
gph@hpsemc.HP.COM (Paul Houtz ) (07/18/88)
rrr@naucse.UUCP (Bob Rose ) writes: > > <shift-L> That is interesting. Which news reader are you using? > Which news reader is the best, which has the most features? 8*) >---------- I use unix notes.