mrs@netcom.COM (Morgan Schweers) (04/17/91)
Some time ago ab2r@quads.uchicago.edu (Marshall Abrams) happily mumbled: >C/Lisp--compiled/interpreted?: >Yeah, some of us prefer Lisp, but most people seem to like C. But for >the purpose of running on a slow machine, a compiled extension >language is essential. My guess is that what makes Brief and Freemacs >so slow is that they don't compile to binary code. This can be a big >liability when most of the editor is written in the extension >language. I suppose GNU would be at least as bad on an 8088, if it >could be run at all. Greetings, Freemacs is slow? Tell me where. (ObReason: I wanna optimize that code! ;-) ) Freemacs *IS* psuedo-compiled. I admit to having never seen Epsilon, however. I find Freemacs to be almost blazing fast. (My previous editor having been (cough-spit-mumble).) Can you give some details about the editor that compiles from C? (What sort of data objects does it have for handling buffers, what parts of the 'C' language does it grab?) (Ummm, followup to comp.emacs and comp.editors, please. I've edited the gnu.* out of the header and added in comp.emacs and comp.editors. I'd love to put it into the gnu.emacs.help group also, but I *am* requesting info from people using the commercial products.) Input is desired here. In one sentence paragraphs, please send your problems with Freemacs. I'm gettin' that "I wanna *HACK*" feeling again. *PLEASE* do not include the fact that Freemacs doesn't support >64K files. I'm aware of this, and am looking into ways around it already. So are, probably, many other folks. I've never "summarized" to the net before, but I can try if there is enough interest. I *will* try to summarize to the freemacs mailing group, in an effort to get people to write mods for it to fix the problems people have. In general, what prompted you to *NOT* use Freemacs, and instead spend <X> for commercial product <Y> or get other PD/Freeware/Shareware product <Z>? (Please give short descriptions of your problems, seperate paragraphs for each. This will simpify my later editing *MUCHLY*.) I've been *SWAMPED* with questions about the freemacs mailing list ever since I posted up a request for info on it. Because of that, I hereby introduce the info for the 'freemacs mailing list' so that (hopefully) my freemacs-user-group-information-requests will decrease, to give me time to deal with the people mailing in their problems with Freemacs. (I'm really asking for it, aren't I? ;-) ) To join the freemacs mailing list, send mail to listserve@sun.soe.clarkson.edu with the subject (or the body, I never remember which) 'add freemacs'. Alternatively, you could send mail to freemacs-request@sun.soe.clarkson.edu with a request to be added. I believe the first is a program, and the second is a person, *BUT* I can't guarantee that (obviously). Note, please, that the following are *NOT* things that I want to hear about. 1) 64K limit. 2) The programming language. (Suggested additions might be okay, but keep 'em short. If it looks useful, I'll request more info from you, and we'll see what can be done.) 3) Things involving mice or graphics. I don't do graphics, and I *DON'T* do mice. I believe it's mouse support is okay from what I've heard, and I don't think it does graphics, or will. Other than that, drop me (or the freemacs mailing list (which is freemacs@sun.soe.clarkson.edu)) any flat out *BUGS* you've found. Also drop me any problems with it which convinced you not to use it. OTBW, yes I *AM* crazy. However, it seems like this editor (IMHO) is getting a bad rep because of people making vague claims against it. I wanna know just *WHAT* is wrong. -- Morgan Schweers +---- Consider it my donation to GNU. What the heck, eh? They changed my life, I want to help out a bit where I can. -- mrs@netcom.com ----+
hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) (04/19/91)
By the editor that compiles from C, you may mean Epsilon. It has an
extension language that is to C what Gnu Emacs Lisp is to Lisp. It's
an almost complete C (the only major omission is floating point), but
modified for interpretive execution and with additional data types for
buffers, etc. My impression is that "compilation" is like compilation
of Gnu Emacs Lisp, i.e. that it's sort of a compression operation, but
doesn't produce machine code. Epsilon includes source for the
portions of the editor that are written in the extension language.
They encourage people to share new stuff written in the extension
language, and seem to have a bbs for doing so (though I haven't used
it). Like Gnu Emacs, essentially everything that a normal user would
want to hack is written in the extension language, so that makes it a
fairly "open" product. Not that I wouldn't prefer one with all of the
source free, of course, but it's certainly a much friendlier way of
dealing with things than many other products. I wouldn't say it's
faster than Freemacs. I have yet to see any other PC editor that is
even as fast as Freemacs. Its primary advantages are that it will
handle big files, and that it is a rather complete Emacs. It seems to
have about as good support for MS-DOS as Gnu Emacs does for Unix. It
swaps files to disk, so it isn't even limited by your memory. (The
swapping is quite fast.) It also has rather nice documentation. What
prompted me to use Epsilon was primarily the ability to handle files
>64K. (Sorry, I know you don't want to hear that, but you asked the
question, and that's the answer.) I haven't looked carefully enough
at the un-Trac code available for Freemacs to evaluate whether it is
as "complete" as Epsilon. My basic criteria for an Emacs clone are:
- must be able to edit its own executable. This requires it to
handle files >64K, unlimited length "lines", and nulls.
There are micro Emacs clones that fail on each of these
counts.
- must have builtin documentation including at least apropos
- must do completion on file names and meta-x command names
- must be roughly as complete as Gnu Emacs for editing text
and C programs. Doesn't have to be able to read netnews
or play tic-tac-toe.
The public-domain clones I have seen all stop at the first test.
Believe it or not, I really do use Emacs for editing binaries, fairly
often (on both PC's and Unix). It's pretty common to get commercial
or other binary software with hardcoded file names or things that can
be customized in an editor. It's also often useful to be able to
edit things like TAR files and other more or less binary-format stuff.mrs@netcom.COM (Morgan Schweers) (04/20/91)
Some time ago hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) happily mumbled: >have about as good support for MS-DOS as Gnu Emacs does for Unix. It >swaps files to disk, so it isn't even limited by your memory. (The Greetings, Yeah. This is something I *really* want to write for Freemacs. It's a need, I think. Of course, the 64K is the major limitation right now. This is, however, a feature that I'm going to look into adding. >prompted me to use Epsilon was primarily the ability to handle files >>64K. (Sorry, I know you don't want to hear that, but you asked the >question, and that's the answer.) I haven't looked carefully enough No problem. I figure I'll get to ask the question again in a few months, when Freemacs can handle 64K files, and I'll get to see what answers I get then. <Grin> > > - must be able to edit its own executable. This requires it to > handle files >64K, unlimited length "lines", and nulls. > There are micro Emacs clones that fail on each of these > counts. Yepyep. It can edit it's own executable, but not executables over 64K. I just, in fact, spawned out and tested it. <Grin> > > - must have builtin documentation including at least apropos Is there really one which doesn't include apropos? > - must do completion on file names and meta-x command names I had thought this was a basic Emacs feature? > - must be roughly as complete as Gnu Emacs for editing text > and C programs. Doesn't have to be able to read netnews > or play tic-tac-toe. Natch. ('Tho I am considering writing a tic-tac-toe program for Freemacs, and it *DOES* come with a mail reading program. <Grin>) >Believe it or not, I really do use Emacs for editing binaries, fairly >often (on both PC's and Unix). It's pretty common to get commercial >or other binary software with hardcoded file names or things that can >be customized in an editor. It's also often useful to be able to >edit things like TAR files and other more or less binary-format stuff. I know the feeling. I used to use EDT on VMS systems to do the same thing... <Grin> Though I admit, I use a disk editor to do that stuff on the PC, usually. -- Morgan Schweers +----- Companies don't have opinions. Mine doubly so. -- mrs@netcom.com -----+
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (04/23/91)
In article <Apr.19.00.03.56.1991.24514@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
- must be able to edit its own executable. This requires it to
handle files >64K, unlimited length "lines", and nulls.
There are micro Emacs clones that fail on each of these
counts.
Weeeellllll, strictly speaking, Freemacs can edit its own executable,
which is only 21K. But since it doesn't edit files >64K, that rules
it out for you.
--
--russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dyson
I joined the League for Programming Freedom, and I hope you'll join too.