alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain) (08/30/88)
I will probably get flamed for trying to incite a riot for this, but... I bought a baby att-7300 to go with my 3b1, and while its really neat, its just toooo slow for GNU Emacs (512k memory, 10meg drive). I would like to put up one of the micro emacs programs, but I don't know which one. Heres the situation: The machines primary use is LaTeX wordprocessor for a non computer literate individual. I will be using the machine occationally, mostly as a sysop, and to beta test some telecom software Im working on. The machine has a big brother, which runs Emacs. What I would like is a small functional editor with as much emacs compatability as possible. I can live without some commands, but I would like the existing commands to behave as much as possible like real emacs. Since the primary use for this will be text processing, modes are not that important. So here's the question: Which flavor of micro-emacs is best for me? Does it matter? why? -- :alex. Systems Programmer nerwin!alex@umbc3.umd.edu UMBC alex@umbc3.umd.edu
baur@spp2.UUCP (Steven L. Baur) (08/31/88)
in article <1156@umbc3.UMD.EDU>, alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain) says: > I bought a baby att-7300 to go with my 3b1, and while its really neat, > its just toooo slow for GNU Emacs (512k memory, 10meg drive). ... Good, I have a 3b1 also and have both jove and gnu-emacs running on it. I like jove a lot. Its primary advantage to regular emacs is being able to start up fast. While I primarily use gnu-emacs for long editing sessions, I will tend to use jove for quick and dirty work. Now, since you have such limited disk space jove has another advantage: My jove executable is 159236 bytes. The source code (compressed) is just under 300k. Compilation is pretty fast too. (This mail message is being typed in jove). steve trwrb!trwspp!spp2!baur (but trwrb disappears 2-september)
wfp@dasys1.UUCP (William Phillips) (09/02/88)
In article <1156@umbc3.UMD.EDU> alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain) writes: > What I would like is a small functional editor with as much emacs >compatability as possible. I can live without some commands, but I would >like the existing commands to behave as much as possible like real emacs. >Since the primary use for this will be text processing, modes are not that >important. > So here's the question: Which flavor of micro-emacs is best for me? >Does it matter? why? I'd recommend mg2a (formerly known as MicroGnuEmacs), because it is small, fast and portable, and uses the same command structure as GnuEmacs. I've installed it on two Unix systems, and it has been reasonably well received. You don't indicate what you mean by "real emacs", but if you mean Gnu, then I don't think there's any sensible alternative to mg. If you're talking about Unipress ore something, I'm not sure, but mg has a number of compile- time options, and allows key rebinding, so you can probably make it look pretty similar. Naturally, it does not support all the functionality of a full GnuEmacs (or other big emacs) implementation, but I find I never use anything else on the Unix system -- the only thing I _do_ miss is "undo"! -- William Phillips {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!wfp New York, NY, USA !!! JUST SAY "NO" TO OS/2 !!!
usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU (USENET Administrator) (09/08/88)
I am not satisfied with Jove or Microemacs myself. What I have been using is the FRED (Fred resembles emacs deliberately) editor that comes with Allegro Common Lisp, adding my own hacks as I need them. This is an expensive solution, since you have to run (and of course purchase) the entire Lisp programming environment to do it. From: ogus@sunkist.berkeley.edu (Arthur E. Ogus) Path: sunkist!ogus