mikeg%watson.c3@lanl.gov (M.P.Gerlek) (04/06/89)
From article <Apr.5.03.19.20.1989.16544@athos.rutgers.edu>, by
gaynor@athos.rutgers.edu (Silver):
> From what I've read in this newsgroup, can we safely call TPU an Emacs?
Minor clarification: TPU (Text Processing Utility), is not an editor but
rather a _language_ (environment? world? something-or-other...) designed
to facilitate the _writing_ of editors. I've been told TPU has many similar
text processing features similar to SNOBOL.
The "traditional" TPU Editor is EVE, by DEC. The v5.0 version has many of
the power features a hard-core editor needs, though I don't believe it goes
quite as far as EMACS. There are many other TPU editors around, via DECUS,
that go beyond EVE -- but still not quite as far as EMACS I think (at least,
no _one_ package has everything).
Question: Anyone know if anyone has ever written a true EMACS in TPU?
Query: Are things like DIRED (directory editing w/in your editor)
really necessary, esp. in today's windowed world? Fancy
and nice to have, but a bit heavy unless you're stuck on a
VTxxx. (As someone posted, "I want an editor, not an
environment.") I like bells and whistles too, but at some
point we lose track of the idea that we are _editing_ and
have shells to do our dirty work in.
(Or do we want to evolve out of the shell environment mindset,
as are seeming to do w/ mice and menus?
Further thought: The number of strictly non-editing functions an editor
has may be directly proportional to the amount of time spent
in that editor -- the more time in the editor, the less time
spent escaping out, doing a quick compile, and slipping back in.
` M.P.Gerlek (mikeg@watson.c3.lanl.gov) "To tweak, '
` Los Alamos Nat'l Lab / Merrimack College Or not to tweak? '
` That is the '
` Disclaimer: They don't tell me Question." '
` anything worth disclaiming. '
.pierson@mist (Dan Pierson) (04/07/89)
In article <11563@lanl.gov>, mikeg%watson (M.P.Gerlek) writes: >Query: Are things like DIRED (directory editing w/in your editor) > really necessary, esp. in today's windowed world? Fancy > and nice to have, but a bit heavy unless you're stuck on a > VTxxx. (As someone posted, "I want an editor, not an > environment.") I like bells and whistles too, but at some > point we lose track of the idea that we are _editing_ and > have shells to do our dirty work in. I claim that things are moving (and should move) in just the opposite direction; a first-class work environment includes a ubiquitous editor. Existing (though deficient) examples include the Apollo pad editor, the Macintosh editor(s) and, in a different way, Unipress Emacs and the forthcoming GNU Emacs V19. Emerging examples may be best exemplified by text edit widgets or classes in such packages as Xt, Interviews, and Andrew. The guiding principle behind all of this is that there is a single, common editor which is available in all situations. This editor either is the user interface itself, or is a very major part of the user interface. The basic functions of the editor are the same everywhere (both function and method of invocation), but additional and extended functions appear in different contexts as needed. Note that none of this is either an unqualified endorsement of the example editors listed above (many of which are terribly inadequate in thier existing, minimal forms) or an attempt to insist that the common editor must be implemented as one monolithic piece of code. I also believe that it is very important for the editor to be user-customizable and extensible, but claim that this is an orthagonal issue. -- dan In real life: Dan Pierson, Encore Computer Corporation, Research UUCP: {talcott,linus,necis,decvax}!encore!pierson Internet: pierson@encore.com
las) (04/11/89)
In article <11563@lanl.gov> mikeg%watson.c3@lanl.gov (M.P.Gerlek) writes: >From article <Apr.5.03.19.20.1989.16544@athos.rutgers.edu>, by > gaynor@athos.rutgers.edu (Silver): >> From what I've read in this newsgroup, can we safely call TPU an Emacs? >Question: Anyone know if anyone has ever written a true EMACS in TPU? Now that I would like to have! Unfortunately, the "true believers" of TPU that I have met to date think that it is their solemn duty to wipe EMACS from the face of the Earth ("What can you do in EMACS that you can't do in my version of HYPER-EVE.ULTRA-EXTENDED? You should just quit doing it your way and do it mine!"). I'm not totally resistant to change, I've been through a lot of editors (EDIT (University of Texas), SOS, TECO, TSO Editor, SPF, CP/M ED, WordMaster, WordStar, MS-DOS EDLIN, Pmate, the Borland Turbo Editors, VI, MicroEmacs, GNU Emacs, MG (formerly MicroGnu- Emacs), etc...), I just like for it to be my choice whenever possible. >Query: Are things like DIRED (directory editing w/in your editor) > really necessary, esp. in today's windowed world? Fancy > and nice to have, but a bit heavy unless you're stuck on a > VTxxx... If yours is a windowed world, you are very fortunate. Not all of us are. regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (att!cbnews!cbema!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.) (Please note my mailing address. Mail sent to me on cbnews doesn't make it.)