schwartz@gondor.psu.edu (Scott E. Schwartz) (09/20/87)
In article <28200046@ccvaxa> aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >On the other hand, I regularly use a program with many bells and whistles >(GNU EMACS), but load it up only once and leave it running all day, >sometimes for days or weeks. The cost of the exec is paid only once, >while the cost of loading libraries I don't need is paid only when I >use them. Granted, but the key issue is whether you actually use emacs as your environment. If all you have is a vt220, I definately think you gain an advantage by using emacs. > Line oriented interfaces are much more tolerable under EMACS. >Adb under EMACS is almost pleasant! > >I think that I need a fully featured environment to live in; >but the fully featured environment makes simple tools much more tolerable. Ah! The truth surfaces. It's not emacs per se that you love: it is the enhanced user interface. Now if you had a Sun rather than a vt200 or something connected to a vax things would be less clear. If you had a "fully featured environment" in that case, I would call it Suntools, or X Windows, or NeWS, and I would want my editors, debuggers, etc to be paragons of efficient software toolhood. My experience has been that launcing a massive emacs is just much more trouble than opening several windows in which to use small, fast tools like "more" or even "vi" (compared to emacs). Yes, individually none of them come close to the power of emacs, but they dont need to since with the proper environment around them (i.e. a good window system) they all mesh together in a way that gives you more overall than simply the sum of the parts. -- Scott Schwartz schwartz@gondor.psu.edu
rlk@think.COM (Robert Krawitz) (09/21/87)
In article <2954@psuvax1.psu.edu> schwartz@gondor.psu.edu (Scott E. Schwartz) writes:
]Ah! The truth surfaces. It's not emacs per se that you love: it is the
]enhanced user interface. Now if you had a Sun rather than a vt200
]or something connected to a vax things would be less clear. If you had a
]"fully featured environment" in that case, I would call it
]Suntools, or X Windows, or NeWS, and I would want my editors, debuggers,
]etc to be paragons of efficient software toolhood.
Quite the contrary. I've used emacs under X right from the start
(when Yakim Martillo hacked it in the first place, which was almost 2
years ago), and I must say that I find the paradigm of "Start emacs
once and forget about it" even more useful on a VAXstation{100,2} or
Sun than on a terminal. The emacs server (OK, that's really an even
smaller, faster editor than ed) lets me conveniently edit, for
example, news (that's how I'm posting this article).
My experience has
]been that launcing a massive emacs is just much more trouble than
]opening several windows in which to use small, fast tools like
]"more" or even "vi" (compared to emacs).
Well, OK, I do use less, but many people use shell buffers when
running under X and so avoid more. Vi just isn't powerful enough (no
rmail, no extension language).
Yes, individually none
]of them come close to the power of emacs, but they dont need to
]since with the proper environment around them (i.e. a good window
]system) they all mesh together in a way that gives you more overall
]than simply the sum of the parts.
Well, emacs is a much bigger win under a window system, I'll agree...
The small tools, however, are not powerful enough to serve as a full
environment. MH, for example, is a collection of tools, but it's very
difficult (and slow!) to use.
Robert^Z